Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 188: Bridge Guards and other anti-enumeration defenses

["Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/12/12 12:32 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>> Any attacker who can extend circuits through a bridge can enumerate
>> the set of guard nodes which it routes its clients' circuits through.
>> A malicious middle relay can easily determine the set of entry guards
>> used by a hidden service, and over time, can determine the set of
>> entry guards used by a user with a long-term pseudonym.  If a bridge
>> uses the same set of entry guards for its clients' circuits as it does
>> for its own, users who operate bridges can be deanonymized quite
>> trivially.
> 
> I think that's a good reason to have the guards that clients get through
> the bridge be different than the guards that the bridge uses for its
> own traffic.
> 
> I'll also note that this proposal may not be quite as high-priority
> as it originally was, if we go the "multi-homed bridges" route: see
> the parenthetical note at the bottom of attack #2 on
> https://blog.torproject.org/blog/research-problems-ten-ways-discover-tor-bridges
> 
> --Roger

And it would be very useful if we would allow an easy way to setup
hundreds of "dumb briges", simple TCP forwarding proxy that goes in a
random order across all public relays.

Easier to setup, available in big quantities.

I would be pleased to use my *dsl/cable home-router with fixed-IP
address to do a port-mapping to a known and stable tor-relay.

Being able to "setup a bridge" by simply:
- opening a port-forward on my router
- submitting it to a web-interface

would be a very cool way to open-up opportunities of hundreds or
thousands of different IP:PORT pair (basically a bridge) without having
to run dedicated software on an always on-server (replaced by a simple
home-router, that's "the always-on server").

-naif
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev