Re: [tor-talk] Location-aware persistent guards

[Robert Ransom <rransom.8774@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/15/12, Maxim Kammerer <mk@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lately, the question of persistent Tor entry guard nodes in live
> distributions has been raised in a few places. Typically, the
> conclusion is that /var/lib/tor/data should be made persistent. I see
> it as problematic, since a live distro can be expected to be moved
> around more frequently than a typical desktop, or even a laptop. If we
> consider the current 882 Guard+Fast+Stable nodes in Tor consensus as a
> rough (or perhaps exact, not sure) estimate of nodes that can be
> selected as guards by Tor clients, then there are ~114M possibilities
> for selecting 3 guards, which, essentially, uniquely identifies a Tor
> user to a close traffic observer.
>
> In last comment in [1], Roger says that location-aware âprofilesâ
> would be nice, but difficult to implement safely. I don't see any
> problem with implementing such profiles, and think that the
> implementation can be even safer. It's pretty simple, actually: keep a
> secret persistent cookie, then upon Tor startup, concatenate it with
> the current public IP (or, say, its /24 part), use the result as a
> salt for hashing candidate guard nodes fingerprints, then sort and
> take the top 3. The additional benefit is that an attacker who gains
> access to Tor persistent state will not know which guard nodes were
> used without knowing an IP (although, a global observer might still
> iterate over all IPs that connected to Tor). There is a minor
> bootstrap issue of finding out the public IP (does this require an
> existing circuit at present?).

https://bugs.torproject.org/2653

The hardest part is load-balancing among the possible entry guards.


Robert Ransom
_______________________________________________
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk