Transcript How Much Anonymity does Network Latency Leak?

How Much Anonymity does
Network Latency Leak?
Paper by: Nicholas Hopper, Eugene
Vasserman, Eric Chan-Tin
Presented by: Dan Czerniewski
October 3, 2011
• Goal of every anonymous communication
scheme is to allow users to communicate
while concealing information about who
communicates with whom.
The Idea
• Chaum proposed sending messages through a
“Mix server” that mixes together messages
from several senders before forwarding these
messages to their destinations, concealing
relationship between sender and receiver.
• There are many schemes, yet all rely on
“mixing” relays.
High-latency
• Like Mixmaster and Mixminion
• Deliver messages at a significant delay
• Schemes implement countermeasures that
increase delay
– Pool Mixing
– Consume Bandwidth
• Cover Traffic
Low-Latency
• Like Tor, I2P, AN.ON, Crowds, Anonymizer.com
• Commercial proxy aggregators
• Allows anonymous use of application services
– Remote login and web browsing
• Reduced anonymity guaranteed
• Security against “local” adversary
• Malicious servers acting as local adversaries can
observe the network latency of a connection
made over a Tor circuit
• 3 experiments that measure the extent to which
this information leakage compromises the
anonymity of clients using a low-latency
anonymity scheme
– Analysis of noise-free anonymity leakage
– A passive linkability attack
– An active client-identification attack
Quick overview of Tor
• Low-latency, bandwidth-efficient, anonymizing
layer for TCP streams
• With use of at least 3 nodes, no node knows
the identities of both communicating parties
Latency without Noise
• Anonymity circuit imposed no delay at all
• Difference between connecting to a server
normally and over the anonymity service is in
the latter, the client’s IP address is missing
• Best possible case for an attack based solely
on Round-Trip Time (RTT) information.
• Analyzed on MIT King Data Set and PlanetLab
systems
Circuit Linking via Latency
• 2 colluding servers both accept connections
from the same exit node
• The 2 servers try to determine whether they
are communicating with different clients or
the same client.
Are they the same?
• The servers have to calculate the RTT between
each node in the connection
• The servers then have to calculate the
“queueing” time for each node
• Add everything to gether
• If everything is equivalent, then it indicates
probabilistically they are the same
• If not, they come from different distributions
Attack by the server
• Sends HTML with 1000 separate tags printing
empty images.
• Causes browser to make 1000 separate
connections to server.
• The amount of calls varies, but with a possible
24 concurrent connections,
this requires about 42 “rounds”
of connections.
2 different tests
• Comparison of means
– Confidence interval for the mean of each sample
population with traversal at fixed time
• Kolmogorov-Smirnov
– Computes the largest difference in cumulative
probability density between two sample sets
• Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves
– Each point corresponds to the true positive and false
positive rates for one setting of the rejection
thresholds
Client Location Via Latency
• Adversary is three logical entities: Aserver,
Aclient and Ator
• Goal is to identify V’s network latency
The Attack
• Basic Idea
– Calculate the RTT between V and E
• 3 steps
– Measuring first hop latency
– Estimating candidate RTTs
– Eliminating Candidates
Measuring first hop latency
• Aserver and Ator can determine circuit order
after several iterations
• Aclient connects using the circuit and
calculates RTT
• With information we can estimate the RTT
from V to E
Estimating candidate RTTs
• Need a method to obtain the RTT between
two hosts without explicit cooperation of
either
• Vivaldi embedding algorithm
– Ease of implementation
– Disadvantage: in order to be accurate without
cooperation, several nodes must be used for the
service
Eliminating Candidates
• Check all candidates to see if their RTTs are
consistent with the estimated RTT between V
and E
• Accepting means the RTT is within 85% of the
estimate RTT between V and E
Limitations
• Limited data on conditional information gain
• Client location attack assumes that a user
repeatedly accesses a server from the same
network location
Mitigation
• Onion routing minimizes the success
probability of Murdoch-Danezis’ clogging
attack
• Adding sufficient delays to make the RTT and
timing characteristics of Tor servers
independent of the underlying network
topology
Thank you!
• Questions?