IRCaBot 2.1.0
GPLv3 © acetone, 2021-2022
#ls2
/2023/01/10
@eyedeekay
+R4SAS
+RN
+RN_
+T3s|4
+Xeha
+acetone
+orignal
+weko
Irc2PGuest89954
Leopold_
Onn4l7h
Onn4|7h
T3s|4_
aargh2
anon2
cancername
cancername_
eyedeekay_bnc
hk
not_bob_afk
profetikla
shiver_
u5657
x74a6
zzz I'm working on a nasty streaming problem and it's not going to be fun
dr|z3d what's the issue?
zzz I think it's a jrandom design flaw, but I'll need to kick out major to discuss further
zzz maybe later
dr|z3d oh, that bad. :|
weko zzz: can you comment my suggestion, please?
zzz weko, I agree with the issues dr|z3d said, and there's a lot more problems also
weko zzz: what problems? And I just don't understand, how publishing public info can deanonimize router.
zzz - you can't send a message _to_ the middle of a tunnel, because of tunnel encryption
zzz - you can't send a message _from_ the middle of a tunnel, because of tunnel encryption
weko zzz: garlic?
zzz - the OBEP doesn't know who created the tunnel and wouldn't know where to send the response
weko zzz: what is OBEP?
zzz - neither the middle hops nor the OBEP have any keys to encrypt a response
zzz outbound endpoint
weko zzz: we can say OBEP our inbound tunnel, how in tunnel creation tunnel.
weko zzz: routers can use keys, that thay recived from tunnel owner
zzz yes the OBEP knows what IBGW to send the tunnel build response to, but that IBGW may be gone later
zzz the keys are unique to the tunnel build process, they can't be used to encrypt arbitrary messages
weko zzz: we can say in IBGW every polling packet
zzz that's de-anonymizing
weko zzz: it is really hard to be changed?
weko zzz: why?
weko We send our tunnel data, nor our router data
zzz middle hops don't know if they are IB or OB
zzz middle hops shouldn't know the 'paired' IBGW of the creator
weko zzz: but IBGW and OBWP knowns. middle hops don't need knowing this
zzz middle hops don't know anything
zzz plus my first two issues
weko We don't say tunnel data for response for middle hops, only for OBEP
weko zzz: I answer to this issues
weko Can you say why I don't right?
zzz I don't understand, please try again
weko What you don't understand? What message?
zzz <weko> We don't say tunnel data for response for middle hops, only for OBEP
weko We use key, what we give OBEP; another routers can't encrypt this data
weko This is why we can say something to only one router
zzz these are the encryption problems:
weko Like in tunnel creation garlic, as I said before
zzz <zzz> - you can't send a message _to_ the middle of a tunnel, because of tunnel encryption
zzz <zzz> - you can't send a message _from_ the middle of a tunnel, because of tunnel encryption
zzz <zzz> - neither the middle hops nor the OBEP have any keys to encrypt a response
weko But we can implement this. This mechanism like a tunnel creation, but after of tunnel creation
zzz This is the anonymity problem:
zzz <zzz> - the OBEP doesn't know who created the tunnel and wouldn't know where to send the response
zzz sure, we can implement anything
weko We say OBEP our inbound tunnel
weko Like in tunnel creating
zzz <zzz> yes the OBEP knows what IBGW to send the tunnel build response to, but that IBGW may be gone later
zzz <zzz> the keys are unique to the tunnel build process, they can't be used to encrypt arbitrary messages
zzz I've told you why it's hard
zzz you tell me why it's important
weko 1. We say IBGW for response in every tunnel polling message
weko 2. But transits use encryption, that means transits already have symmetric encryption keys; we can use it keys.
weko zzz said we can't say sth to OBEP only (why?)
weko Okay, I think no actual issues, what means I can write proposal.
weko Should I write specific implementation details in proposal, or should I just describe how it works in detail?
weko If first I mean specific protocol example
weko In*