4 ms·
Shoring up Tor
- dfc 11y agoThe the discussion of the paper at the tor project or ars technica is much more informative for the HN crowd; if for no other reason than the simple fact that they include a link to the paper: Paper: http://people.csail.mit.edu/devadas/pubs/circuit_finger.pdf http://people.csail.mit.edu/devadas/pubs/circuit_finger.pdf TorProject: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/technical-summary-usenix-fingerprinting-paper https://blog.torproject.org/blog/technical-summary-usenix-fi... Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/07/new-attack-on-tor-can-deanonymize-hidden-services-with-surprising-accuracy/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/07/new-attack-on-tor-ca...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- belorn 11y agoI find it a bit telling that neither the paper, the arstechnica nor this article mentions the most common argument against fingerprint attacks are describe in the base rate fallacy. With 12% false positive rate that the paper mention, you still only need to visit a small number of websites to generate a false positive. I also doubt that the 12% is actually correct in real life circumstances, since the research only tested single traffic flows from clients and many website has JS that trigger simultaneous traffic flows while users browse the web in other tabs.
- torthrw 11y agoYeah. Browse the web with multiple tabs and every current fingerprinting attack is useless.
- user_235711 11y agoPrevious discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9967984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9967984
- emericaism 11y agodefinitely thought this was going to be an article about peter shor lol