[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is it desirable to prevent users from choosing their own circuits?
- To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Is it desirable to prevent users from choosing their own circuits?
- From: Martin Fick <mogulguy@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 12:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:13:26 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1254424401; bh=UHSmV5cqIYeveZDVNrhTQWDOjUCWdDpX0TWJsDssY1Q=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=FIVN+ekQLBTKUjNPr7KkSLXbA0chjtuKKSSFvnMCBAo2gDdg6cvf2+0VzYLMtjQ9gcCpBjZsYLq6XDFKHOxrLHhrSc5ngPgecK7ZidGXLMeoIVct3afPUndee0lVcqrptZp07n1uDUXCbI5UwkzL99yLzJ+bS2G62WOctab+V80=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=H1zHIg6R90bWYHcVaXFBzgtF/jL334Sqqrg6db18g6+jNIXI6UYeIh0ErsB5ZpPBxzT7Izzivb7XiFznwbY4bE+5T2cLaRbLFDuzu+R1MPCoXiEqfKcFSOIcvruYJ3wIOniqsSqmIpKEF2hTvIZ96Uix3ji4+SiV10UuFxc/Pso=;
- In-reply-to: <4df3a1330910011018o4fd33cd0gc7de78fa7fcdd23d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- On Thu, 10/1/09, Brian Mearns <bmearns@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My understanding is that Tor user's are responsible (via their client)
> for creating their own circuit, and that this is typically
> done at random. However, are there any safeguards in place to
> ensure that it is random, and would this be desirable? I would imagine
> that attackers might try to choose specific circuits in order to learn
> more about particular nodes, and the network in general. Would
> preventing this behavior be helpful, and if so, would it be helpful
> enough to offset any disadvantage it causes for legit users?
I do not think that this would be desirable, random circuits
have their downfalls. Other's can elaborate why better I am
sure.
> My idea is pretty simple. Instead of creating the circuit
> through black-box means (relying on their local RNGs, for
> instance), the user would create some seed value S, and then
> a list of random adjustment values, R0, R1, R2,..., one for
> each relay in the circuit. The S value
> would be used to enforce randomness in the circuit, but the
> R values would be used to hide their circuit from relays as usual.
>
> Creating the onion, the user would put a different R value
> into each layer, encrypted for that relay, of course. To create the
> circuit, they would take a hash of S+R0 to get the address of the
> first relay:
> A1 = H(S+R0), and then hash this plus R1 to get the second
> relay: A2 = H(H(S+R0)+R1)), and so on.
Perhaps I don't understand your suggestion, but how
would a hash translate to a relay address? The
maximum possible strength of a hash is related to the
size of its address space, if this is limited to the
number of relays available, it would be pretty weak.
I would imagine that an 8 bit cpu is likely to be
able to easily run through enough hash input
combinations to get the address of any tor relay in
the network, wouldn't they?
-Martin
***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/