Nmap Security Scanner
*Intro
*Ref Guide
*Install Guide
*Download
*Changelog
*Book
*Docs
Security Lists
*Nmap Hackers
*Nmap Dev
*Bugtraq
*Full Disclosure
*Pen Test
*Basics
*More
Security Tools
*Pass crackers
*Sniffers
*Vuln Scanners
*Web scanners
*Wireless
*Exploitation
*Packet crafters
*More
Site News
Site Search:
Exploit World
Advertising
About/Contact
Credits
Sponsors:
edgeos



Security Basics: RFC: mechanisms for anonymizing distributed search

RFC: mechanisms for anonymizing distributed search

From: <jcr13_at_users.sf.net>
Date: 23 Mar 2005 20:57:02 -0000
('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) Realtime search can be accomplished in a distributed setting by broadcasting a search request through a mesh network so that it is processed by all nodes in a particular neighborhood of the network. Various deterministic mechanisms can be used to control the scope of the broadcast (such as TTLs or utility counters). These mechanisms work well to achieve a limited exponential blow-up: they quickly deliver a message to a large collection of nodes while also ensuring that a message does not affect the entire network.

In a setting where the anonymity of searchers and result-senders is important, these deterministic limiting mechanisms give attackers too much information about how far a search has traveled and too much control over how much farther it will go.

I have been developing mechanisms that work in conjunction with deterministic limiters to make search anonymous. Recently, new attacks involving coordinated neighbor nodes were discovered, and I have updated my mechanisms to deal with these attacks.

The document describing these mechanisms is here:

http://mute-net.sf.net/utilityCounters.shtml

The discussion of security- and anonymity-related issues starts in section 9. New materal that deals with multi-neighbor attacks starts in section 10.1

Part of the document's focus is on utility counters, an alternative limiting mechanism that is more scalable than TTLs. However, the anonymizing mechanisms will work just as well with more traditional TTL schemes. Also, as shown in section 10.4, utility counters are not compatible with anonymity goals, though they would be a great improvement over TTLs in a system where anonymity is not important.

Comments are requested,
Jason Rohrer

--
http://jasonrohrer.n3.net
Received on Mar 23 2005
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]