-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
> I'd like to properly understand the implications of tor's > 'NodeFamily' config option and if there is a DirAuth enforcable > config option similar to this client side option (something I did > not find in the man page yet). > > names convention I'm using in this email > > * undeclared family a confirmed (by the operator) or likely group > of relays operated by a single entity or group > > * declared family a family defined by the list of fingerprints a > given relay publishes in the family line of its descriptor (for > simplicity we assume there are only fingerprints and ignore > everything else). > > * effective family the overlapping list of fingerprints between > declared family and mutually agreed relationships. The effective > family might be smaller (in terms of element count) or equal but > never bigger than the declared family. > > * client family family defined by the list of fingerprints > configured on a tor client via 'NodeFamily' > > * real effective family the set of fingerprints considered to be in > family after evaluating effective families and NodeFamily torrc > config lines > > > I assume a tor client becomes more unique as soon as he uses the > NodeFamily option but this "uniqueness" is expected to be hardly > measurable as long as NodeFamily is used reasonably (and the risks > of using multiple relays from a given undeclared family are > expected to be greater than this newly introduced uniqueness). > > Questions > > - Is it possible to (accidentally) reduce the size (by element > count) of a real effective family by using NodeFamily or is the > real effective family size always the bigger of size(effective > family) and size(client family)? > > Example: effective family is: A, B, C, D NodeFamily (accidentally) > is: A, B > > What is the resulting real effective family? 1) real eff. family = > A, B, C, D or 2) real eff. fam1 = A, B; rea eff. fam2 = C, D; > > > - Is it possible to (accidentally) create real effective families > by using NodeFamily that are bigger than size(effective family) or > size(client family)? (That implies that client families have the > power to link multiple families into one even though the client > family only lists a subset of thouse.) > > Example: eff. family1 = A, B, C eff. family2 = B, C, D > > A and D are not in the same family, is this still true after > setting NodeFamily: B, C or NodeFamily: A, B Example II: eff. family1 = X, Z eff. family2 = W, R Are X and R considered to be in one family after setting: NodeFamily: W, Z -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVcuGLAAoJEFv7XvVCELh0fUsQAKo9qVrWACNfNHu87piLOzBr k1PE77ZTLR0nXTktpZlhpau9y04LEa0HOKNapuzJar667246VbUUkICzMWa3z7cS hFZAQrz8Yzvfr2It8Dx2ByBRUf2j6GXzFhBFZ0b8VeMQpxWl+qh6ciMEO7KDwPJZ ZN35tKvA/YH4+G9Tf69o5Go9Xw4x6J8p6cNbfD4T9Hhrk8W434XfcqqoVMf5cMQn 7yCrQZquG6GPtjSRaeT7Wux1mrrHOtfhPcoPA+Y2O/Dmdx4qtgkor9FK83Z6OjbI jKzatbpLiO56OWTD6zxXSH3U6ZeMhsUtF9Mq0tYFDK7MaKYEq3QCzr1QRQKod/54 ZsPBQahd475aZHZJ2DNODjnFvyP0hamH0ZI53mnazXn+SaoWH1RE5b7aj5LVUrlR LszSaYcROZjg5l/G3pZG5hSu5EDrPklVUz2Z1SHjIJfCswDyct+IMrO4NecYa1h2 IDY+911WNN7vfG5GQADSxDO0GZXrtZyWA8pXFZMDBQN7Sn7qMm5mYoAzb1ZhSilL jobQeb6H52jOUY1mLx+o1cN+XZ83f28zT9FSwA9oJljI3313IZzC0067cRBB2+j/ OsHZ/qOwP6g0ZMJQaPJi7xm/WefrSPFl2xpnvanttpdlDNnfEPHWdZvmvNuebSSF vg3eJGnWMCGFGnX3nALQ =tfJd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
