Re: Attacks on remailers
Hal Finney writes a nice "To Do" list for the cypherpunks remailers by enumerating and describing possible attacks. Let's priortize these items. First we should do those items that are easy to implement, and those items needed to prevent any remaining cheap 'n easy attacks. We can leave expensive attacks for future projects.
Response: Encrypt the messages. Use "nesting", so that all that is visible as each message leaves a remailer is the destination of the next remailer.
This should be made smoother. The learning curve needed to get to this stage : install PGP & get it working, learn how to use remailers, install remailer nesting script, debug all of the above, because something in there is bound to break at this stage : quite a lot of work! Just improving things up to here with clearer documentation, and better scripts and GUIs, would greatly increase the number of remailer users and traffic.
Response: Run the remailer on a machine which does not keep mail logs, or on a machine to which you can deny the attackers access.
The former is much to be preferred! The first link in the remailer chain, especially, needs to be trusted not to maintain logs. The trustworthy remailer operator goes to great lengths to minimize the temptation to look at messages.
[Attack 3: timing & ordering of messages in & out] [Attack 4: look at subject line, message size, etc.] [other attacks involving intercepting mail stream]
Batching and random delays only work well if there is large message traffic through the remailer. What in specific detail is needed to gain access to the mail stream to make these attacks? If no mail logs are kept, and the remailer denies access to a spool file, by hiding it or putting random garbage in it or denying access to its host computer, an attack looks to me like it requires a sophisticated wiretap. Avoiding expensive attacks is low priority at this point.
[Message pools] have the problem that they expose everyone in some group to all of the messages intended for every group member, hence the number of messages will scale as the square of the number of group members.
First let's make the problem happen. Then we can solve it! Here's another item: faster links! The delay between when I post this and when it arrives on "cypherpunks" can be half a day. What about that idea of using direct sockets instead of SMTP between remailers? That could kill two birds with one stone: delivery speed and cheap attacks against the intermediate links via logging or spool files.
Response: Encrypt the messages. Use "nesting", so that all that is visible as each message leaves a remailer is the destination of the next remailer.
This should be made smoother. The learning curve needed to get to this stage : install PGP & get it working, learn how to use remailers, install remailer nesting script, debug all of the above, because something in there is bound to break at this stage : quite a lot of work! Just improving things up to here with clearer documentation, and better scripts and GUIs, would greatly increase the number of remailer users and traffic. Working on it. (NeXT version at least.) [..] Here's another item: faster links! The delay between when I post this and when it arrives on "cypherpunks" can be half a day. What about that idea of using direct sockets instead of SMTP between remailers? That could kill two birds with one stone: delivery speed and cheap attacks against the intermediate links via logging or spool files. Actually what I was proposing was the direct usage of SMTP itself rather than going through the host machine's mail system. As anyone can do it, it would help with the usage of student accounts as remailers. And with direct SMTP (socket connections to port 25 of the receiving machine) you have some control over the header information that is generated. The protocol is outlined in RFC821 if anyone wants to look at it. So that's 4 birds with one stone: (1) Speed. (2) No logging on remailer host. (3) Control over header information (hell you could even make something up for the header fields that looks 'legitimate') (4) Tighter control of possible batching by not going though the host machine's mail system. Earlier it was noted that traffic analysis worked for the a.s.a.r. remailer to find the sender of messages by checking the logs on the machine that the messages were originally from. With a simple utility someone could submit mail directly to the remailer host using sockets, and so leave little trace on their host of having done so. I'm working on the tiny utility to send mail via socket 25 (I'm sure it has been done many times before, and is probably already available somewhere. Is no big deal.) School is of course stealing my time. -Sam (is the remailer source code available on soda?)
participants (2)
-
b44729@achilles.ctd.anl.gov
-
remail@tamsun.tamu.edu