1996-06-07 - Re: Multiple Remailers at a site?

Header Data

From: nelson@crynwr.com
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 08f30023e4c1575095d8b0c2ba8fde7d6969b10edc481c851238f4a52bdfe452
Message ID: <19960607045419.11244.qmail@ns.crynwr.com>
Reply To: <19960604232157.2053.qmail@ns.crynwr.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-06-07 11:06:22 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:06:22 +0800

Raw message

From: nelson@crynwr.com
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:06:22 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Multiple Remailers at a site?
In-Reply-To: <19960604232157.2053.qmail@ns.crynwr.com>
Message-ID: <19960607045419.11244.qmail@ns.crynwr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Sorry to be following up to my own message Yet Again, but I see a hole
in my analysis that needs patching.

If you have a mixmaster host M, with certain characteristics (latency,
reordering, and traffic volume), that is NOT identical in security to
a mixmaster network M with identical characteristics, but in which
some hosts are not trustable.  The non-trustable host(s) keep track of
their latency, reordering, and traffic volume, so it's removed from
the characteristics of the network above.

Therefore, to keep the characteristics of the trusted host constant
when converting into a partially trusted network, each of the
individual hosts needs to increase their parameters by some amount
(which amount someone else will have to contribute, cuz I have no clue
and need sleep).

-russ <nelson@crynwr.com>    http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr Software   | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | PGP ok
11 Grant St.      | +1 315 268 1925 voice | It's no mistake to err on
Potsdam, NY 13676 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | the side of freedom.





Thread