[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
[Slightly OT] Theoretical classification of Tor
- To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [Slightly OT] Theoretical classification of Tor
- From: "F. Fox" <kitsune.or@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:34:39 -0700
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:34:52 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=a8jYrt3XGr1q30e9EASul/U7fxedZhbKE6Q4v+5h2D8=; b=CXCcgE7phrhwadUZ0EYx1o6qowyAeovihka98/tcuRcC02WIyZZFzOEYMmBiiIhm0d 3B6Pd8SaIWbzq9Cs2zqws2UFqNa4DxIeES6gMNIzedlwMQBZsDSzQHGDYmR42lh55nhK 0u9PzoiUk1u3xcioy4L5PVixzmsrDqdIFaikk=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=BlaMzOQ7ZRaajH1gyLNiG852Cmk0fIycmlvh/ySuq7X5fRzGhyIUM+wrysPpRs4V/J VBl1jG0KPqv2xI3gQLuc8ggTg+lhxgsNpotb4m6nT2UAwWbWib5OIQA81u58C53wB4yk 8nMbBwWHhQMKnPHK85iYw8gszlo3GWAR0cH4Q=
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080509)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Something I've been thinking about: On a theoretical basis, how would
Tor's architecture be classified?
Two extremes of the scale I'm talking about would be:
* Fully centralized, like plain ol' client/server;
* Fully decentralized, which Gnutella comes close to.
Now, Tor's data-carrying architecture is primarily decentralized -
anyone can run a node, and these nodes are chosen (more or less) at random.
However, the idea of directory authorities clouds this a bit* - and the
fact that there's a directory authority consensus system, clouds it even
further.
If there was a single directory authority, I'd consider the system to be
partially decentralized (or mixed): While the data infrastructure is
fully decentralized, all clients look to a central authority for a
listing, producing a single point of failure (or - for the paranoid -
manipulation).
With multiple directory authorities which must produce a consensus,
though, I don't know how this would go. It's even further from
centralization than the example above, but not fully decentralized.
Does anybody get what I'm saying? Sorry if it's just technobabble.
*: Please don't take this as trying to spread FUD - which some people
have done in the past when mentioning directory authorities. It's not my
intention.
- --
F. Fox
AAS, CompTIA A+/Network+/Security+
Owner of Tor node "kitsune"
http://fenrisfox.livejournal.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org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=Ikx1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----