Anonymity in the Wild: Mixes on Unstructured Networks

  • Shishir Nagaraja
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4776)


As decentralized computing scenarios get ever more popular, unstructured topologies are natural candidates to consider running mix networks upon. We consider mix network topologies where mixes are placed on the nodes of an unstructured network, such as social networks and scale-free random networks. We explore the efficiency and traffic analysis resistance properties of mix networks based on unstructured topologies as opposed to theoretically optimal structured topologies, under high latency conditions. We consider a mix of directed and undirected network models, as well as one real world case study – the LiveJournal friendship network topology. Our analysis indicates that mix-networks based on scale-free and small-world topologies have, firstly, mix-route lengths that are roughly comparable to those in expander graphs; second, that compromise of the most central nodes has little effect on anonymization properties, and third, batch sizes required for warding off intersection attacks need to be an order of magnitude higher in unstructured networks in comparison with expander graph topologies.


Route Length Expander Graph Anonymous Communication Unstructured Network Sender Anonymity 
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. [AB02]
    Albert, R., Barabási, A.: Statistical mechanics of complex networks (2002)Google Scholar
  2. [ACL00]
    Aiello, W., Chung, F., Lu, L.: A random graph model for massive graphs. In: STOC 2000: Proceedings of the thirty-second annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pp. 171–180. ACM Press, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [B05]
    Borisov, N.: Phd thesis: Anonymous routing in structured peer-to-peer overlays (April 2005)Google Scholar
  4. [B07]
    Borisov, N.: Private communication (June 2007)Google Scholar
  5. [BPS00]
    Berthold, O., Pfitzmann, A., Standtke, R.: The disadvantages of free MIX routes and how to overcome them. In: Federrath, H. (ed.) Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies. LNCS, vol. 2009, pp. 30–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [C81]
    Chaum, D.: Untraceable electronic mail, return addresses, and digital pseudonyms. Communications of the ACM 4(2) (February 1981)Google Scholar
  7. [CSWH00]
    Clarke, I., Sandberg, O., Wiley, B., Hong, T.: Freenet: A distributed anonymous information storage and retrieval system. In: Proceedings of Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies: Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability, pp. 46–66 (July 2000)Google Scholar
  8. [D03]
    Danezis, G.: Mix-networks with restricted routes. In: Dingledine, R. (ed.) PET 2003. LNCS, vol. 2760, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  9. [D07]
    Danezis, G.: Private communication (July 2007)Google Scholar
  10. [DDM03]
    Danezis, G., Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N.: Mixminion: Design of a type iii anonymous remailer protocol. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 2–15 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. [DM06]
    Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N.: Anonymity loves company: Usability and the network effect. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2006), Cambridge, UK (June 2006)Google Scholar
  12. [DMS04]
    Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N., Syverson, P.: Tor: The second-generation onion router. In: Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Security Symposium (August 2004)Google Scholar
  13. [EG02]
    Eschenauer, L., Gligor, V.D.: A key-management scheme for distributed sensor networks. In: CCS 2002: Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pp. 41–47. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [ER59]
    Erdos, P., Rnyi, A.: On random graphs. Publicationes Mathemticae (Debrecen) 6, 290–297 (1959)Google Scholar
  15. [G98]
    Gillman, D.: A chernoff bound for random walks on expander graphs. SIAM J. Comput. 27(4), 1203–1220 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. [G73]
    Granovetter, M.S.: The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology 78(6), 1360–1380 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [KAP02]
    Kesdogan, D., Agrawal, D., Penz, S.: Limits of anonymity in open environments. In: Petitcolas, F.A.P. (ed.) IH 2002. LNCS, vol. 2578, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  18. [KM02]
    Klingberg, T., Manfredi, R.: ”gnutella 0.6” (June 2002)Google Scholar
  19. [M67]
    Milgram, S.: The small world problem. Psychology Today 2, 60–67 (1967)Google Scholar
  20. [MPS04]
    Mihail, M., Papadimitriou, C., Saberi, A.: On certain connectivity properties of the internet topology. In: FOCS 2003: Proceedings of the 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, p. 28. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [MR95]
    Motwani, R., Raghavan, P.: Randomized Algorithms, vol. 1. Cambridge Univ. Press, Motwani (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. [N01a]
    Newman, M.E.: The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98(2), 404–409 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. [N01c]
    Newman, M.E.J.: Scientific collaboration networks. ii. shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Phys. Rev. E 64(1), 016132 (June 2001)Google Scholar
  24. [N01b]
    Newman, M.E.J.: Scientific collaboration networks. i. networks construction and fundamental results. Phys. Rev. E 64(1), 016131 (June 2001)Google Scholar
  25. [N03b]
    Newman, M.E.J.: Mixing patterns in networks. Physical Review E 67, 026126 (2003)Google Scholar
  26. [N03a]
    Newman, M.E.J.: The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review 45(2), 167–256 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. [PH00]
    Pfitzmann, A., Hansen, M.: Anonymity, unobservability, and pseudonymity: A consolidated proposal for terminology. Draft (July 2000)Google Scholar
  28. [PPW91]
    Pfitzmann, A., Pfitzmann, B., Waidner, M.: ISDN-mixes: Untraceable communication with very small bandwidth overhead. In: GI/ITG Conference on Communication in Distributed Systems, pp. 451–463 (February 1991)Google Scholar
  29. [R06]
    Randall, D.: Rapidly mixing markov chains with applications in computer science and physics. Computing in Science and Engineering 8(2), 30–41 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [RFI02]
    Ripeanu, M., Foster, I., Iamnitchi, A.: Mapping the gnutella network: Properties of large-scale peer-to-peer systems and implications for system design. IEEE Internet Computing Journal 6(1) (August 2002)Google Scholar
  31. [RR98]
    Reiter, M.K., Rubin, A.D.: Crowds: anonymity for web transactions. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 1(1), 66–92 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [RSG98]
    Reed, M.G., Syverson, P.F., Goldschlag, D.M.: Anonymous connections and onion routing. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 16(4) (1998)Google Scholar
  33. [SD02]
    Serjantov, A., Danezis, G.: Towards an information theoretic metric for anonymity. In: Dingledine, R., Syverson, P.F. (eds.) PET 2002. LNCS, vol. 2482, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [S93]
    Sinclair, A.: Algorithms for random generation and counting: a Markov chain approach. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland (1993)Google Scholar
  35. [STRL00]
    Syverson, P., Tsudik, G., Reed, M., Landwehr, C.: Towards an Analysis of Onion Routing Security. In: Federrath, H. (ed.) Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies. LNCS, vol. 2009, pp. 96–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [W01]
    West, D.B: Introduction to Graph Theory, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shishir Nagaraja
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Laboratory, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FDUK

Personalised recommendations