On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Kyle Maxwell <kylem@xwell.org> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:

> Additional tricks such as delayed further transmission, network path mixing,
> etc. are all possible with what I have in my paper and should be (easily)
> doable in Tor.
>
> I never really understood the problem with traffic analysis.

Trickle connections are an interesting idea and will work for some
applications where high latency and possibly low throughput are okay.
I look forward to reading that paper.

Though re: traffic analysis, if your traffic stands out too much (i.e.
for relatively low n on a global scale), then you'll still have
issues[0]. And the devil's in the details, as Tom Ritter's fine work
around AAM[1] has shown.

[0]: Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1105/
[1]: http://ritter.vg/blog-deanonymizing_amm.html

--
@kylemaxwell


Lest we forget: WASTE had 'chaff' communication capabilities.

The problem is that bandwidth isn't free; also standing out ;)

--
Twitter | LinkedIn | GitHub | TravisBiehn.com