Hi George,
George Kadianakis wrote:
> Hello s7r,
>
> and thanks for helping with this and approaching it from a different
> direction.
>
> Personally, I'd be really surprised if any solution that statistically
> marks relays or paths as "suspicious" will ever work for this particular
> problem.
Hello Tim,
Thank you very much for the comments. Please see my inline answers as I
think I didn't explain good enough, most of the issues are not actually
a problem.
teor wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> A rendezvous relay is considered suspicious when the number of
>> successfully established circuits in
s7r writes:
> George Kadianakis wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> here is some background information and summarizing of proposal 247
>> "Defending Against Guard Discovery Attacks using Vanguards" for people
>> who plan to work on this in the short-term future.
>>
>
> Hello,
>
> I have
> On 3 Jul 2017, at 06:02, s7r wrote:
>
> George Kadianakis wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> here is some background information and summarizing of proposal 247
>> "Defending Against Guard Discovery Attacks using Vanguards" for people
>> who plan to work on this in the short-term
George Kadianakis wrote:
> Hello,
>
> here is some background information and summarizing of proposal 247
> "Defending Against Guard Discovery Attacks using Vanguards" for people
> who plan to work on this in the short-term future.
>
Hello,
I have discussed in Amsterdam briefly with David
Hi George,
On Wednesday 17 May 2017 05:21 PM, George Kadianakis wrote:
> 1.1. Visuals
>
> Here is how a hidden service rendezvous circuit currently looks like:
>
> -> middle_1 -> middle_A
> -> middle_2 -> middle_B
> -> middle_3 ->
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 02:51:48PM +0300, George Kadianakis wrote:
> Design topics
>
> * Optimize proposal parameters
> ** Optimize guardset sizes
> ** Optimize guardset lifetimes and prob distributions (minXX/maxXX/uniform?)
> ** To take informed