A Survey of Anonymous Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing

  • Tom Chothia
  • Konstantinos Chatzikokolakis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3823)


This paper provides a survey of searchable, peer-to-peer file-sharing systems that offer the user some form of anonymity. We start this survey by giving a brief description of the most popular methods of providing anonymous communication. These include the Ants protocol, Onion routing, Multicasting, MIXes and UDP address spoofing. We then describe a number of implemented systems based on one, or a combination of, these methods. Finally, we discuss possible attacks on the anonymity of these systems and give examples of particular attacks and defences used by the systems we describe.


Transmission Control Protocol User Datagram Protocol Anonymous Communication Privacy Enhance Technology Pseudo Identity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. [BASM04]
    Bono, S., Soghoian, C.A., Monrose, F.: Mantis: A high-performance, anonymity preserving, p2p network, Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute Technical Report TR-2004-01-B-ISI-JHU (2004)Google Scholar
  2. [BMS01]
    Back, A., Möller, U., Stiglic, A.: Traffic analysis attacks and trade-offs in anonymity providing systems. In: Moskowitz, I.S. (ed.) IH 2001. LNCS, vol. 2137, p. 245. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [Cha81]
    Chaum, D.: Untraceable electronic mail, return addresses, and digital pseudonyms. Communications of the ACM 4(2) (February 1981)Google Scholar
  4. [Cha88]
    Chaum, D.: The dining cryptographers problem: Unconditional sender and recipient untranceability. Communications of the ACM 24(2) (1988)Google Scholar
  5. [CSWH01]
    Clarke, I., Sandberg, O., Wiley, B., Hong, T.W.: Freenet: A distributed anonymous information storage and retrieval system. In: Federrath, H. (ed.) Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies. LNCS, vol. 2009, p. 46. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [Dee89]
    Deering, S.: Rfc 1112 host extensions for ip multicasting (August 1989)Google Scholar
  7. [DFM00]
    Dingledine, R., Freedman, M.J., Molnar, D.: The free haven project: Distributed anonymous storage service. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability (July 2000)Google Scholar
  8. [DKK+05]
    Dumitriu, D., Knightly, E., Kuzmanovic, A., Stoica, I., Zwaenepoel, W.: Denial-of-service resilience in peer-to-peer file sharing systems. SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev. 33(1), 38–49 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [DMS04]
    Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N., Syverson, P.: Tor: The second-generation onion router. In: Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Security Symposium (2004)Google Scholar
  10. [DO00]
    Dolev, S., Ostrovsky, R.: Xor-trees for efficient anonymous multicast and reception. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 3(2), 63–84 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [Dou02]
    Douceur, J.R.: The sybil attack. In: Druschel, P., Kaashoek, M.F., Rowstron, A. (eds.) IPTPS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2429, p. 251. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [GSB02]
    Gunes, M., Sorges, U., Bouazzi, I.: Ara – the ant-colony based routing algorithm for manets. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Ad Hoc Networking (IWAHN 2002), Vancouver (August 2002)Google Scholar
  13. [GT96]
    Gulcu, C., Tsudik, G.: Mixing email with babel. In: SNDSS 1996: Proceedings of the 1996 Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security (SNDSS 1996), p. 2. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1996)Google Scholar
  14. [HLX+05]
    Han, J., Liu, Y., Li, X., Xiao, R., Ni, L.M.: A mutual anonymous peer-to-peer protocol design. ipdps 1(1), 68 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. [Küg03]
    Kügler, D.: An analysis of gnunet and the implications for anonymous, censorship-resistant networks. In: Dingledine, R. (ed.) PET 2003. LNCS, vol. 2760, pp. 161–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [Ley04]
    Leyden, J.: Japanese p2p founder arrested. The Register, May 10 (2004),
  17. [LRWW04]
    Levine, B.N., Reiter, M.K., Wang, C., Wright, M.K.: Timing attacks in low-latency mix-based systems. In: Juels, A. (ed.) FC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3110, pp. 251–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [MOP+04]
    Mislove, A., Oberoi, G., Post, A., Reis, C., Druschel, P., Wallach, D.: Ap3: A cooperative, decentralized service providing anonymous communication. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGOPS European Workshop, Leuven, Belgium (September 2004)Google Scholar
  19. [PK04]
    Pfitzmann, A., Köhntopp, M.: Anonymity, unobservability, and pseudonymity: A proposal for terminology, draft v0.21 (September 2004)Google Scholar
  20. [Ray00]
    Raymond, J.-F.: Traffic analysis: Protocols, attacks, design issues, and open problems. In: Federrath, H. (ed.) Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies. LNCS, vol. 2009, pp. 10–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [RD01]
    Rowstron, A., Druschel, P.: Pastry: Scalable, distributed object location and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In: IFIP/ACM International Conference on Distributed Systems Platforms (Middleware), pp. 329–350 (November 2001)Google Scholar
  22. [RR98]
    Reiter, M., Rubin, A.: Crowds: anonymity for web transactions. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 1(1), 66–92 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [SGR97]
    Syverson, P.F., Goldschlag, D.M., Reed, M.G.: Anonymous connections and onion routing. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (1997)Google Scholar
  24. [Shm02]
    Shmatikov, V.: Probabilistic analysis of anonymity. In: IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop (CSFW), pp. 119–128 (2002)Google Scholar
  25. [SLS01]
    Scarlata, V., Levine, B., Shields, C.: Responder anonymity and anonymous peer-to-peer file sharing. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols, ICNP (2001)Google Scholar
  26. [SS03]
    Serjantov, A., Sewell, P.: Passive attack analysis for connection-based anonymity systems. In: Snekkenes, E., Gollmann, D. (eds.) ESORICS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2808, pp. 116–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [WALS01]
    Wright, M., Adler, M., Levine, B., Shields, C.: An analysis of the degradation of anonymous protocols. Technical report, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (April 2001)Google Scholar
  28. [WALS03]
    Wright, M., Adler, M., Levine, B.N., Shields, C.: Defending anonymous communication against passive logging attacks. In: Proc. IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, Berkeley, CA (May 2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Chothia
    • 1
  • Konstantinos Chatzikokolakis
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire d’InformatiqueÉcole PolytechniquePalaiseauFrance

Personalised recommendations