This appears to be a great paper thats right on topic - thank you.
Will have time to read tonight. Offhand, in first 2 pages they use term "synchronous network" - does anyone know, exactly, what they mean by this?
TIA
On Wednesday, October 23, 2019, Punk - Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
>
>
> https://www.freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/back01.pdf
>
>
> This attack reveals what seems to be a fallacy in theoretical definitions of security.
> For example, in [28], the authors state that if links are padded or bandwidth is limited
> to a constant rate, one can ignore passive eavesdroppers8. This is technically correct if
> a passive eavesdropper is defined as someone who cannot access the network as a reg-
> ular user and compute timings on the network (which is implied by the definition used
> in most theoretical work). However this attack model is not very interesting and defi-
> nitely misleading. The latency attack pointed out above and the next attack we present
> demonstrate that if an attacker can simply compute timings (which is as passive as one
> can expect an attacker to be in practice), or use the system, link padding or bandwidth
> limiting links to a constant rate does not protect the system against easy traffic analysis
> attacks.
>
>
>
>
>
>