Matthew Toseland wrote:
> No, but it might not cache it in the first place if it's the result of a
> local request. This is to beat the Register attack. Unfortunately it
> means that you are highly vulnerable to your immediate neighbours. It is
> possible to increase the effort needed to break your anonymity somewhat
> at the cost of performance.
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 10:16:02AM +0100, Volodya Mozhenkov wrote:
>
>>I have heard somewhere that in the 0.7 your node might chose not to give a
>>block that it has, in order to protect the anonymity. Is that true? If so
>>will that also apply at HTL=0?
Well, not necessarily. Here is one way to approach the problem:
1. Increase the probability of a forced decreace of HTL in the range of 15-25.
2. Keep it the same for 5-14
3. Actually have a larger chance of increase of HTL between 1-5.
Pseudocode:
If DATAINLOCALSTORE Then Return DATA
If HTL > 25 Then HTL = 25
If HTL <=25 AND HTL >=15 Then
If RANDOMNUMBER > 0.9 Then HTL = HTL-2
Elseif RANDOMNUMBER > 0.7 Then HTL = HTL-1
End If
If HTL <=1 AND HTL <=5 Then
If RANDOMNUMBER > 0.9 Then HTL = HTL+2
Elseif RANDOMNUMBER > 0.7 Then HTL = HTL+1
End If
Return GETDATA(HTL-1)
:End Pseudocode
As far as i understand it such thing already exists, i'm just saying that if
you play
around with numbers you make HTL=1 attack useless (since there is 30% chance
that the
request was passed to another node, and about 15% chance that it was passed to
more than
one). Of course if you make the numbers too large you risk requests going on
forever (or
nearly so).
--
===
Contact details:
Alt e-mail: k0324474 at kingston.ac.uk
ICQ: 253627744
Frost: VolodyA! V A at r0pa7z7JA1hAf2xtTt7AKLRe+yw
pm4pigs: VolodyA! V A at cbp7LznKx9JltftFQSSc2QVKhzc,5T0rxHZ7rar4uOtnHlSY5A
Forum: ethical_anarhist on www.kingstonuniversity.org
Please visit http://www.whengendarmesleeps.org/
When Gendarme Sleeps - Anarchy's Zine of Poetry
========================
"None of us are free until all of us are free."
~ Mihail Bakunin
