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

[Oguz <osolok@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/20/10, Moritz Bartl <tor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 20.05.2010 06:25, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Maybe it is a misunderstanding on my side, but I agree with Scott. How
> could this influence the network in a way that one can speak of an
> "attack"? My idea was that by stating a family, I say that *my node*
> musn't be used in a circuit together with other members of that family,
> no more, no less.
> So, by misconfiguring the family on my side, I cannot hurt the network
> more than (in the extreme) by running no node at all.
I too do not understand this. Already an evil entry node can list all
nodes that it does _not_ control in its family option to try to force
circuit through the nodes it controls, though it would obviously be a
dead give away listing many unrelated nodes as within the family. Is
there a check when a node declares itself to be in a family the
descriptor of the other family members are checked to confirm?

Regards
Oguz
***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/