|
|
|
|
|
by FiloSottile
829 days ago
|
|
We considered this design and rejected it because it requires an ultimately unwinnable cat-and-mouse game of fingerprint resistance. Things the log can use to partition the users include their Tor version, HTTP library behavior, contact periodicity... the list goes on and on, and keeps restricting the use cases where it can be deployed securely even just in theory. Witness cosigning is secure even if the way you fetch the proofs is completely attacker-controlled, which is closer to user expectations of regular digital signatures. |
|
Additional measure is that the TOR integration with the help of Arti project is deployed with the client. That ensures that every client does make the requests in the same way. It is surelly important to not disclose the server any local data or make identity revealing requests within the same session like giving away clients local commitment index before the server has shown their current commitment. Using anonymous channel for ensuring global consitency for sure is not universal but for some applications it is doable if the problem is approached holistically particularly in situations where anonymous channel is already needed within the protocol.
> Witness cosigning is secure even if the way you fetch the proofs is completely attacker-controlled
Opting for this approach makes sense if the protocol doesn't initially require an anonymous communication channel. However, if the protocol already uses it, introducing an additional assumption for trusted witnesses adds complexity.