A Low-Variance Random-Walk Procedure to Provide Anonymity in Overlay Networks

  • J. P. Muñoz-Gea
  • J. Malgosa-Sanahuja
  • P. Manzanares-Lopez
  • J. C. Sanchez-Aarnoutse
  • J. Garcia-Haro
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5283)


An alternative to guarantee anonymity in overlay networks may be achieved by building a multi-hop path between the origin and the destination. However, one hop in the overlay network can consist of multiple Internet Protocol (IP) hops. Therefore, the length of the overlay multi-hop path must be reduced in order to maintain a good balance between the cost and the benefit provided by the anonymity facility. Unfortunately, the simple Time-To-Live (TTL) algorithm cannot be directly applied here since its use could reveal valuable information to break anonymity. In this paper, a new mechanism which reduces the length of the overlay multi-hop paths is presented. The anonymity level is evaluated by means of simulation and good results are reported


Destination Node Relay Node Internet Protocol Overlay Network Internet Protocol Address 
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. 1.
    Tsang, D.H.K., Ross, K.W., Rodriguez, P., Li, J., Karlsson, G.: Advances in peer-to-peer streaming systems [guest editorial]. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 25(9), 1609–1611 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pfitzmann, A., Hansen, M.: Anonymity, unlinkability, undetectability, unobservability, pseudonymity, and identity management - a consolidated proposal for terminology version v0.30 (November 26, 2007) (2007),
  3. 3.
    Reiter, M.K., Rubin, A.D.: Crowds: anonymity for web transactions. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 1(1), 66–92 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li, Z., Mohapatra, P.: The impact of topology on overlay routing service. In: INFOCOM 2004: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, Hong Kong, China, p. 418. IEEE Communications Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chaum, D.L.: Untraceable electronic mail, return addresses, and digital pseudonyms. Commun. ACM 24(2), 84–90 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg, I., Wagner, D., Brewer, E.: Privacy-enhancing technologies for the internet. In: COMPCON 1997: Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE International Computer Conference, Washington, DC, USA, p. 103. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zimmermann, P.R.: The official PGP user’s guide. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Möller, U., Cottrell, L., Palfrader, P., Sassaman, L.: Mixmaster protocol — version 2. draft (July 2003),
  9. 9.
    Danezis, G., Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N.: Mixminion: Design of a type iii anonymous remailer protocol. In: SP 2003: Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Washington, DC, USA, p. 2. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dai, W.: Pipenet 1.1. Post to Cypherpunks mailing list (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Syverson, P., Tsudik, G., Reed, M., Landwehr, C.: Towards an analysis of onion routing security. In: International workshop on Designing privacy enhancing technologies, pp. 96–114. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N., Syverson, P.: Tor: the second-generation onion router. In: SSYM 2004: Proceedings of the 13th conference on USENIX Security Symposium, Berkeley, CA, USA, p. 21. USENIX Association (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Back, A., Goldberg, I., Shostack, A.: Freedom systems 2.1 security issues and analysis. White paper, Zero Knowledge Systems, Inc. (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Postel, J.: RFC 791: Internet Protocol (1981)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Borissov, N.: Anonymous routing in structured peer-to-peer overlays. Ph.D thesis, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA. Chair-Eric A. Brewer (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Díaz, C., Seys, S., Claessens, J., Preneel, B.: Towards measuring anonymity. In: Dingledine, R., Syverson, P. (eds.) PET 2002. LNCS, vol. 2482, pp. 54–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. P. Muñoz-Gea
    • 1
  • J. Malgosa-Sanahuja
    • 1
  • P. Manzanares-Lopez
    • 1
  • J. C. Sanchez-Aarnoutse
    • 1
  • J. Garcia-Haro
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Technologies and CommunicationsPolytechnic University of CartagenaCartagenaSpain

Personalised recommendations