Advertisement

Onions Based on Universal Re-encryption – Anonymous Communication Immune Against Repetitive Attack

  • Marcin Gomułkiewicz
  • Marek Klonowski
  • Mirosław Kutyłowski
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3325)

Abstract

Encapsulating messages in onions is one of the major techniques providing anonymous communication in computer networks. To some extent, it provides security against traffic analysis by a passive adversary. However, it can be highly vulnerable to attacks by an active adversary. For instance, the adversary may perform a simple so–called repetitive attack: a malicious server sends the same massage twice, then the adversary traces places where the same message appears twice – revealing the route of the original message. A repetitive attack was examined for mix–networks. However, none of the countermeasures designed is suitable for onion–routing.

In this paper we propose an “onion-like” encoding design based on universal re-encryption. The onions constructed in this way can be used in a protocol that achieves the same goals as the classical onions, however, at the same time we achieve immunity against a repetitive attack. Even if an adversary disturbs communication and prevents processing a message somewhere on the onion path, it is easy to identify the malicious server performing the attack and provide an evidence of its illegal behavior.

Keywords

anonymous communication unlinkability onion universal re-encryption repetitive attack 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Berman, R., Fiat, A., Ta-Shma, A.: Provable Unlinkability Against Traffic Analysis. In: Juels, A. (ed.) FC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3110, pp. 266–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Büschkes, R., Egner, J., Kesdogan, D.: Stop-and-Go-MIXes Providing Probabilistic Anonymity in an Open System. In: Aucsmith, D. (ed.) IH 1998. LNCS, vol. 1525, pp. 83–98. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chaum, D.: Untraceable Electronic Mail, Return Addresses, and Digital Pseudonyms. Communications of ACM 24(2), 84–88 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaum, D.: The Dining Cryptographers Problem: Unconditional Sender and Recipient Untraceability. Journal of Cryptology 1(1), 65–75 (1988)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N., Syverson, P.: Tor: the Second Generation Onion Router. USENIX Security (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fairbrother, P.: An Improved Construction for Universal Re-encryption. In: Martin, D., Serjantov, A. (eds.) PET 2004. LNCS, vol. 3424, pp. 79–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldschlag, D.M., Reed, M.G., Syverson, P.F.: Hiding Routing Information. In: Anderson, R. (ed.) IH 1996. LNCS, vol. 1174, pp. 137–150. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldschlag, D.M., Reed, M.G., Syverson, P.F.: PrivateWeb Browsing. Journal of Computer Security. Special Issue on Web Security 5, 237–248 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldschlag, D.M., Reed, M.G., Syverson, P.F.: Anonymous Connections and Onion Routing. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communication 16(4), 482–494 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Golle, P., Jakobsson, M., Juels, A., Syverson, P.: Universal Re-encryption for Mixnets. In: Okamoto, T. (ed.) CT-RSA 2004. LNCS, vol. 2964, pp. 163–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gomułkiewicz, M., Klonowski, M., Kutyłowski, M.: Provable Unlinkability Against Traffic Analysis Already After O(log(n)) Steps! In: Zhang, K., Zheng, Y. (eds.) ISC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3225, pp. 354–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gülcü, C., Tsudik, G.: Mixing E-mail with BABEL. In: ISOC Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security, pp. 2–16. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jakobsson, M., Juels, A.: An optimally robust hybrid mix network. In: 20th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing 2001, pp. 284–292 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rackoff, C., Simon, D.R.: Cryptographic Defense Against Traffic Analysis. In: 25th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 672–681 (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schnorr, C.P.: Efficient signature generation by smart cards. Journal of Cryptology 4, 161–174 (1991)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcin Gomułkiewicz
    • 1
  • Marek Klonowski
    • 1
  • Mirosław Kutyłowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of MathematicsWrocław University of TechnologyWrocławPoland

Personalised recommendations