mirror of
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor.git
synced 2024-11-10 13:13:44 +01:00
cut a paragraph, cut the rendezvous attacks subsec
svn:r1018
This commit is contained in:
parent
b87302a885
commit
ab67fcaa7f
@ -958,10 +958,10 @@ has to check whether data has been successfully flushed onto the TCP
|
||||
stream; it sends the \emph{relay sendme} cell only when the number of bytes pending
|
||||
to be flushed is under some threshold (currently 10 cells' worth).
|
||||
|
||||
% Maybe omit this next paragraph. -NM
|
||||
Currently, non-data relay cells do not affect the windows. Thus we
|
||||
avoid potential deadlock issues, for example, arising because a stream
|
||||
can't send a \emph{relay sendme} cell when its packaging window is empty.
|
||||
%% Maybe omit this next paragraph. -NM
|
||||
%Currently, non-data relay cells do not affect the windows. Thus we
|
||||
%avoid potential deadlock issues, for example, arising because a stream
|
||||
%can't send a \emph{relay sendme} cell when its packaging window is empty.
|
||||
|
||||
These arbitrarily chosen parameters seem to give tolerable throughput
|
||||
and delay; see Section~\ref{sec:in-the-wild}.
|
||||
@ -987,7 +987,6 @@ to new ORs. \textbf{Smear-resistant:}
|
||||
A social attacker who offers an illegal or disreputable location-hidden
|
||||
service should not be able to ``frame'' a rendezvous router by
|
||||
making observers believe the router created that service.
|
||||
%slander-resistant? defamation-resistant?
|
||||
\textbf{Application-transparent:} Although we require users
|
||||
to run special software to access location-hidden servers, we must not
|
||||
require them to modify their applications.
|
||||
@ -1903,41 +1902,40 @@ also designed to include authentication/authorization---if Alice doesn't
|
||||
include the right cookie with her request for service, Bob need not even
|
||||
acknowledge his existence.
|
||||
|
||||
\SubSection{Attacks against rendezvous points}
|
||||
|
||||
We describe here attacks against rendezvous points and how well
|
||||
the system protects against them.
|
||||
|
||||
\emph{Make many introduction requests.} An attacker could
|
||||
try to deny Bob service by flooding his introduction points with
|
||||
requests. Because the introduction points can block requests that
|
||||
lack authorization tokens, however, Bob can restrict the volume of
|
||||
requests he receives, or require a certain amount of computation for
|
||||
every request he receives.
|
||||
|
||||
\emph{Attack an introduction point.} An attacker could
|
||||
disrupt a location-hidden service by disabling its introduction
|
||||
points. But because a service's identity is attached to its public
|
||||
key, the service can simply re-advertise
|
||||
itself at a different introduction point. Advertisements can also be
|
||||
done secretly so that only high-priority clients know the address of
|
||||
Bob's introduction points or so that different clients know of different
|
||||
introduction points. This forces the attacker to disable all possible
|
||||
introduction points.
|
||||
|
||||
\emph{Compromise an introduction point.} An attacker who controls
|
||||
Bob's introduction point can flood Bob with
|
||||
introduction requests, or prevent valid introduction requests from
|
||||
reaching him. Bob can notice a flood, and close the circuit. To notice
|
||||
blocking of valid requests, however, he should periodically test the
|
||||
introduction point by sending rendezvous requests and making
|
||||
sure he receives them.
|
||||
|
||||
\emph{Compromise a rendezvous point.} A rendezvous
|
||||
point is no more sensitive than any other OR on
|
||||
a circuit, since all data passing through the rendezvous is encrypted
|
||||
with a session key shared by Alice and Bob.
|
||||
|
||||
%\SubSection{Attacks against rendezvous points}
|
||||
%
|
||||
%We describe here attacks against rendezvous points and how well
|
||||
%the system protects against them.
|
||||
%
|
||||
%\emph{Make many introduction requests.} An attacker could
|
||||
%try to deny Bob service by flooding his introduction points with
|
||||
%requests. Because the introduction points can block requests that
|
||||
%lack authorization tokens, however, Bob can restrict the volume of
|
||||
%requests he receives, or require a certain amount of computation for
|
||||
%every request he receives.
|
||||
%
|
||||
%\emph{Attack an introduction point.} An attacker could
|
||||
%disrupt a location-hidden service by disabling its introduction
|
||||
%points. But because a service's identity is attached to its public
|
||||
%key, the service can simply re-advertise
|
||||
%itself at a different introduction point. Advertisements can also be
|
||||
%done secretly so that only high-priority clients know the address of
|
||||
%Bob's introduction points or so that different clients know of different
|
||||
%introduction points. This forces the attacker to disable all possible
|
||||
%introduction points.
|
||||
%
|
||||
%\emph{Compromise an introduction point.} An attacker who controls
|
||||
%Bob's introduction point can flood Bob with
|
||||
%introduction requests, or prevent valid introduction requests from
|
||||
%reaching him. Bob can notice a flood, and close the circuit. To notice
|
||||
%blocking of valid requests, however, he should periodically test the
|
||||
%introduction point by sending rendezvous requests and making
|
||||
%sure he receives them.
|
||||
%
|
||||
%\emph{Compromise a rendezvous point.} A rendezvous
|
||||
%point is no more sensitive than any other OR on
|
||||
%a circuit, since all data passing through the rendezvous is encrypted
|
||||
%with a session key shared by Alice and Bob.
|
||||
|
||||
\end{document}
|
||||
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user