flesh out the routing-zones section

svn:r3480
This commit is contained in:
Roger Dingledine
2005-01-31 06:43:38 +00:00
parent 9856e328c4
commit ec2a6ff2e3
+60 -5
View File
@@ -874,7 +874,7 @@ to discourage bad service without opening Alice up as much to attacks.
\subsection{Peer-to-peer / practical issues}
[leave this section for now, and make sure things here are covered
elsewhere.]
elsewhere. then remove it.]
Making use of servers with little bandwidth. How to handle hammering by
certain applications.
@@ -888,12 +888,67 @@ Restricted routes. How to propagate to everybody the topology? BGP
style doesn't work because we don't want just *one* path. Point to
Geoff's stuff.
\subsection{ISP-class adversaries}
\subsection{Location diversity and ISP-class adversaries}
[arma will write this]
Anonymity networks have long relied on diversity of node location for
protection against attacks---typically an adversary who can observe a
larger fraction of the network can launch a more effective attack. One
way to achieve dispersal involves growing the network so a given adversary
sees less. Alternately, we can arrange the topology so traffic can enter
or exit at many places (for example, by using a free-route network
like Tor rather than a cascade network like JAP). Lastly, we can use
distributed trust to spread each transaction over multiple jurisdictions.
But how do we decide whether two nodes are in related locations?
Routing-zones. It seems that our threat model comes down to diversity and
dispersal. But hard for Alice to know how to act. Many questions remain.
Feamster and Dingledine defined a \emph{location diversity} metric
in \cite{routing-zones}, and began investigating a variant of location
diversity based on the fact that the Internet is divided into thousands of
independently operated networks called {\em autonomous systems} (ASes).
The key insight from this paper is that while we typically think of a
connection as going directly from the Tor client to her first Tor node,
actually it traverses many different ASes on each hop. An adversary at
any of these ASes can monitor or influence traffic. Specifically, given
plausible initiators and recipients and path random path selection,
some ASes in the simulation were able to observe 10\% to 30\% of the
transactions (that is, learn both the origin and the destination) on
the deployed Tor network (33 nodes as of June 2004).
The paper concludes that for best protection against the AS-level
adversary, nodes should be in ASes that have the most links to other ASes:
Tier-1 ISPs such as AT\&T and Abovenet. Further, a given transaction
is safest when it starts or ends in a Tier-1 ISP. Therefore, assuming
initiator and responder are both in the U.S., it actually \emph{hurts}
our location diversity to add far-flung nodes in continents like Asia
or South America.
Many open questions remain. First, it will be an immense engineering
challenge to get an entire BGP routing table to each Tor client, or at
least summarize it sufficiently. Without a local copy, clients won't be
able to safely predict what ASes will be traversed on the various paths
through the Tor network to the final destination. Tarzan~\cite{tarzan}
and MorphMix~\cite{morphmix} suggest that we compare IP prefixes to
determine location diversity; but the above paper showed that in practice
many of the Mixmaster nodes that share a single AS have entirely different
IP prefixes. When the network has scaled to thousands of nodes, does IP
prefix comparison become a more useful approximation?
%
Second, can take advantage of caching certain content at the exit nodes, to
limit the number of requests that need to leave the network at all.
what about taking advantage of caches like akamai's or googles? what
about treating them as adversaries?
%
Third, if we follow the paper's recommendations and tailor path selection
to avoid choosing endpoints in similar locations, how much are we hurting
anonymity against larger real-world adversaries who can take advantage
of knowing our algorithm?
%
Lastly, can we use this knowledge to figure out which gaps in our network
would most improve our robustness to this class of attack, and go recruit
new servers with those ASes in mind?
Tor's security relies in large part on the dispersal properties of its
network. We need to be more aware of the anonymity properties of various
approaches we can make better design decisions in the future.
\subsection{The China problem}