[tor-talk] [Cryptography] Dark Web should really be called the Twilight Web

Ryan Carboni ryacko at gmail.com
Fri May 29 23:02:27 UTC 2015


>
> That's only if you choose to attempt a padding-across-the-net
> management scope, which is also going to be hard and slow to
> manage and respond to bandwidth and other net dynamics.
> (Though this was about GPA, it's probably also vulnerable to
> endpoint interruption attacks that monitor your stream, unless
> someone is there making up the padding slack at the far end.)
> A wide scope seems hard in a low latency demand based net.
> I'd suggest examining some form of next-hop, next-peer, or link
> local padding scope negotiated with such peers. If you or your
> peers get hit with demand, your negotiation distance is shorter.
>


That would still leak additional information, to a lesser extent.

Regardless, I don't think the TOR network has the bandwidth or
computational capacity for padding. It'd require more bookkeeping.


How is it that Tor doesn't provide multicore support yet anyway?


More information about the tor-talk mailing list