mirror of
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor.git
synced 2024-11-10 13:13:44 +01:00
Various edits.
svn:r740
This commit is contained in:
parent
2dcafa8527
commit
ac83d91703
@ -49,6 +49,19 @@
|
||||
pages = {451-463},
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@Article{jerichow-jsac98,
|
||||
author = {Anja Jerichow and Jan M\"{u}ller and Andreas
|
||||
Pfitzmann and Birgit Pfitzmann and Michael Waidner},
|
||||
title = {Real-Time Mixes: A Bandwidth-Efficient Anonymity Protocol},
|
||||
journal = {IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications},
|
||||
year = 1998,
|
||||
volume = 16,
|
||||
number = 4,
|
||||
pages = {495--509},
|
||||
month = {May}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@inproceedings{tarzan:ccs02,
|
||||
title = {Tarzan: A Peer-to-Peer Anonymizing Network Layer},
|
||||
author = {Michael J. Freedman and Robert Morris},
|
||||
@ -323,7 +336,35 @@
|
||||
month = {May},
|
||||
publisher = {Springer-Verlag, LNCS 1174},
|
||||
}
|
||||
%note = {\url{http://www.onion-router.net/Publications/IH-1996.ps.gz}}
|
||||
|
||||
@InProceedings{federrath-ih96,
|
||||
author = {Hannes Federrath and Anja Jerichow and Andreas Pfitzmann},
|
||||
title = {{MIXes} in Mobile Communication Systems: Location
|
||||
Management with Privacy},
|
||||
title = {Hiding Routing Information},
|
||||
booktitle = {Information Hiding, First International Workshop},
|
||||
pages = {121--135},
|
||||
year = 1996,
|
||||
editor = {R. Anderson},
|
||||
month = {May},
|
||||
publisher = {Springer-Verlag, LNCS 1174},
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@InProceedings{reed-protocols97,
|
||||
author = {Michael G. Reed and Paul F. Syverson and David
|
||||
M. Goldschlag},
|
||||
title = {Protocols Using Anonymous Connections: Mobile Applications},
|
||||
booktitle = {Security Protocols: 5th International Workshop},
|
||||
pages = {13--23},
|
||||
year = 1997,
|
||||
editor = {Bruce Christianson and Bruno Crispo and Mark Lomas
|
||||
and Michael Roe},
|
||||
month = {April},
|
||||
publisher = {Springer-Verlag, LNCS 1361}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@Article{or-jsac98,
|
||||
author = {Michael G. Reed and Paul F. Syverson and David
|
||||
|
@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ attempts to anonymize TCP streams. Because it does not require patches
|
||||
approach has proven valuable to Tor's portability and deployability.
|
||||
|
||||
We have implemented most of the above features. Our source code is
|
||||
available under a free license, and we believe it to be unencumbered by
|
||||
available under a free license, and, as far as we know, is unencumbered by
|
||||
patents. We have recently begun deploying a widespread alpha network
|
||||
to test the design in practice, to get more experience with usability
|
||||
and users, and to provide a research platform for experimenting with
|
||||
@ -338,7 +338,8 @@ along the circuit, ignoring the breakdown of that data into TCP frames
|
||||
protocols (such as HTTP) and relay the application requests themselves
|
||||
along the circuit.
|
||||
Making this protocol-layer decision requires a compromise between flexibility
|
||||
and anonymity. For example, a system that understands HTTP can strip
|
||||
and anonymity. For example, a system that understands HTTP, such as Crowds,
|
||||
can strip
|
||||
identifying information from those requests, can take advantage of caching
|
||||
to limit the number of requests that leave the network, and can batch
|
||||
or encode those requests in order to minimize the number of connections.
|
||||
@ -441,10 +442,15 @@ attacks. Some approaches, such as running an onion router, may help;
|
||||
see Section~\ref{sec:attacks} for more discussion.
|
||||
|
||||
\textbf{No protocol normalization:} Tor does not provide \emph{protocol
|
||||
normalization} like Privoxy or the Anonymizer. For complex and variable
|
||||
normalization} like Privoxy or the Anonymizer. If anonymization from
|
||||
the responder is desired for complex and variable
|
||||
protocols such as HTTP, Tor must be layered with a filtering proxy such
|
||||
as Privoxy to hide differences between clients, and expunge protocol
|
||||
features that leak identity. Similarly, Tor does not currently integrate
|
||||
features that leak identity.
|
||||
Note that by this separation Tor can also provide connections that
|
||||
are anonymous to the network yet authenticated to the responder, for
|
||||
example SSH.
|
||||
Similarly, Tor does not currently integrate
|
||||
tunneling for non-stream-based protocols like UDP; this too must be
|
||||
provided by an external service.
|
||||
% Actually, tunneling udp over tcp is probably horrible for some apps.
|
||||
@ -1170,7 +1176,7 @@ central point.
|
||||
Rendezvous points are a building block for \emph{location-hidden
|
||||
services} (also known as \emph{responder anonymity}) in the Tor
|
||||
network. Location-hidden services allow Bob to offer a TCP
|
||||
service, such as a webserver, without revealing its IP.
|
||||
service, such as a webserver, without revealing its IP\@.
|
||||
This type of anonymity protects against distributed DoS attacks:
|
||||
attackers are forced to attack the onion routing network as a whole
|
||||
rather than just Bob's IP.
|
||||
@ -1255,8 +1261,22 @@ The authentication tokens can be used to provide selective access:
|
||||
important users get tokens to ensure uninterrupted access to the
|
||||
service. During normal situations, Bob's service might simply be offered
|
||||
directly from mirrors, and Bob gives out tokens to high-priority users. If
|
||||
the mirrors are knocked down by distributed DoS attacks, those users
|
||||
can switch to accessing Bob's service via the Tor rendezvous system.
|
||||
the mirrors are knocked down by distributed DoS attacks or even
|
||||
physical attack, those users can switch to accessing Bob's service via
|
||||
the Tor rendezvous system.
|
||||
|
||||
Since Bob's introduction points might themselves be subject to DoS he
|
||||
could be faced with a choice between keeping large numbers of
|
||||
introduction connections open or risking such an attack. In this case,
|
||||
similar to the authentication tokens, he can provide selected users
|
||||
with a current list and/or future schedule of introduction points that
|
||||
are not advertised in the DHT\@. This is most likely to be practical
|
||||
if there is a relatively stable and large group of introduction points
|
||||
generally available. Alternatively, Bob could give secret public keys
|
||||
to selected users for consulting the DHT\@. All of these approaches
|
||||
have the advantage of limiting the damage that can be done even if
|
||||
some of the selected high-priority users colludes in the DoS\@.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\SubSection{Integration with user applications}
|
||||
|
||||
@ -1278,8 +1298,15 @@ the PK and starts the rendezvous as described in the table above.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Previous rendezvous work}
|
||||
|
||||
Ian Goldberg developed a similar notion of rendezvous points for
|
||||
low-latency anonymity systems \cite{ian-thesis}. His design differs from
|
||||
Rendezvous points in low-latency anonymity systems were first
|
||||
described for use in ISDN telephony \cite{isdn-mixes,jerichow-jsac98}.
|
||||
Later low-latency designs used rendezvous points for hiding location
|
||||
of mobile phones and low-power location trackers
|
||||
\cite{federrath-ih96,reed-protocols97}. Rendezvous for low-latency
|
||||
Internet connections was suggested in early Onion Routing work
|
||||
\cite{or-ih96}; however, the first published design of rendezvous
|
||||
points for low-latency Internet connections was by Ian Goldberg
|
||||
\cite{ian-thesis}. His design differs from
|
||||
ours in three ways. First, Goldberg suggests that Alice should manually
|
||||
hunt down a current location of the service via Gnutella; whereas our
|
||||
use of CFS makes lookup faster, more robust, and transparent to the
|
||||
@ -1464,8 +1491,7 @@ design withstands them.
|
||||
other nodes. Its ability to directly DoS a neighbor is now limited
|
||||
by bandwidth throttling. Nonetheless, in order to compromise the
|
||||
anonymity of the endpoints of a circuit by its observations, a
|
||||
hostile node is only significant if it is immediately adjacent to
|
||||
that endpoint.
|
||||
hostile node must be immediately adjacent to that endpoint.
|
||||
|
||||
\item \emph{Run multiple hostile nodes.} If an adversary is able to
|
||||
run multiple ORs, and is able to persuade the directory servers
|
||||
@ -1605,6 +1631,16 @@ design withstands them.
|
||||
point. But because a service's identity is attached to its public
|
||||
key, not its introduction point, the service can simply re-advertise
|
||||
itself at a different introduction point.
|
||||
|
||||
\item \emph{Attack multiple introduction points.} If an attacker is
|
||||
able to disable all of the introduction points for a given service,
|
||||
he can block access to the service. However, re-advertisement of
|
||||
introduction points can still be done secretly so that only
|
||||
high-priority clients know the address of the service's introduction
|
||||
points. Such selective secret authorizations can also be issued
|
||||
during normal operation so that the attack cannot also prevent their
|
||||
issuance. In this setting an attack must be able to disable all
|
||||
introduction points for all services to be effective.
|
||||
|
||||
\item \emph{Compromise an introduction point.} If an attacker controls
|
||||
an introduction point for a service, it can flood the service with
|
||||
@ -1633,9 +1669,10 @@ have built a secure low-latency anonymity service.
|
||||
|
||||
Many of these open issues are questions of balance. For example,
|
||||
how often should users rotate to fresh circuits? Too-frequent
|
||||
rotation is inefficient and expensive, but too-infrequent rotation
|
||||
rotation is inefficient, expensive and may lead to intersection attacks,
|
||||
but too-infrequent rotation
|
||||
makes the user's traffic linkable. Instead of opening a fresh
|
||||
circuit; clients can also limit linkability exit from a middle point
|
||||
circuit; clients can also limit linkability by exiting from a middle point
|
||||
of the circuit, or by truncating and re-extending the circuit, but
|
||||
more analysis is needed to determine the proper trade-off.
|
||||
%[XXX mention predecessor attacks?]
|
||||
@ -1684,9 +1721,9 @@ too-frequent updates the directory servers are overloaded.
|
||||
%Email from between roger and me to beginning of section above. Fix and move.
|
||||
|
||||
Throughout this paper, we have assumed that end-to-end traffic
|
||||
analysis will immediately and automatically defeat a low-latency
|
||||
confirmation will immediately and automatically defeat a low-latency
|
||||
anonymity system. Even high-latency anonymity
|
||||
systems can be vulnerable to end-to-end traffic analysis, if the
|
||||
systems can be vulnerable to end-to-end traffic confirmation, if the
|
||||
traffic volumes are high enough, and if users' habits are sufficiently
|
||||
distinct \cite{limits-open,statistical-disclosure}. \emph{Can
|
||||
anything be done to make low-latency systems resist these attacks as
|
||||
@ -1730,7 +1767,7 @@ approval by a centralized set of directory servers is no longer
|
||||
feasible, what mechanism should be used to prevent adversaries from
|
||||
signing up many spurious servers?
|
||||
Second, if clients can no longer have a complete
|
||||
picture of the network at all times, how can should they perform
|
||||
picture of the network at all times, how can they perform
|
||||
discovery while preventing attackers from manipulating or exploiting
|
||||
gaps in client knowledge? Third, if there are too many servers
|
||||
for every server to constantly communicate with every other, what kind
|
||||
@ -1753,7 +1790,10 @@ greater than the benefits. Nevertheless, we may still do well to
|
||||
consider non-clique topologies. A cascade topology may provide more
|
||||
defense against traffic confirmation.
|
||||
% XXX Why would it? Cite. -NM
|
||||
Does the hydra (many inputs, few outputs) topology work
|
||||
%
|
||||
% Huh? Do you mean for simple attacks just because of larger anonymity
|
||||
% sets? -PS
|
||||
Does the hydra topology (many input nodes, few output nodes) work
|
||||
better? Are we going to get a hydra anyway because most nodes will be
|
||||
middleman nodes?
|
||||
|
||||
@ -1843,10 +1883,9 @@ issues remaining to be ironed out. In particular:
|
||||
% XXX Agree. -NM
|
||||
\item \emph{Implementing location-hidden servers:} While
|
||||
Section~\ref{sec:rendezvous} describes a design for rendezvous
|
||||
points and location-hidden servers, these feature has not yet been
|
||||
implemented. While doing so, will likely encounter additional
|
||||
issues, both in terms of usability and anonymity, that must be
|
||||
resolved.
|
||||
points and location-hidden servers, these features have not yet been
|
||||
implemented. While doing so we are likely to encounter additional
|
||||
issues that must be resolved, both in terms of usability and anonymity.
|
||||
\item \emph{Further specification review:} Although we have a public,
|
||||
byte-level specification for the Tor protocols, this protocol has
|
||||
not received extensive external review. We hope that as Tor
|
||||
@ -1856,7 +1895,7 @@ issues remaining to be ironed out. In particular:
|
||||
gain experience in deploying an anonymizing overlay network, and
|
||||
learn from having actual users. We are now at the point in design
|
||||
and development where we can start deploying a wider network. Once
|
||||
we have are ready for actual users, we will doubtlessly be better
|
||||
we have large numbers of actual users, we will doubtlessly be better
|
||||
able to evaluate some of our design decisions, including our
|
||||
robustness/latency trade-offs, our performance trade-offs (including
|
||||
cell size), our abuse-prevention mechanisms, and
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user