>> The more interesting point is high vs low latency. I really like the >> idea of having a high-latency option in Tor. It would still need to >> have a lot of users to actually be useful, though. But it seems there >> are various protocols that would be ore high-latency-friendly than >> HTTP - SMTP, of course, and XMPP spring to mind. >> > I think if Tor had an arbitrary queue with store and forward as a high > latency module of sorts, we'd really be onto something. Then there would > be tons of traffic on the Tor relays for all kinds of reasons - high and > low latency - only to all be wrapped in TLS and then in the Tor protocol.
I was looking for something like this. It would be incompatible with anything that uses TCP, but better that way. I have always found weird that there is no a UDP-like transport in tor. IMHO only the TCP initial hand-shake gives your attacker enough info to leak your position easily (just a tought, never did any sort of serious tests on this) but UDP would be immune to it, even more if it's implemented using high-latency queues. Probably most existing UDP services should work unmodified. Best regards, Alfred _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
