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 <[1]punks@tfwno.gf>
   wrote:
   >
   >
   > Â  Â  Â  Â  [2]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.
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >

References

   1. mailto:punks@tfwno.gf
   2. https://www.freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/back01.pdf