[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Once again: Tor timing attacks and a Tor confession
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: Once again: Tor timing attacks and a Tor confession
- From: [email protected] (Georgi Guninski)
- Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:38:04 +0200
- In-reply-to: <CAD2Ti29is2Z-6qJFgh8OG1UrAHPae++PZyfZ1-iuADXG=Bd9pQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]$> <CAD2Ti2_+348bjcA5eaNrqvECU45=eJPspu0xhPdj4hntuP0cHQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]$> <CAD2Ti29is2Z-6qJFgh8OG1UrAHPae++PZyfZ1-iuADXG=Bd9pQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 05:30:05AM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
> No, food in detention is same either way.
> Yet must define problem to make solution.
> Some of each are more likely or easier than others.
As I asked in this thread:
Is it theoretically possible at all to make low latency anonymity
of sufficiently decent quality?
"sufficiently decent" is not well defined i agree.
Replace "sufficiently decent" by "perfect", or define it to be "provably
intractable" and do not assume hardness not proved unconditionally, like
P != NP.