4 ms·
I assume a Tor user with js turned off would be immune to this?
by jonahx 12y ago
I assume a Tor user with js turned off would be immune to this?
- robertfw 12y agoI wonder if something similar could be done with detecting specifically sized images?
- leonh 12y agoI think this will be a bit harder, as you don't really have control in what order the images are being loaded. They could be loaded in parallel for example. If you try to circumvent it by adding delay's on the server side you quickly block the browser as you will reach the maximum amount of parallel connections.
- AnthonyMouse 12y agoYou're all making this much too complicated. Who needs the client to make multiple requests when you control the server? Client does "GET /" and the server starts sending a large index.html using irregular sized packets at specific intervals. But suppose we broke it, now we have to fix it, right? Start padding everything to power-of-two size boundaries with a minimum of 16. Or if that would make Tor traffic too identifiable, then instead add random()%packetsize padding to each packet. Either would reduce the number of detectable packet sizes below a 1500 byte MTU to 8 at the cost of less than doubling the bandwidth consumption.
- leonh 12y agoI don't think so. What you could do is have the webserver set up chunked encoding on a resource (say an image) and vary the size of the chunks for each user.
- Jayschwa 12y agoI thought Tor padded all packets to obscure payload size. Is this not true, or does this method work in some other way I'm not grokking?