[tor-talk] comparison of Tor and Kovri in regards to deanonymization attacks

[grarpamp]

I was curious for Monero dev's rationale to pick I2P over Tor
Whatever I've seen online doesn't strike me as particularly convincing.

Same could be asked of Zcash strong cryptographic ZKP style
currencies users often using Tor. As well as a handful of other
cryptocurrencies explicitly advertised and designed to use
with Tor.

Whatever I've seen online doesn't strike me as particularly convincing.
Is there published research in regards to deanonymization attacks against
both Tor and I2P

Some are here, some are in sites of other messaging systems...
https://www.freehaven.net/anonbib


All overlay networks currently in production are
massively vulnerable to at least two classes of attack
by sufficiently interested and capable adversaries...


1) Sybil
a) This requires people to actually use PKI to make and use
assertions and identities and to punt the results they get from
their deep social anal probing of each other in real life as
operator peers worldwide... into the consensus, DHT, or whatever
mechanism each network uses for node approval and selection.
b) Also requires complete ongoing analysis of all known physical
and logical metadata and behaviour of the nodes themselves.


2) Global Passive Monitoring
The US NSA, Global and Regional Telecom Corporations,
and other Entities Worldwide, acting both separately and
together, have a complete passive and active view of the
internet from at minimum the Global Tier-1 ISP Level,
including significant analysis and recording capabilities
therein.

Yet everyone still stupidly fails to execute at least a few of
the seemingly available and reasonable countermeasures...

a) Encrypt Everything.
Automatic, on by default, strong crypto suites, forward
secrecy, tofu, psk, rekeying, whatever works best, etc... both...
1) By and between end to end users, same for server to server...
2) On all physical network links worldwide, every port
automagic and independant... fiber, copper, radio, etc...
embedded in the network hardware itself via RFC, IEEE, etc

b) Deploy fulltime network fill traffic aka chaff, to fill the committed
capacity that each node provisioned itself into the [overlay]
network with, dynamically yielding room for and upon native traffic.
This applies both to, logical nets 2a1, and physical nets 2a2, above.

c) Politics, Anarchism, Cryptocurrency Crowdfunding, and
whatever else works to uproot and route around persistant
known bad actors.


3) Etc


Nobody seems to want to do much on the above, to actually
shape those into effective global project efforts, to deploy any
sufficient mitigation finally therein, therefore the vulnerabilities
shall remain.

#OpenFabs , #OpenHW , #OpenSW , #OpenDev , #OpenBiz , #CryptoCurrency
, #Anarchism , #SybilBusters , #EncryptEverything , #FillEverything
... the list gets longer.


Anyone can launch rockets these days.
So there is no reason any of the above and more can't be done.
Go build and launch some rockets.

[grarpamp]

- I2P can be attacked with far less resources than Tor;

Moot when $10k is probably enough to Sybil at least
some small fraction of either of them.

- Tor is deeply researched and various attack types and problems have
already been solved;

So if Tor is done, why don't you start writing grants to reseach,
advance, and solve some of the undone, equally applicable,
and necessary problem space of mixnets and other potential
designs, instead of continuing to throw [government] money
at Tor's curve of diminishing returns.

- Tor is larger as a network with more capacity, and more diversity;

Start advertising, using, analysing other types of networks then.

They also have different purposes so they cannot be directly compared on
absolutely every feature

Why do so many reviews keep implying this copout,
"B network doesn't have X feature therefore B sucks"...
of course networks are different, unique features are
not detractions they're just incomparable items,
go compare and analyse the similar features then.

Both Tor and I2P generally claim their non-exit modes
to be anonymous advanced designs resistant to attack.
Go compare and analyze that. If you don't like the results,
go start new designs.

Reviews can even conform features... users can
actually torrent internally over both, and exit over
both... analyze that.

Many orthagonal features are modular ideas embeddable
in any decent network anyway, so they're not necessarily
unique, only a matter of doing it, if sensible of course.

- I2P is more oriented for traffic inside the I2P network (e.g. you
cannot browse cnn.com anonymously via I2P).

Yes you can, you just have to find or be an exit outproxy service
and configure it manually.
Government: Initialed the Tor design, put in Decades of $Millions
of controlling interest funding, and programmed Marketing.

Throw those kind of resources at I2P or any other network
and they would be relatively equal contenders too.

Throw Voluntary versions of those kinds of resources
at any network, and it might be a bit more novel and free
to go up against the backer of the "successful" one above.

- Tor has a modified browser which is a fork of firefox-esr called Tor
Browser Bundle which is easy to click and run with Tor. I2P until now
there is no official browser supporting it and user needs to do the
configurations manually.

So stuff I2P inside TBB's work and call it IBB.

[grarpamp]

Post by grarpamp
instead of continuing to throw [government] money

Sorry, didn't mean to imply it was theirs...
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=taxation+is+theft

Carry on.