1993-02-23 - Re: Anon address attack…

Header Data

From: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: cc9fca7b362213c360f5321f97ca86ac47f34b5a249feaa195f03af7f7164582
Message ID: <9302230700.AA03047@toad.com>
Reply To: <930223022107_74076.1041_DHJ66-1@CompuServe.COM>
UTC Datetime: 1993-02-23 07:00:28 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 23:00:28 PST

Raw message

From: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 23:00:28 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Anon address attack...
In-Reply-To: <930223022107_74076.1041_DHJ66-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <9302230700.AA03047@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> One possibility (which might not be that easy technically) would be to
> assign a new anonymous ID for each such message through the Penet server.

I was thinking of installing a trivial hack in my remailer, such that
upon demand it adds some random (essentially unrepeatable) cruft to
the From: line, placing it as a name field so as to have no
addressing significance.  I believe penet assigns IDs based on this
line, so chaining this to a penet-style remailer would provide
"hit-and-run" anonymity -- even if the remailer wants nothing of the
sort.  The social desirability of this could be questioned, but it
certainly seems more secure to built pseudonyms on top of something
like this (using PGP sigs to provide a solid identity) than through
the presently-popular approach.  Comments?  (Julf?)

> Hal Finney

	 PGP 2 key by finger or e-mail
   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu