On 12/6/15, Dave Garrett <davemgarr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, December 05, 2015 08:58:58 pm Salz, Rich wrote: >> Can we embed an EncryptedExtension inside an existing EE? That would let >> us do TOR purely within TLS, right? > > If clients are allowed to send any encrypted extensions other than the > tunneling extension (that contains the tunneled hello), then we would have > to allow sending an EncryptedExtension through it, otherwise tunneled peers > would have less capabilities than non-tunneled. I don't see anything in this > design that would prohibit recursively doing this as many times as desired. > (e.g. tunnel of a tunnel of a tunnel of a...) That does sound somewhat > TOR-like, though obviously, lots more would be needed to actually do > anything with that. If this can actually be done, it sounds very promising. >
I had a similar thought. There needs to be a way to blind each server that is two hops away to make it work: Alice connects to a server_0, the server routes to server_1, server_1 routes to server_2 and that passes the final TLS to Bob. Alice's TLS message needs to be passed to server_1 without every indicating in an encrypted fashion that server_2 is in the path. In this analogy, server_0 is like the Tor guard, server_1 is the middle node, and server_2 is the exit node. There are some issues with such a design - which is why Tor's design is to use TLS as an outer link layer and then internally to use 512 byte (or slightly larger) cells. I won't get into those here but I find the general idea of tls within tls to be useful. All the best, Jacob _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
