Paul Syverson wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 02:46:20AM -0700, Mike Perry wrote:
>
>> Thus spake Paul Syverson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>>
>>
...
I don't understand a single bit of mathematics in this paper.
Although one symbol looks like Integration function.
Damn.. why ar
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 02:46:20AM -0700, Mike Perry wrote:
> Thus spake Paul Syverson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > Anyway, the main reason I'm writing is that my objection was not just
> > that the GPA was too strong but that it was too weak. Thinking you
> > could have an adversary powerful enough
.mspx
Regards,
Tony.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Eugen Leitl
Sent: Wed 30/05/2007 13:57
To: or-talk@freehaven.net
Subject: Re: Sampled Traffic Analysis by Internet-Exchange-Level Adversaries
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 01:36:03PM +0100, Tony wrote:
> Windows
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 01:36:03PM +0100, Tony wrote:
> Windows has offered over 10 Gigabit throughput on a workstation (running
> Windows Server 2003) since 2005...
>
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/AMD_10_GbE_Performance_Paper_August05.pdf
Totally different
Thus spake Paul Syverson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Anyway, the main reason I'm writing is that my objection was not just
> that the GPA was too strong but that it was too weak. Thinking you
> could have an adversary powerful enough to monitor all the links
> necessary to watch your whole large networ
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 04:23:51AM -0700, coderman wrote:
> On 5/28/07, Steven Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >...
> >I do think that a global passive adversary is stronger than the real
> >world situation. For example, such an adversary could read traffic
> >between two computers in my offic
] on behalf of Eugen Leitl
Sent: Mon 28/05/2007 21:22
To: or-talk@freehaven.net
Subject: Re: Sampled Traffic Analysis by Internet-Exchange-Level Adversaries
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 04:23:51AM -0700, coderman wrote:
> ah, agreed; i was unaware of such a myth, and the thought of someone
> try
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 04:23:51AM -0700, coderman wrote:
> ah, agreed; i was unaware of such a myth, and the thought of someone
> trying to inspect 10GigE with a workstation and wireshark is comical.
Solaris 10 TCP/IP stack rewrite claims 10 GBit/s throughput, but I
have not seen this independen
On 5/28/07, Steven Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
I do think that a global passive adversary is stronger than the real
world situation. For example, such an adversary could read traffic
between two computers in my office, which I suspect is outside of the
NSA's capabilities, unless I were
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 03:36:05AM -0700, coderman wrote:
> you state "an assumption that the global passive adversary is
> unrealistic". is this really true in anonymity research circles?
The convention in anonymity research is to assume a global passive
adversary, since then any system shown to
On 5/28/07, coderman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... is the assumption that inspection at
OC/WDM layers is too cumbersome/expensive for all but the previously
mentioned TLA/$gov adversaries?
one more comment that ties into your mention PCIe bus limitations.
previous research on monitoring high s
On 5/28/07, Steven Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... an experiment to establish how diverse the topology of the Tor network
is -- an important component of how secure it is against traffic
analysis. ...
I've now finished the draft version of the resulting paper...
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/
12 matches
Mail list logo
