Re:US passes emergency waiver over fuel pipeline cyber-attack
by throwawayboise on Monday May 10, 2021 @02:48AM
(#27103361)
I don't know much about TOR but recall reading speculation that the NSA operates a majority of the exit nodes.
Re:US passes emergency waiver over fuel pipeline cyber-attack
by robert_foss on Monday May 10, 2021 @02:53AM
(#27103379)
Yes, you can pick tunnel length in I2P.
Re:US passes emergency waiver over fuel pipeline cyber-attack
by KMag on Monday May 10, 2021 @05:51AM
(#27104324)
But, can you allow some nodes to queue messages for a longer period of time?
Re:US passes emergency waiver over fuel pipeline cyber-attack
by robert_foss on Monday May 10, 2021 @06:20AM
(#27104442)
No, it is designed for low latency communication.
PSA: There are known traffic correlation attacks against Tor. It's not magic security dust you can sprinkle on a system. If you're doing thoughtcrimes, assume any G10 intelligence service can track you down. (If you're into extortion, human trafficking/exploiting children, or financing/advocating violence against civilians, then Tor is totally magic and is 100% guaranteed to make you invincible. Tor is all you need a-hole.)
Tor intentionally makes latency-privacy tradeoffs to make web browsing usable. I'm not familiar enough with Tor internals, but I believe applications have no control over these tradeoffs.
Anyone know if I2P allows applications to adjust latency/privacy tradeoffs? (Conceptually, you want your store-and-forward mixnet to use a priority queue for each hop, setting a deadline when each message arrives, and filling the pipe with expired messages first, and then non-expired messages in uniform random order. Applications more tolerant of latency get their traffic spread over a longer window. Per-hop latency targets should allow applications to avoid hop-to-hop correlations in latency targets.)