From: “Mark M.” <markm@voicenet.com>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Message Hash: 0d1eb35b2ebd4530eae130665aef9501c139d598f5175bf8c0b2e420ef6951e8
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970609144908.769A-100000@purple.voicenet.com>
Reply To: <199706091758.KAA31403@fat.doobie.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-09 19:54:01 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 03:54:01 +0800
From: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 03:54:01 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Question about anonymizing proxies
In-Reply-To: <199706091758.KAA31403@fat.doobie.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970609144908.769A-100000@purple.voicenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote:
> Sorry if this has been beaten to death before (if it has, a pointer to
> where it is in the archives would be appreciated), but is it possible to
> chain anonymizing proxy servers in a way similar to remailers?
It is possible, but more difficult. A system that just chains and encrypts
through several different proxies keeps the traffic secret, but reveals
the source and destination of every connection using traffic analysis. The
NRL Onion Router scheme had this problem, I think. The way to avoid this
is to maintain constant connections between proxies and endpoints.
Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBM5xRdyzIPc7jvyFpAQERDQf/RLDiYPeQ+P/x0CKcRUvuQUxOO87nx8VL
+2YVOcgoF9uQ/UCL01NmrIAwnplW083HJN1s0TtlNxuKBx+I65Sk5dkoiBUyJDex
D+RsiqYIY3YiNa6zFs03oE9aAmv2lPXPW/zrLgX+CYZOei9XPB9LgBUm4ryzEbdF
H6ZtUSBtBvT8ZCTV25JUFy1mM8sfblqpvg7T9rYkC3OMdpelziqSwcGC86WOTyQ7
PujA4C36B1RuQ1Jd8FH2cfIStLHzyvN81MY12P+8oF1YsEpow6R286S6haGiT8z+
gZFC1tgykYn9D6Xr0BKzp5uHA+IVpvjv3ZxN8gJxDeUyYf2555KpCw==
=Jfpo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Return to June 1997
Return to “Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>”