Delivery-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 18:49:45 -0400
Return-Path: <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on moria.seul.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,T_DKIM_INVALID,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Original-To: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-To: archiver@seul.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (eugeni.torproject.org [38.229.72.13])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by khazad-dum.seul.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D08EC1E12FF;
	Fri, 29 May 2015 18:49:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5066E34B89;
	Fri, 29 May 2015 22:49:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A307234986
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Fri, 29 May 2015 22:49:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at 
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (eugeni.torproject.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id CGhtc7TX2MNl for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Fri, 29 May 2015 22:49:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ig0-x231.google.com (mail-ig0-x231.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::231])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
 Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (not verified))
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BCF134976
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Fri, 29 May 2015 22:49:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igbjd9 with SMTP id jd9so25514859igb.1
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :cc:content-type;
 bh=5im+4eTZ4jNZgJ/LzFNttw1Lbwc7gW4feXS3Isl+BhE=;
 b=dhXjRk3gHZkBEaloGuq7livJX6Y3kY53h1DK7WPtvvsIaoya1mkBMdIwxIz/Gj5UKD
 5j6bqdJYy0KmFSgF300QxDC7MYcEyxM/Cxrqz7pk93Vxtc9M2N8klFt6NYH9A7+qLCNo
 rnj7faCDh44FXLg/70ssnI/asJGNBIMh+wz3Hp2hgQOY+N1BxXY6nqQfzFjFiPSMjz+/
 IV4tjaRWgrXKZeo7UUTafSQBDTUB4HXszOUD7Rsw8M+zVJO28UB5NfNqDPa5jYjpsfFT
 JtIWJrjeqpU5VDI2L4mcxqRKq57MPKfEk45g5RECESxgHmK8thU75va+8gT+/g4ovE+w
 qG1g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.35.203 with SMTP id j194mr13236735ioj.45.1432939775327; 
 Fri, 29 May 2015 15:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.51.76 with HTTP; Fri, 29 May 2015 15:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAO7N=i1Nzt9MdgZ3MVv7unuLjPuGAbjACEoP7C71G6sO9CRwFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO7N=i1Nzt9MdgZ3MVv7unuLjPuGAbjACEoP7C71G6sO9CRwFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 18:49:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD2Ti290JuAhrYo-MCXm7mi=g2qSQHEwYhZhesX+4+Hp3BQq-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] [Cryptography] Dark Web should really be called the
 Twilight Web
X-BeenThere: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
List-Id: "all discussion about theory, design,
 and development of Onion Routing" <tor-talk.lists.torproject.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/>
List-Post: <mailto:tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org
Sender: "tor-talk" <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Ryan Carboni <ryacko@gmail.com> wrote:
> In order to have a proper padding system, a lot more information needs to
> be leaked about current bandwidth demand.

That's only if you choose to attempt a padding-across-the-net
management scope, which is also going to be hard and slow to
manage and respond to bandwidth and other net dynamics.
(Though this was about GPA, it's probably also vulnerable to
endpoint interruption attacks that monitor your stream, unless
someone is there making up the padding slack at the far end.)
A wide scope seems hard in a low latency demand based net.
I'd suggest examining some form of next-hop, next-peer, or link
local padding scope negotiated with such peers. If you or your
peers get hit with demand, your negotiation distance is shorter.
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

