On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 08:42:44PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > If attackers break ciphers one decade later then Tor's forward secrecy > is compromised even for any collected forward secure operation today.
Should a way to break ciphers be developed, it is likely it will come at an execution cost. It makes a huge difference if you have been using PGP or TLS with off-the-mill ciphers like pidgin's, or if you have been using forward secret ciphers. It's likely the forward secret stuff will not be financially convenient to decrypt, at least for a while longer. > Our goal is common so it doesn't matter I join you or you join us, the > outcome belongs to people like any other free software :) Word. :) > This incident is similar to that Flickr paper that you already saw. > Attackers poll out real identities from another source (e.g IMDB) then try > correlate their patterns with side-channels of pseudonyms to deanonymize > vertices. Ok. This lesson is pretty important to learn. It is a big warning sign to anyone who thinks he's solved the problem by choosing a federation server with a .onion interface. Even worse, people that build complicated new interserver protocols sticking to the old paradigm. > >As I said it is like having n unicast downloads vs one Bittorrent. > >I don't need numbers to know, that the multicast architecture will > >be more efficient in most use cases, but I am sure research has > >plenty of numbers to offer. Please investigate. > > I think you are talking about pressure not bandwidth because 167 friend > download same amount of data from server if they try download it from > Bittorent either, and we don't care about pressure on server. Oh no, don't tell me you are not familiar with the Bittorrent architecture and why it has been so successful. I was trying to make it easier to grasp since generic multicast isn't so generally known. It goes beyond the scope of this list if I try to elaborate why a multicast distribution tree structure is massively more efficient than a unicast round robin (= "pressure on server"). Trees are what make it possible to have a billion people fetch a torrent from a single uploader, or to have a billion people hang out on Facebook. Without a distribution tree, only radio broadcast can come close. I think I have explained multicast in my part of the http://youbroketheinternet.org/#stallman video. That's an otherwise totally worthwhile video with Christian explaining GNUnet, @ioerror and RMS saying very wise things. > So you say that at first glance each pubsub node keep all blocks for all > other friendly pubsub nodes then furthermore we save the block on an > unreliable > Bittorrent network? In my opinion even friends are unreliable however > better than strangers. Those nodes that are part of the distribution tree simply keep some of the traffic they have passed on in a local cache, as much as they like. This allows for leaf nodes to arrive late and pick up what they missed without anyone else even finding out they had been offline. Should that cache be not enough, then the owner or any recipient of a channel may have the history of past messages. Depending on the purpose of the channel, this may be useful or intentionally disabled. > >Is social networking all about hi-res pictures and movie sharing? > > not all but most of the expensive part is that Only if we intend to combine social networking with file sharing, which - if everythings works out well - might actually happen. We would however still make everyone quite happy should we provide the regular Facebook/Twitter-like experience with reduced size pictures, four lines of description and a link back into the world wild web. -- http://youbroketheinternet.org ircs://psyced.org/youbroketheinternet -- tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
