[freenet-dev] Weighted coin is better was Re: Moving to a simple coin was Re: Tunnels vs premix routing

[Matthew Toseland]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080123/e32d3946/attachment.pgp