3 ms·
Yes I know. My point was that yupyupyups said: >Contrast this model with Tor where you have 3 hops that are selected in such a way that there is a lower probab
by Arnavion 2y ago
Yes I know. My point was that yupyupyups said:
>Contrast this model with Tor where you have 3 hops that are selected in such a way that there is a lower probability that logs from the node operators will be combined
"selected in such a way" sounded like there is something in Tor that actively works against a situation where the hops are owned by the same operator, but AFAIK there isn't such a thing. Hence my request for confirmation that the only thing Tor does better than the Apple+Cloudflare situation here is that it has more than two hops so that it increases the number of colluders needed for correlation.
- chatmasta 2y agoYeah, all true. In fact Tor explicitly forgoes any mitigation against a global passive adversary - it’s designed to accept that risk. Another thing Tor does better is that it creates circuits with nodes spanning multiple jurisdictions, whereas Private Relay circuits are confined to one jurisdiction (and worse, to your current one). > actively works against a situation where the hops are owned by the same operator, but AFAIK there isn't such a thing Right, there is nothing Tor can do to guarantee this, but it does take some best-effort measures like maximizing diversity of AS providers (you won’t get a circuit of three nodes with the same AS number). Of course this is meaningless in a world where anyone can purchase servers from anywhere. There is a lot of research on this attack vector against Tor (and p2p networks in general) - the relevant search term is “Sybil resistance.” Btw - just to add some detail to the discussion, this blog post from Cloudflare is a good introduction to Private Relay: https://blog.cloudflare.com/icloud-private-relay https://blog.cloudflare.com/icloud-private-relay