Re: [tor-talk] [Cryptography] Dark Web should really be called the Twilight Web

[Ryan Carboni <ryacko@xxxxxxxxx>]

>
> That's only if you choose to attempt a padding-across-the-net
> management scope, which is also going to be hard and slow to
> manage and respond to bandwidth and other net dynamics.
> (Though this was about GPA, it's probably also vulnerable to
> endpoint interruption attacks that monitor your stream, unless
> someone is there making up the padding slack at the far end.)
> A wide scope seems hard in a low latency demand based net.
> I'd suggest examining some form of next-hop, next-peer, or link
> local padding scope negotiated with such peers. If you or your
> peers get hit with demand, your negotiation distance is shorter.
>


That would still leak additional information, to a lesser extent.

Regardless, I don't think the TOR network has the bandwidth or
computational capacity for padding. It'd require more bookkeeping.


How is it that Tor doesn't provide multicore support yet anyway?
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk