[p2p-hackers] MixMinion vs. onion routing & GNUnet question

seberino at spawar.navy.mil seberino at spawar.navy.mil
Mon Nov 8 09:41:48 PST 2004


> These may be naive questions (I don't know GNUnet too well), but
> hopefully I am about to learn something: GNUnet tries to achieve at
> least three goals at the same time that are not perfectly understood
> and should rather be treated individually:
>
>  - anonymity
>  - censor resistance
>  - high-performance document distribution

Performance is a secondary goal to the first 2 in GNUnet.  The first
2 are related so I'm not sure how or why they need to be treated
separately.


> Also, don't the shortcomings of mix networks also apply to Freenet- /
> GNUnet-style anonymization schemes?

> I suspect that no matter what (existing) adversary
> model you pick, plugging a good mix network into your design on the
> transport layer gives you the highest anonymity possible.

I don't know how GNUnet's architecture compares to mix networks.
I *do* know that GNUnet attempts to protect against traffic analysis.
If you think mix networks are better, they better have good
protection against traffic analysis.  Can you point us to any
good URLs or papers on how mix networks protect against traffic
analysis?

Chris
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
p2p-hackers at zgp.org
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
_______________________________________________
Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences

----- End forwarded message -----
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list