Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 188: Bridge Guards and other anti-enumeration defenses

2012-06-12 Thread Rob van der Hoeven
> > I would be pleased to use my *dsl/cable home-router with fixed-IP > > address to do a port-mapping to a known and stable tor-relay. > > > > Being able to "setup a bridge" by simply: > > - opening a port-forward on my router > > - submitting it to a web-interface > > > > would be a very cool w

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 188: Bridge Guards and other anti-enumeration defenses

2012-06-12 Thread Roger Dingledine
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:55:24PM +0200, Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) wrote: > And it would be very useful if we would allow an easy way to setup > hundreds of "dumb briges", simple TCP forwarding proxy that goes in a > random order across all public relays. No need to go in a random order across all

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 188: Bridge Guards and other anti-enumeration defenses

2012-06-12 Thread Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)
On 6/12/12 12:32 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote: >> Any attacker who can extend circuits through a bridge can enumerate >> the set of guard nodes which it routes its clients' circuits through. >> A malicious middle relay can easily determine the set of entry guards >> used by a hidden service, and over

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 188: Bridge Guards and other anti-enumeration defenses

2012-06-12 Thread Roger Dingledine
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 06:00:20PM +, Robert Ransom wrote: > On 2011-10-20, Nick Mathewson wrote: > > > 4.3. Separate bridge-guards and client-guards > > > >In the design above, I specify that bridges should use the same > >guard nodes for extending client circuits as they use for the

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 188: Bridge Guards and other anti-enumeration defenses

2011-10-20 Thread Robert Ransom
On 2011-10-20, Nick Mathewson wrote: > 4.3. Separate bridge-guards and client-guards > >In the design above, I specify that bridges should use the same >guard nodes for extending client circuits as they use for their own >circuits. It's not immediately clear whether this is a good id

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 188: Bridge Guards and other anti-enumeration defenses

2011-10-20 Thread Nick Mathewson
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Ian Goldberg wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 08:09:17PM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote: >>    Note that this design does not require that our stream cipher >>    operations be transitive, even though they are. > > Did you mean "commutative"? Indeed so. Fixing. th

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 188: Bridge Guards and other anti-enumeration defenses

2011-10-20 Thread Ian Goldberg
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 08:09:17PM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote: >Note that this design does not require that our stream cipher >operations be transitive, even though they are. Did you mean "commutative"? - Ian ___ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev

[tor-dev] Proposal 188: Bridge Guards and other anti-enumeration defenses

2011-10-19 Thread Nick Mathewson
Filename: 188-bridge-guards.txt Title: Bridge Guards and other anti-enumeration defenses Author: Nick Mathewson Created: 14 Oct 2011 Status: Open 1. Overview Bridges are useful against censors only so long as the adversary cannot easily enumerate their addresses. I propose a design to make