On 06/30/2009 10:20 PM, Michael wrote: > accept *.google.com:80 thinking aloud...
What if: o Google was supportive of "good" uses of Tor, for its services o Google ran an exit in its IP space(s) matching the exits as masked above o Tor had a method to back-propagate signed kill commands based on the key of the originating node Then, if Google were being abused by a spammer running tor, it could sign a message, originating in its IP space, asking to kill requests for its IP space from a particular tor entry (these would have to expire fairly soon). Tor nodes could note, exchange, and drop those connections. Such messages from other IP spaces would be ignored. If abusers are hard to catch and rampantly abusing tor this could lead to really big tables. But short of that it might make for Tor being too hard to use for abuse, and disinterest those people. Problems would be: Google being evil, somebody with control of lots of IP spaces joining tor and trying to fill relays' memory with lots of such rules. An additional layer of trust could be built outside tor such that somebody at Tor project could sign Google's kill key, using PGP WOT or similar; even X.509 if we trust that (throw up a CSR-like thing on webpage secured by HTTPS). To the extent that somebody like Google has lots of data centers, anycasts, etc., their cost would be higher to implement such policies, but probably they have the capacity. -Bill -- Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 http://www.bfccomputing.com/ Cell: 603.252.2606 Twitter, etc.: bill_mcgonigle Page: 603.442.1833 Email, IM, VOIP: [email protected] Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf
