2018-hoang-empirical
findings extracted from this paper
-
Despite I2P's decentralized design, a censor can block more than 95% of peer IP addresses known to a stable I2P client by operating only 10 routers in the network. The censor learns this by passively monitoring the distributed netDb through injected floodfill and non-floodfill nodes, exploiting the fact that I2P's peer-discovery mechanism exposes the near-complete address space to any sufficiently resourced participant.
-
A blocking rate of more than 70% of I2P peer IP addresses is sufficient to cause significant latency in web browsing activities, while blocking more than 90% of peer IP addresses can make the I2P network unusable. The cost to reach the 95% blocking threshold is operating only 10 censor-controlled routers.
-
Of approximately 32K active I2P peers observed daily during a three-month measurement (February–April 2018), roughly 6,000 peers came from 30 countries with poor Press Freedom scores (index > 50); China led with more than 2,000 peers, followed by Singapore (~700) and Turkey (~600). This suggests I2P is being used as a Tor/VPN alternative in heavily censored regions, despite China configuring I2P peers to hidden mode by default.
-
I2P obfuscates payload content to prevent protocol identification, but flow analysis can still fingerprint I2P traffic because the first four handshake messages between I2P routers have fixed lengths of exactly 288, 304, 448, and 48 bytes. The I2P team acknowledged this and was developing an authenticated key agreement protocol to resist automated identification.
-
A simpler but effective complement to IP-list blocking is to block access to I2P's small set of hardcoded reseed servers: first-time users cannot fetch RouterInfos of other peers and are entirely prevented from joining the network. Reseed servers are functionally equivalent to Tor directory authorities as a single point of failure for bootstrapping.