[tor-talk] on the topic of tor's weaknesses
syverson at itd.nrl.navy.mil
Thu Mar 1 00:22:58 UTC 2012
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 04:17:16PM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
> And Msr. Syverson seems to indicate that it can be.
Some abbreviation I'm not familiar with for Monsignor? I'm
pretty sure I've not been called to the RC priesthood, or for
that matter the RC church in general. I prefer Sagamore or
Trismegistus if you wish to give me an honorific.
> Yes, the weakness seems clearer now. Unless there's a way to modify
> the system so that the EG does not know it's an EG for a given
> client stream to its left, it would just be a foregone fact of life
> as part of the unsolved timing/etc attack class.
There's nothing currently available to do this. Nor am I enthusiastic
about the prospect of anything that doesn't break some essential
aspect of Tor working. (I don't mean implementation. I mean it will
fail on an abstract protocol level even before that.) At best you
might reduce this from virtual certainty to a very serviceable stochastic
But that's a good thing, because otherwise Tor would be more vulnerable
to long path attacks.
More information about the tor-talk