[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Answer by perfect-privacy.com Re: perfect-privacy.com, Family specifications, etc.

     On Thu, 20 May 2010 00:25:33 -0400 Roger Dingledine <arma@xxxxxxx>
>On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 09:44:21PM +0200, Moritz Bartl wrote:
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: - Medium - Tor servers, Tor community wants to disable your
>> nodes - General
>> Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 13:46:04 +0200
>> From: Perfect Privacy Administration <admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Organization: PP Internet Services
>> A proposal to the TOR developers:  I don't know if it's technically
>> possible, but maybe one could introduce a "BelongingToFamily" entry or a
>> similarly named command in future versions of TOR which could work as
>> such, as that every server which contains the same "BelongingToFamily"
>> entry (e.g. "BelongingToFamily xyz") belongs to the family "xyz".
>> That way one wouldn't have to enumerate all server names in the
>> "MyFamily" section of each and every individual torrc file what causes
>> an enormous effort if one adds a lot of servers (and donates a lot of
>> traffic) to the Tor network.  As mentioned, we currently would have to
>> edit 45+ torrc files on 45+ TOR servers whenever a server is added or
>> removed, and the number of our servers is constantly increasing.
>The trouble here is that if we make family declarations one-sided, then
>I can tell everybody that I'm in blutmagie's family (and X's family and
>Y's family and Z's family and ...), and suddenly I'm influencing the
>path selection of other clients in a way I shouldn't be able to.

     How would that be any different from me adding a MyFamily statement
of the current form to my node's torrc that included all four blutmagie
>We need to have each set of relays in a family declare the others,
>or it's open to attacks like this.
     All that would do would be to say to all clients, "Don't include
this node in the same circuit as any of the blutmagie nodes."  How would
that be an attack?

                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/