diff options
author | Roger Dingledine <arma@torproject.org> | 2005-01-31 06:43:38 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | Roger Dingledine <arma@torproject.org> | 2005-01-31 06:43:38 +0000 |
commit | ec2a6ff2e32cb19aab0b1c00f486724e0ec475c5 (patch) | |
tree | 07c0e783cf1be87d206ff637bac66b84f113f13a /doc/design-paper | |
parent | 9856e328c4c8684349c41b8a7e421926a594682e (diff) | |
download | tor-ec2a6ff2e32cb19aab0b1c00f486724e0ec475c5.tar.gz tor-ec2a6ff2e32cb19aab0b1c00f486724e0ec475c5.zip |
flesh out the routing-zones section
svn:r3480
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/design-paper')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/design-paper/challenges.tex | 67 |
1 files changed, 61 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/doc/design-paper/challenges.tex b/doc/design-paper/challenges.tex index b8b5189e1a..414569755b 100644 --- a/doc/design-paper/challenges.tex +++ b/doc/design-paper/challenges.tex @@ -874,7 +874,7 @@ to discourage bad service without opening Alice up as much to attacks. \subsection{Peer-to-peer / practical issues} [leave this section for now, and make sure things here are covered -elsewhere.] +elsewhere. then remove it.] Making use of servers with little bandwidth. How to handle hammering by certain applications. @@ -888,12 +888,67 @@ Restricted routes. How to propagate to everybody the topology? BGP style doesn't work because we don't want just *one* path. Point to Geoff's stuff. -\subsection{ISP-class adversaries} - -[arma will write this] +\subsection{Location diversity and ISP-class adversaries} + +Anonymity networks have long relied on diversity of node location for +protection against attacks---typically an adversary who can observe a +larger fraction of the network can launch a more effective attack. One +way to achieve dispersal involves growing the network so a given adversary +sees less. Alternately, we can arrange the topology so traffic can enter +or exit at many places (for example, by using a free-route network +like Tor rather than a cascade network like JAP). Lastly, we can use +distributed trust to spread each transaction over multiple jurisdictions. +But how do we decide whether two nodes are in related locations? + +Feamster and Dingledine defined a \emph{location diversity} metric +in \cite{routing-zones}, and began investigating a variant of location +diversity based on the fact that the Internet is divided into thousands of +independently operated networks called {\em autonomous systems} (ASes). +The key insight from this paper is that while we typically think of a +connection as going directly from the Tor client to her first Tor node, +actually it traverses many different ASes on each hop. An adversary at +any of these ASes can monitor or influence traffic. Specifically, given +plausible initiators and recipients and path random path selection, +some ASes in the simulation were able to observe 10\% to 30\% of the +transactions (that is, learn both the origin and the destination) on +the deployed Tor network (33 nodes as of June 2004). + +The paper concludes that for best protection against the AS-level +adversary, nodes should be in ASes that have the most links to other ASes: +Tier-1 ISPs such as AT\&T and Abovenet. Further, a given transaction +is safest when it starts or ends in a Tier-1 ISP. Therefore, assuming +initiator and responder are both in the U.S., it actually \emph{hurts} +our location diversity to add far-flung nodes in continents like Asia +or South America. + +Many open questions remain. First, it will be an immense engineering +challenge to get an entire BGP routing table to each Tor client, or at +least summarize it sufficiently. Without a local copy, clients won't be +able to safely predict what ASes will be traversed on the various paths +through the Tor network to the final destination. Tarzan~\cite{tarzan} +and MorphMix~\cite{morphmix} suggest that we compare IP prefixes to +determine location diversity; but the above paper showed that in practice +many of the Mixmaster nodes that share a single AS have entirely different +IP prefixes. When the network has scaled to thousands of nodes, does IP +prefix comparison become a more useful approximation? +% +Second, can take advantage of caching certain content at the exit nodes, to +limit the number of requests that need to leave the network at all. +what about taking advantage of caches like akamai's or googles? what +about treating them as adversaries? +% +Third, if we follow the paper's recommendations and tailor path selection +to avoid choosing endpoints in similar locations, how much are we hurting +anonymity against larger real-world adversaries who can take advantage +of knowing our algorithm? +% +Lastly, can we use this knowledge to figure out which gaps in our network +would most improve our robustness to this class of attack, and go recruit +new servers with those ASes in mind? -Routing-zones. It seems that our threat model comes down to diversity and -dispersal. But hard for Alice to know how to act. Many questions remain. +Tor's security relies in large part on the dispersal properties of its +network. We need to be more aware of the anonymity properties of various +approaches we can make better design decisions in the future. \subsection{The China problem} |