Tor Stinks re Traffic Analysis and Sybil (as do other networks)

[Mirimir]

On 11/23/2019 10:00 AM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 03:21:08 -0500
> grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>>> low-latency
>>
>> This phrase is misused by many as if it were some kind
>> of litmus test for determining TA resistance... it is not.
> 
> 	by 'low latency' they mean two things :
> 
> 	1) 'efficient' use of data transmission capacity, i.e. whether chaff is sent(expensive)  or not.
> 	
> 	2) actual low latency. In order to prevent timing attacks, packets need to be reclocked, which means adding delay, which results in higher 'latency'.
> 
> 	So anyway, 'low latency' is shorthand for systems that don't do any of the above, and oo are...shit. And tor is included in the shit cateory. And scum-master syverson openly acknowledges it...in papers that no-one reads, while advertising tor as a means to 
> 
> 	"Defend yourself against network surveillance and traffic analysis." 
> 
> 	which is of course outright criminal fraud. 

Yes, Tor is low-latency. And is vulnerable to traffic analysis. And yet,
as you say, it's promoted to the clueless as resisting "network
surveillance and traffic analysis".

Which is, as you say, "outright criminal fraud".

Even so, if you read the Tor design document
<https://svn-archive.torproject.org/svn/projects/design-paper/tor-design.html>
you see that they're quite open about the limitations.

And so are Syverson's publications, which you've quoted a lot.

The villains here are writers of the Tor Project website. They bullshit
users, overselling Tor. Why, I don't know. Maybe it's all a honeypot. Or
maybe they're just idiots.

I've wondered whether it's just that they need lots of users for cover
traffic. That _was_ a major factor in opening Tor to the public, instead
of restricting it to government users. But that seems unlikely, now,
given that the NSA etc could easily run enough bots on hacked servers.