On 05/08/14 18:00, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> On 05/08/14 17:24, Philipp Winter wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 11:37:45AM +0200, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>>> Started looking into better algorithms to detect Sybil attacks on the
>>> Tor network. Current thinking is that we should define relay simila
On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 18:00:32 +0200
Karsten Loesing wrote:
> On 05/08/14 17:24, Philipp Winter wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 11:37:45AM +0200, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> >> Started looking into better algorithms to detect Sybil attacks on the
> >> Tor network. Current thinking is that we shoul
On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 11:24:32AM -0400, Philipp Winter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 11:37:45AM +0200, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> > Started looking into better algorithms to detect Sybil attacks on the
> > Tor network. Current thinking is that we should define relay similarity
> > metrics like
There's a couple posts here.
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2014-July/005034.html
I'd also include uptimes.
Larger byproduct: you can say what ISP/AS do not have relays in order
to see about putting ones therein.
___
tor-dev mailing li
On 05/08/14 17:24, Philipp Winter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 11:37:45AM +0200, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>> Started looking into better algorithms to detect Sybil attacks on the
>> Tor network. Current thinking is that we should define relay similarity
>> metrics like common IP address prefix l
On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 11:37:45AM +0200, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> Started looking into better algorithms to detect Sybil attacks on the
> Tor network. Current thinking is that we should define relay similarity
> metrics like common IP address prefix length or time between first seen
> in a consen
