ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
How much anonymity does network latency leak?
Full text PdfPdf (714 KB)
Source
Conference on Computer and Communications Security archive
Proceedings of the 14th ACM conference on Computer and communications security table of contents
Alexandria, Virginia, USA
SESSION: Anonymity table of contents
Pages: 82 - 91  
Year of Publication: 2007
ISBN:978-1-59593-703-2
Authors
Nicholas Hopper  University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Eugene Y. Vasserman  University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Eric Chan-Tin  University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGSAC: ACM Special Interest Group on Security, Audit, and Control
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 11,   Downloads (12 Months): 132,   Citation Count: 3
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1315245.1315257
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Low-latency anonymity systems such as Tor, AN.ON, Crowds, and Anonymizer.com aim to provide anonymous connections that are both untraceable by "local" adversaries who control only a few machines, and have low enough delay to support anonymous use of network services like web browsing and remote login. One consequence of these goals is that these services leak some information about the network latency between the sender and one or more nodes in the system. This paper reports on three experiments that partially measure the extent to which such leakage can compromise anonymity. First, using a public dataset of pairwise round-trip times (RTTs) between 2000 Internet hosts, we estimate that on average, knowing the network location of host A and the RTT to host B leaks 3.64 bits of information about the network location of B. Second, we describe an attack that allows a pair of colluding web sites to predict, based on local timing information and with no additional resources, whether two connections from the same Tor exit node are using the same circuit with 17% equal error rate. Finally, we describe an attack that allows a malicious website, with access to a network coordinate system and one corrupted Tor router, to recover roughly 6.8 bits of network location per hour.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
TOR (the onion router) servers. http://proxy.org/tor.shtml, 2007.
2
 
3
 
4
Blum, A., Song, D., and Venkataraman, S. Detection of interactive stepping stones: Algorithms and confidence bounds. Proc. 7th Intl Symposium on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection (RAID) (2004).
5
6
 
7
8
 
9
Danezis, G. Statistical disclosure attacks: Traffic confirmation in open environments. In Proc. Security and Privacy in the Age of Uncertainty, (SEC2003) (Athens, May 2003), IFIP TC11, Kluwer, pp. 421--426.
 
10
 
11
Díaz, C., and Serjantov, A. Generalising mixes. In Proc. 3rd Privacy Enhancing Technologies workshop (PET 2003) (March 2003), R. Dingledine, Ed., Springer-Verlag, LNCS 2760.
 
12
Dingledine, R., et al. Anonymity bibliography. http://freehaven.net/anonbib, 1999 - 2007.
 
13
 
14
 
15
Federrath, H., et al. JAP: Java anonymous proxy. http://anon.inf.tu-dresden.de/.
 
16
 
17
Gil, T. M., Kaashoek, F., Li, J., Morris, R., and Stribling, J. The "King" data set.http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/p2psim/kingdata/, 2005.
 
18
19
 
20
Hintz, A. Fingerprinting websites using traffic analysis. In Proc. 2nd Privacy Enhancing Technologies workshop (PET 2002) (April 2002), R. Dingledine and P. Syverson, Eds., Springer-Verlag, LNCS 2482.
 
21
jrandom, et al. I2P. http://www.i2p.net/, 2007.
 
22
 
23
Ledlie, J., Gardner, P., and Seltzer, M. Network coordinates in the wild. In Proc. 4th USENIX Symposium on Network Systems Design and Implementation (April 2007).
 
24
Mathewson, N., and Dingledine, R. Practical traffic analysis: Extending and resisting statistical disclosure. In Proc. 4th Privacy Enhancing Technologies workshop (PET 2004) (May 2004), vol. 3424 of LNCS, pp. 17--34.
 
25
Moeller, U., Cottrell, L., Palfrader, P., and Sassaman, L. IETF draft: Mixmaster protocol version 2. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sassaman-mixmaster-03.txt, 2005.
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
31
32
 
33
 
34
Serjantov, A., and Sewell, P. Passive attack analysis for connection-based anonymity systems. In Proc. ESORICS 2003 (October 2003).
 
35
 
36
 
37
 
38


Collaborative Colleagues:
Nicholas Hopper: colleagues
Eugene Y. Vasserman: colleagues
Eric Chan-Tin: colleagues