Delivery-Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 15:11:48 -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=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
	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 DDF301E0F84;
	Tue,  7 Oct 2014 15:11:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3193110A;
	Tue,  7 Oct 2014 19:11:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2672310B5
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue,  7 Oct 2014 19:11:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eugeni.torproject.org
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 45j9MDvY_gkp for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Tue,  7 Oct 2014 19:11:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from atl4mhob15.myregisteredsite.com
 (atl4mhob15.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.53])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8670D310B3
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue,  7 Oct 2014 19:11:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.205])
 by atl4mhob15.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id
 s97JBZ2v022218
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 15:11:35 -0400
Received: (qmail 21019 invoked by uid 0); 7 Oct 2014 19:11:35 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 162.17.205.153
X-Authenticated-UID: datzrott@alizeepathology.com
Received: from unknown (HELO ALPATH26)
 (datzrott@alizeepathology.com@162.17.205.153)
 by 0 with ESMTPA; 7 Oct 2014 19:11:34 -0000
From: "Derric Atzrott" <datzrott@alizeepathology.com>
To: <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
References: <CAD2Ti2-1HZ=j=GYyvDqnVvD1SJs3gt_GT3Ht3VFQeBURSDqxkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141007205026.3eec5ba7@meilong>
In-Reply-To: <20141007205026.3eec5ba7@meilong>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 15:11:34 -0400
Organization: Alizee Pathology LLC.
Message-ID: <011201cfe262$82fcc630$88f65290$@alizeepathology.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQI+z79Wyjl/gdpBFu92Gd1mHkzJ9gD+ubJTmz8uIPA=
Content-Language: en-gb
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Another Tor is Possible, Kane/Ksec
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>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>> http://cryptome.org/2014/10/another-tor.pdf
> 
> The idea here is to make a "anonymity" network where it is possible to
> reveal any users IP if the majority of the relays in the network agree
> that this particular person should have their anonymity "revoked".
>
> You get to be "anonymous" until/unless "the majority" decides you should
> no longer be anonymous. "The majority" could simply mean "any adversary
> with the resources to run enough relays to be the majority.

I notice that the scheme also requires the directory servers to be the
folks that choose the random path that a message takes through the Tor
network.  This seems like a poorly thought out choice to me.  If a
directory turns out to be untrustworthy it could easily route a client
through a path that allows it to determine who the client is, what they
are sending, and to whom they are sending it.

This scheme in general gives a lot of power to the directory servers.

At least that is my reading of it.  I'm definitely no expert in this
topic.

Thank you,
Derric Atzrott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFUNDrbRHoDdZBwKDgRAoV3AJ9KQAqQmGxAkH6aCZULfzye+FQDuACgn7GB
80gQA4O/AQAny7f4uxXfgAc=
=dUD/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
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

