- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Piercing network anonymity in real time
by StealthMonger 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Ivan Krstic <krstic(a)fas.harvard.edu> writes: > Calling this "piercing network anonymity in real time" is highly > misleading; in reality, it's more like "making it bloody obvious > that there's no such thing as network anonymity". No. Ever hear of Chaum's "Dining Cryptographers" [1]? Anonymity right there at the table. Been around for almost twenty years. Strong anonymity is available today using chains of random-latency, mixing, anonymizing remailers based on mixmaster [2], of which there is a thriving worldwide network [3]. > The best one can hope for today is a bit of anonymous browsing and > IM with Tor ... Tor is indicted by its own documentation: ... for low-latency systems like Tor, end-to-end traffic correlation attacks [8, 21, 31] allow an attacker who can observe both ends of a communication to correlate packet timing and volume, quickly linking the initiator to her destination. [4] [1] "The Dining Cryptographers Problem: Unconditional Sender Untraceability," D. Chaum, (invited) Journal of Cryptology, vol. 1 no. 1, 1988, pp. 65-75. ftp://ftp.csua.berkeley.edu/pub/cypherpunks/papers/chaum.dining.cryptograph… s.gz http://www.e-ztown.com/cryptopapers.htm http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/context/143887/0 [2] http://sourceforge.net/projects/mixmaster/. [3] See usenet newsgroup alt.privacy.anon-server. [4] http://tor.eff.org/cvs/tor/doc/design-paper/challenges.pdf --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

None
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> Carl is most certainly not an idiot. In fact, there might be a reasonable > argument for this: You're changing the defaults of a contract by specifying > what should be interpreted as reasonable authentication or not. Still, > I don't agree with it, and it's something that should be left up to the > courts, not Washingtonians and their lobbyists. In my opinion, everything should be left to the market to solve, and nothing to politicians. I'd agree with you about the courts if they were private. Mark

1 0

None
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> Carl is most certainly not an idiot. In fact, there might be a reasonable > argument for this: You're changing the defaults of a contract by specifying > what should be interpreted as reasonable authentication or not. Still, > I don't agree with it, and it's something that should be left up to the > courts, not Washingtonians and their lobbyists. In my opinion, everything should be left to the market to solve, and nothing to politicians. I'd agree with you about the courts if they were private. Mark

1 0

None
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> Carl is most certainly not an idiot. In fact, there might be a reasonable > argument for this: You're changing the defaults of a contract by specifying > what should be interpreted as reasonable authentication or not. Still, > I don't agree with it, and it's something that should be left up to the > courts, not Washingtonians and their lobbyists. In my opinion, everything should be left to the market to solve, and nothing to politicians. I'd agree with you about the courts if they were private. Mark

1 0

None
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> Carl is most certainly not an idiot. In fact, there might be a reasonable > argument for this: You're changing the defaults of a contract by specifying > what should be interpreted as reasonable authentication or not. Still, > I don't agree with it, and it's something that should be left up to the > courts, not Washingtonians and their lobbyists. In my opinion, everything should be left to the market to solve, and nothing to politicians. I'd agree with you about the courts if they were private. Mark

1 0

None
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> Carl is most certainly not an idiot. In fact, there might be a reasonable > argument for this: You're changing the defaults of a contract by specifying > what should be interpreted as reasonable authentication or not. Still, > I don't agree with it, and it's something that should be left up to the > courts, not Washingtonians and their lobbyists. In my opinion, everything should be left to the market to solve, and nothing to politicians. I'd agree with you about the courts if they were private. Mark

1 0

None
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> Carl is most certainly not an idiot. In fact, there might be a reasonable > argument for this: You're changing the defaults of a contract by specifying > what should be interpreted as reasonable authentication or not. Still, > I don't agree with it, and it's something that should be left up to the > courts, not Washingtonians and their lobbyists. In my opinion, everything should be left to the market to solve, and nothing to politicians. I'd agree with you about the courts if they were private. Mark

1 0

None
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> Carl is most certainly not an idiot. In fact, there might be a reasonable > argument for this: You're changing the defaults of a contract by specifying > what should be interpreted as reasonable authentication or not. Still, > I don't agree with it, and it's something that should be left up to the > courts, not Washingtonians and their lobbyists. In my opinion, everything should be left to the market to solve, and nothing to politicians. I'd agree with you about the courts if they were private. Mark

1 0

None
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> Carl is most certainly not an idiot. In fact, there might be a reasonable > argument for this: You're changing the defaults of a contract by specifying > what should be interpreted as reasonable authentication or not. Still, > I don't agree with it, and it's something that should be left up to the > courts, not Washingtonians and their lobbyists. In my opinion, everything should be left to the market to solve, and nothing to politicians. I'd agree with you about the courts if they were private. Mark

1 0

None
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> Carl is most certainly not an idiot. In fact, there might be a reasonable > argument for this: You're changing the defaults of a contract by specifying > what should be interpreted as reasonable authentication or not. Still, > I don't agree with it, and it's something that should be left up to the > courts, not Washingtonians and their lobbyists. In my opinion, everything should be left to the market to solve, and nothing to politicians. I'd agree with you about the courts if they were private. Mark

1 0