On Wednesday 23 January 2008 15:08, Michael Rogers wrote: > On Jan 23 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > If we are assume: - We are only interested in local predecessor samples > > i.e. probability that originator == requestor. - We are only considering > > failed requests. - There are no timeouts. - A typical request has m hops > > where a positive sample may be taken and n hops where a negative sample > > may be taken. > > Sorry, which scheme are you talking about here? If it's the current scheme > then the attacker doesn't need to consider the hop count, the nearest > location attack completely breaks anonymity. If it's the weighted coin > scheme then there aren't any negative samples, are there?
I am talking about a hypothetical, generalised scheme which doesn't have the nearestLoc: weighted coin on the one extreme, and adaptations of the current scheme without nearestLoc on the other. > > Cheers, > Michael
pgpemO5jhhxaq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
