FINDING · DETECTION
The zig-zag traffic analysis attack (confirmed supported in Geedge TSG leak) rapidly enumerates all static proxy pools. With ζ_watch ∈ {4, 6} steps and a best-quality classifier (ρ_TP=0.99, ρ_FP=0.001), almost total proxy enumeration and user blockage occurs well before step 300. Even ζ_watch=2 leaves ~50% of users blocked. Collateral damage is high across all settings when ζ_watch ≥ 4: eventually ~50% of innocent servers are also blocked. However, Snowflake-style ephemeral proxies resist zig-zag effectively: reachability remains above 95% after 360 steps because churn prevents the censor from expanding its known proxy set beyond agents' direct assignments.
From 2026-fares-game — The Game Has Changed: Revisiting proxy distribution and game theory · §5.1, Fig 3, Fig 4 · 2026 · Free and Open Communications on the Internet
Implications
- Static server-side proxies (fixed IP, long lifetime) are critically vulnerable to zig-zag once even a few censor-controlled clients connect to them; Lantern's infrastructure proxies should rotate IPs or be front-ended by CDN/fronting layers to break the proxy→client→new-proxy enumeration chain.
- Geedge's TSG implements zig-zag natively per the leak; Lantern deployments in countries using Geedge (Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Myanmar, Ethiopia) face this attack today—the mitigation is ephemeral peer proxies or IP rotation, not distribution algorithm tuning.
Tags
Extracted by claude-sonnet-4-6 — review before relying.