2006-dingledine-design
findings extracted from this paper
-
Tor's public relay list (a few thousand IP addresses as of 2006) can be trivially enumerated and blocked by a censor. The paper proposes 'bridge relays' drawn from Tor's existing user base of hundreds of thousands of people, creating a pool of frequently-changing IP addresses that is too large and dynamic for a censor to enumerate completely. Bridge relays rate-limit relayed connections to ~10 KB/s and publish descriptors only to a private bridge directory authority rather than the public consensus.
-
The paper proposes dividing public bridge addresses into 8 pools (n=3 bits from HMAC(identity-key, authority-secret)) each assigned a distinct distribution strategy: time-windowed release, IP-subnet-partitioned assignment, time+location combined, mailing-list rotation, email/CAPTCHA delivery, and social-trust delegation. Deploying all strategies concurrently forces the attacker to allocate resources across every channel simultaneously, making all strategies more robust than any single strategy deployed alone.
-
If bridges run on predictable ports and any TCP connection to a bridge port reveals it as a Tor bridge, a censor can scan the entire address space of residential ISP ranges to enumerate and block all bridges. The paper proposes 'scanning resistance': bridges require a nonced hash of a pre-shared password before revealing Tor behavior, and respond to unauthenticated connections by impersonating an ordinary HTTPS server (e.g., default Apache page or a random legitimate website).
-
Tor's 2006 TLS handshake contained multiple identifying fingerprints exploitable by censors: the X.509 organizationName field was set to 'Tor', the relay nickname appeared in the commonName field, clients always presented certificates (unlike browsers), and Tor used two-certificate chains (identity cert + per-session TLS cert) while most consumer HTTPS services use a single certificate. The paper flags these as sufficient for a censor to identify Tor traffic without deep payload inspection.
-
Tor encrypts payload but does not obscure traffic volume, leaving a residual publisher-vs-reader asymmetry: a user publishing a home video generates a markedly different upload/download ratio than one reading news. The paper also notes that website fingerprinting attacks — where the adversary pre-downloads hundreds of popular sites and matches traffic patterns to a Tor client's stream — remain possible even through bridge circuits, and are exacerbated by Tor's varying supported protocols (web vs. IM produce different timing signatures).