skip to main content
survey

A Survey on Routing in Anonymous Communication Protocols

Authors Info & Claims
Published:12 June 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The Internet has undergone dramatic changes in the past 2 decades and now forms a global communication platform that billions of users rely on for their daily activities. While this transformation has brought tremendous benefits to society, it has also created new threats to online privacy, such as omnipotent governmental surveillance. As a result, public interest in systems for anonymous communication has drastically increased. In this work, we survey previous research on designing, developing, and deploying systems for anonymous communication. Our taxonomy and comparative assessment provide important insights about the differences between the existing classes of anonymous communication protocols.

References

  1. Masoud Akhoondi, Curtis Yu, and Harsha V. Madhyastha. 2014. LASTor: A low-latency AS-aware Tor client. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 22, 6 (dec 2014), 1742--1755. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Mashael AlSabah, Kevin Bauer, Ian Goldberg, Dirk Grunwald, Damon McCoy, Stefan Savage, and Geoffrey M. Voelker. 2011. DefenestraTor: Throwing out windows in Tor. In Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Simone Fischer-Hübner and Nicholas Hopper (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6794. Springer, Berlin, 134--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Mashael AlSabah, Kevin S. Bauer, Tariq Elahi, and Ian Goldberg. 2013. The path less travelled: Overcoming orTor’s bottlenecks with traffic splitting. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Privacy Enhamcing Technologies (PETS’13). 143--163.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Mashael AlSabah, Kevin S. Bauer, and Ian Goldberg. 2012. Enhancing orTor’s performance using real-time traffic classification. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’12). 73--84. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Mashael AlSabah and Ian Goldberg. 2013. PCTCP: Per-circuit TCP-over-IPsec transport for anonymous communication overlay networks. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’13). 349--360. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Mashael AlSabah and Ian Goldberg. 2015. Performance and Security Improvements for Tor: A Survey. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report No. 2015/235.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. M. Backes, A. Kate, P. Manoharan, S. Meiser, and E. Mohammadi. 2013. AnoA: A framework for analyzing anonymous communication protocols. In Proceedings of the 26th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF’13). 163--178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Michael Backes, Aniket Kate, Sebastian Meiser, and Esfandiar Mohammadi. 2014. (Nothing else) MATor(s): Monitoring the anonymity of orTor’s path selection. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’14). ACM, New York, NY, 513--524. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Armon Barton and Matthew Wright. 2016. DeNASA: Destination-naive as-awareness in anonymous communications. In Proceedings of the 16th Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS’16).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Kevin Bauer, Damon McCoy, Dirk Grunwald, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Douglas Sicker. 2007. Low-resource routing attacks against Tor. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Workshop on Privacy in Electronic Society (WPES’07). ACM, New York, NY, 11--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. P. Bell and K. Jabbour. 1986. Review of point-to-point network routing algorithms. Comm. Mag. 24, 1 (Jan. 1986), 34--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Krista Bennett and Christian Grothoff. 2003. Gap—Practical anonymous networking. In Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Roger Dingledine (Ed.). Springer, Berlin, 141--160.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Krista Bennett, Tiberius Stef, Christian Grothoff, Tzvetan Horozov, and Ioana Patrascu. 2002. The GNet whitepaper. Technical report, Purdue University, 21 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Oliver Berthold, Hannes Federrath, and Marit Köhntopp. 2000a. Project anonymity and unobservability in the internet. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy: Challenging the Assumptions (CFP’00). ACM, New York, NY, 57--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Oliver Berthold, Hannes Federrath, and Stefan Köpsell. 2000b. Web MIXes: A system for anonymous and unobservable internet access. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability: Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies. 115--129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. A. Biryukov, I. Pustogarov, and R. Weinmann. 2013. Trawling for Tor hidden services: Detection, measurement, deanonymization. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP’13). 80--94. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Rainer Böhme, George Danezis, Claudia Díaz, Stefan Köpsell, and Andreas Pfitzmann. 2005. On the PET workshop panel mix cascades versus peer-to-peer: Is one concept superior? In Privacy Enhancing Technologies, David Martin and Andrei Serjantov (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3424. Springer, Berlin, 243--255. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jurjen Bos and Bert den Boer. 1990. Detection of disrupters in the DC protocol. In Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT ’89, Jean-Jacques Quisquater and Joos Vandewalle (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 434. Springer, Berlin, 320--327. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Michael Brinkmeier, Mathias Fischer, Sascha Grau, Günter Schäfer, and Thorsten Strufe. 2009. Methods for improving resilience in communication networks and P2P overlays. Praxis der Informationsverarbeitung und Kommunikation 32, 1 (2009), 64--78. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Miguel Castro, Peter Druschel, Ayalvadi Ganesh, Antony Rowstron, and Dan S. Wallach. 2002. Secure routing for structured peer-to-peer overlay networks. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 36, SI (Dec 2002), 299--314. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Sambuddho Chakravarty, Angelos Stavrou, and Angelos D. Keromytis. 2010. Traffic analysis against low-latency anonymity networks using available bandwidth estimation. In Computer Security—ESORICS 2010, Dimitris Gritzalis, Bart Preneel, and Marianthi Theoharidou (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6345. Springer, Berlin, 249--267. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. David Chaum. 1981. Untraceable electronic mail, return addresses, and digital pseudonyms. Commun. ACM 24, 2 (1981), 84--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. David Chaum. 1988. The dining cryptographers problem: Unconditional sender and recipient untraceability. J. Cryptol. 1, 1 (1988), 65--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Ian Clarke, Oskar Sandberg, Matthew Toseland, and Vilhelm Verendel. 2010. Private communication through a network of trusted connections: The dark freenet. Network (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ian Clarke, Oskar Sandberg, Brandon Wiley, and Theodore W. Hong. 2001. Freenet: A distributed anonymous information storage and retrieval system. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies: Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability. Springer-Verlag, New York, 46--66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Bernd Conrad and Fatemeh Shirazi. 2014. A survey on Tor and I2P. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Internet Monitoring and Protection (ICIMP’14). 22--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Henry Corrigan-Gibbs and Bryan Ford. 2010. Dissent: Accountable anonymous group messaging. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’10). 340--350. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. George Danezis. 2003a. Mix-networks with restricted routes. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PET’03). 1--17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. George Danezis. 2003b. Statistical disclosure attacks. In Proceedings of the 18 International Conference on Information Security: Security and Privacy in the Age of Uncertainty (SEC’03). 421--426. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. George Danezis and Richard Clayton. 2006. Route fingerprinting in anonymous communications. In Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P’06). IEEE, 69--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. George Danezis and Claudia Díaz. 2008. A Survey of Anonymous Communication Channels. Technical Report. Microsoft Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. George Danezis, Claudia Diaz, Emilia Ksper, and Carmela Troncoso. 2009. The wisdom of crowds: Attacks and optimal constructions. In Computer Security—ESORICS 2009, Michael Backes and Peng Ning (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5789. Springer, Berlin, 406--423. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. George Danezis, Claudia Diaz, and Paul F. Syverson. 2010. Systems for anonymous communication. In CRC Handbook of Financial Cryptography and Security, B. Rosenberg and D. Stinson (Eds.). Chapman 8 Hall, 341--390.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. George Danezis, Roger Dingledine, and Nick Mathewson. 2003. Mixminion: Design of a type III anonymous remailer protocol. In Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP’03). 2--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. George Danezis and Paul Syverson. 2008. Bridging and fingerprinting: Epistemic attacks on route selection. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETS’08). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 151--166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Claudia Diaz, Steven J. Murdoch, and Carmela Troncoso. 2010. Impact of network topology on anonymity and overhead in low-latency anonymity networks. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETS’10). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 184--201. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Claudia Díaz and Bart Preneel. 2004. Taxonomy of mixes and dummy traffic. In Proceedings of the 18th World Computer Congress on Information Security Management, Education and Privacy (IFIP’04), and the TC11 19th International Information Security Workshops. 215--230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Claudia Díaz and Andrei Serjantov. 2003. Generalising mixes. In Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Roger Dingledine (Ed.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2760. Springer, Berlin, 18--31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Roger Dingledine, Michael J. Freedman, David Hopwood, and David Molnar. 2001. A reputation system to increase MIX-Net reliability. In Information Hiding, IraS. Moskowitz (Ed.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2137. Springer, Berlin, 126--141. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Roger Dingledine, Michael J. Freedman, and David Molnar. 2000. The free haven project: Distributed anonymous storage service. In Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies, International Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability, Berkeley, CA, July 25-26, 2000. 67--95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Roger Dingledine, Nicholas Hopper, George Kadianakis, and Nick Mathewson. 2014. One fast guard for life (or 9 months). Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Hot Topics in Privacy Enhancing Technologies (HotPETs’14).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Roger Dingledine and Nick Mathewson. 2006. Anonymity loves company: Usability and the network effect. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS’06), Ross Anderson (Ed.). Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Roger Dingledine, Nick Mathewson, and Paul Syverson. 2004. Tor: The second-generation onion router. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on USENIX Security Symposium, Volume 13 (SSYM’04). USENIX Association, 303--320. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Roger Dingledine and Steven J. Murdoch. 2009. Performance Improvements on Tor or, Why Tor is slow and what we’re going to do about it. Technical Report. The Tor Project. Retrieved from https://research.torproject.org/techreports/performance-2009-11-09.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Roger Dingledine and Paul Syverson. 2002. Reliable MIX cascade networks through reputation. In Financial Cryptography, Matt Blaze (Ed.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2357. Springer, Berlin, 253--268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Shlomi Dolev and Rafail Ostrobsky. 2000. Xor-trees for efficient anonymous multicast and reception. ACM Trans. Info. Syst. Secur. 3, 2 (may 2000), 63--84. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. John R. Douceur. 2002. The sybil attack. In Peer-to-Peer Systems, Peter Druschel, Frans Kaashoek, and Antony Rowstron (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2429. Springer, Berlin, 251--260. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Matthew Edman and Paul Syverson. 2009. As-awareness in Tor path selection. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’09). ACM, New York, NY, 380--389. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Matthew Edman and Bülent Yener. 2009. On anonymity in an electronic society: A survey of anonymous communication systems. ACM Comput. Surveys (CSUR) 42, 1, Article 5 (December 2009), 35 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Christoph Egger, Johannes Schlumberger, Christopher Kruegel, and Giovanni Vigna. 2013. Practical attacks against the I2P network. In Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions and Defenses (RAID’13). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. E. Erdin, C. Zachor, and M. H. Gunes. 2015. How to find hidden users: A survey of attacks on anonymity networks. IEEE Commun. Surveys Tutor. PP, 99 (2015), 1--1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Nick Feamster and Roger Dingledine. 2004. Location diversity in anonymity networks. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES’04). ACM, New York, NY, 66--76. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Laura Marie Feeney. 1999. A taxonomy for routing protocols in mobile ad hoc networks. SICS Report, Technical Report, ISRN:SICS T-99/07 SE, 20 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Michael J. Freedman and Robert Morris. 2002. Tarzan: A peer-to-peer anonymizing network layer. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’02). ACM, 193--206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Michael J. Freedman, Emil Sit, Josh Cates, and Robert Morris. 2002. Introducing Tarzan, a peer-to-peer anonymizing network layer. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS’02). 121--129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. John Geddes, Rob Jansen, and Nicholas Hopper. 2014. IMUX: Managing Tor connections from two to infinity, and beyond. In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES’14). 181--190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Sharad Goel, Mark Robson, Milo Polte, and Emin Sirer. 2003. Herbivore: A Scalable and Efficient Protocol for Anonymous Communication. Technical Report. Cornell University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. David M. Goldschlag, Michael G. Reed, and Paul F. Syverson. 1996. Hiding routing information. In Information Hiding (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Ross Anderson (Ed.), Vol. 1174. Springer, Berlin, 137--150. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Philippe Golle and Ari Juels. 2004. Dining cryptographers revisited. In Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT’04, Christian Cachin and JanL. Camenisch (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3027. Springer, Berlin, 456--473. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Deepika Gopal and Nadia Heninger. 2012. Torchestra: Reducing interactive traffic delays over Tor. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES’12). ACM, New York, NY, 31--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Christian Grothoff. 2003. An excess-based economic model for resource allocation in peer-to-peer networks. Wirtschaftsinformatik 3-2003. Retrieved from http://grothoff.org/christian/ebe.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Ceki Gülcü and Gene Tsudik. 1996. Mixing email with babel. In Proceedings of the 1996 Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS’96). 2--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Muthumanickam Gunasekaran and Kandhasamy Premalatha. 2013. TEAP: Trust-enhanced anonymous on-demand routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks. IET Info. Secur. 7, 3 (Sept 2013), 203--211. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Zygmunt J. Haas, Joseph Y. Halpern, and Li Li. 2006. Gossip-based ad hoc routing. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 14, 3 (Jun 2006), 479--491. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Mor Harchol-Balter, Frank Thomson Leighton, and Daniel Lewin. 1999. Resource discovery in distributed networks. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC’99). 229--237. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Hsu-Chun Hsiao, T. H.-J. Kim, A. Perrig, A. Yamada, S. C. Nelson, M. Gruteser, and Wei Meng. 2012. LAP: Lightweight anonymity and privacy. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP’12). 506--520. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Markus Jakobsson, Ari Juels, and Ronald L. Rivest. 2002. Making mix nets robust for electronic voting by randomized partial checking. In Proceedings of the 11th USENIX Security Symposium. 339--353. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Anja Jerichow, Jan Müller, Andreas Pfitzmann, Birgit Pfitzmann, and Michael Waidner. 1998. Real-time mixes: A bandwidth-efficient anonymity protocol. IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun. 16, 4 (1998), 495--509. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Aaron Johnson, Chris Wacek, Rob Jansen, Micah Sherr, and Paul F. Syverson. 2013. Users get routed: Traffic correlation on Tor by realistic adversaries. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’13). 337--348. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Dogan Kesdogan, Jan Egner, and Roland Büschkes. 1998. Stop-and-go-MIXes providing probabilistic anonymity in an open system. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Information Hiding. 83--98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. Jon Kleinberg. 2000. The small-world phenomenon: An algorithmic perspective. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’00). ACM, 163--170. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Albert Kwon, Mashael AlSabah, David Lazar, Marc Dacier, and Srinivas Devadas. 2015. Circuit fingerprinting attacks: Passive deanonymization of Tor hidden services. In Proceedings of the 24th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIXSecurity’15). USENIX Association, Washington, D.C., 287--302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. David Lazar and Nickolai Zeldovich. 2016. Alpenhorn: Bootstrapping secure communication without leaking metadata. In Proceedings of the 12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI’16). USENIX Association, GA, 571--586. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Brian N. Levine, Michael K. Reiter, Chenxi Wang, and Matthew Wright. 2004. Timing attacks in low-latency mix systems. In Financial Cryptography, Ari Juels (Ed.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3110. Springer, Berlin, 251--265. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. Dong Lin, Micah Sherr, and Boon Thau Loo. 2016. Scalable and anonymous group communication with MTor. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PoPETS’16).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Petar Maymounkov and David Mazières. 2002. Kademlia: A peer-to-peer information system based on the XOR metric. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS’01). Springer-Verlag, London, 53--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Jon McLachlan, Andrew Tran, Nicholas Hopper, and Yongdae Kim. 2009. Scalable onion routing with torsk. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’09). ACM, New York, NY, 590--599. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Alan Mislove, Gaurav Oberoi, Ansley Post, Charles Reis, Peter Druschel, and Dan S. Wallach. 2004. AP3: Cooperative, decentralized anonymous communication. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGOPS European Workshop. 30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Prateek Mittal, Ahmed Khurshid, Joshua Juen, Matthew Caesar, and Nikita Borisov. 2011a. Stealthy traffic analysis of low-latency anonymous communication using throughput fingerprinting. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’11). ACM, New York, NY, 215--226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Prateek Mittal, Femi Olumofin, Carmela Troncoso, Nikita Borisov, and Ian Goldberg. 2011b. PIR-Tor: Scalable anonymous communication using private information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 20th USENIX Conference on Security (SEC’11). USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, 31--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Ulf Möller, Lance Cottrell, Peter Palfrader, and Len Sassaman. 2003. Mixmaster protocol - version 3. IETF Internet Draft.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. John Moy. 1998. OSPF: Anatomy of an Internet Routing Protocol. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. Boston, MA, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. S. J. Murdoch and G. Danezis. 2005. Low-cost traffic analysis of Tor. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. 183--195. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  84. Steven J. Murdoch and Piotr Zielinski. 2007. Sampled traffic analysis by internet-exchange-level adversaries. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PET’07). 167--183. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  85. Arjun Nambiar and Matthew Wright. 2006. Salsa: A structured approach to large-scale anonymity. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’06). ACM, New York, NY, 17--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  86. Christian Grothoff, Nathan S. Evans, and Roger Dingledine. 2009. A practical congestion attack on Tor using long paths. In Proceedings of the 18th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIXSecurity’09). USENIX, Montreal, Canada. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. Gavin O’Gorman and Stephen Blott. 2009. Improving stream correlation attacks on anonymous networks. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’09). 2024--2028. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. Andriy Panchenko, Fabian Lanze, and Thomas Engel. 2012. Improving performance and anonymity in the Tor network. In Proceedings of the 31st IEEE International Performance Computing and Communications Conference (IPCCC’12). 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  89. Andriy Panchenko, Stefan Richter, and Arne Rache. 2009. NISAN: Network information service for anonymization networks. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS09). 141--150. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  90. Charles E. Perkins and Elizabeth M. Royer. 1997. Ad hoc on-demand distance vector routing. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications. 90--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  91. Andreas Pfitzmann and Marit Köhntopp. 2000. Anonymity, unobservability, and pseudonymity—A proposal for terminology. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability: Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies. 1--9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  92. Andreas Pfitzmann, Birgit Pfitzmann, and Michael Waidner. 1991. ISDN-mixes: Untraceable communication with very small bandwidth overhead. In Kommunikation in Verteilten Systemen. Informatik-Fachberichte, Vol. 267. Springer, Berlin, 451--463. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  93. Andreas Pfitzmann and Michael Waidner. 1986. Networks without user observability—Design options. In Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT’85, Franz Pichler (Ed.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 219. Springer, Berlin, 245--253. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. I2P Project. 2016a. I2P Peer Profiling and Selection. Retrieved from https://geti2p.net/en/docs/how/peer-selection.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  95. I2P Project. 2016b. I2P Statistics. Retrieved from http://stats.i2p.re/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. I2P Project. 2016c. I2P Transport Overview. Retrieved from https://geti2p.net/en/docs/transport.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. Jean-François Raymond. 2000. Traffic analysis: Protocols, attacks, design issues, and open problems. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability: Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies. 10--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  98. Jean-François Raymond. 2001. Traffic analysis: Protocols, attacks, design issues, and open problems. In Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Hannes Federrath (Ed.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2009. Springer, Berlin, 10--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  99. M. G. Reed, P. F. Syverson, and D. M. Goldschlag. 1998. Anonymous connections and onion routing. IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun. 16, 4 (May 1998), 482--494. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  100. Michael K. Reiter and Aviel D. Rubin. 1998. Crowds: Anonymity for web transactions. ACM Trans. Info. Syst. Secur. 1, 1 (1998), 66--92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  101. Jian Ren and Jie Wu. 2010. Survey on anonymous communications in computer networks. Comput. Commun. 33, 4 (2010), 420--431. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  102. Marc Rennhard and Bernhard Plattner. 2002. Introducing morphmix: Peer-to-peer based anonymous internet usage with collusion detection. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES’02). ACM, New York, NY, 91--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  103. Marc Rennhard and Bernhard Plattner. 2004. Practical anonymity for the masses with morphmix. In Financial Cryptography, Ari Juels (Ed.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3110. Springer, Berlin, 233--250. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  104. Stefanie Roos. 2016. Analyzing and Enhancing Routing Protocols for Friend-to-Friend Overlays. Ph.D. Dissertation. Dissertation, Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  105. Stefanie Roos, Benjamin Schiller, Stefan Hacker, and Thorsten Strufe. 2014. Measuring freenet in the wild: Censorship-resilience under observation. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETS’14). 263--282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  106. Stefanie Roos and Thorsten Strufe. 2015. On the impossibility of efficient self-stabilization in virtual overlays with churn. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’15). 298--306. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  107. Antony I. T. Rowstron and Peter Druschel. 2001. Pastry: Scalable, decentralized object location, and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In Proceedings of the IFIP/ACM International Conference on Distributed Systems Platforms (Middleware’01). Springer-Verlag, London, 329--350. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  108. Kazue Sako and Joe Kilian. 1995. Receipt-free mix-type voting scheme—A practical solution to the implementation of a voting booth. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptographic Techniques: Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT’95. 393--403. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  109. K. Sampigethaya and R. Poovendran. 2006. A survey on mix networks and their secure applications. Proc. IEEE 94, 12 (December 2006), 2142--2181. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  110. Jody Sankey and Matthew Wright. 2014. Dovetail: Stronger anonymity in next-generation internet routing. In Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Emiliano De Cristofaro and StevenJ. Murdoch (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8555. Springer International Publishing, 283--303. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  111. Lars Schimmer. 2009. Peer profiling and selection in the I2P anonymous network. In Proceedings of the Privacy Enhancing Techniques Convention (PET-CON’09). 59--70.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  112. Andrei Serjantov. 2004. On the Anonymity of Anonymity Systems. Technical Report. University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  113. Andrei Serjantov, Roger Dingledine, and Paul Syverson. 2003. From a trickle to a flood: Active attacks on several mix types. In Information Hiding, Fabien A. P. Petitcolas (Ed.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2578. Springer, Berlin, 36--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  114. Micah Sherr, Matt Blaze, and Boon Thau Loo. 2009. Scalable link-based relay selection for anonymous routing. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETS’09) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Ian Goldberg and Mikhail J. Atallah (Eds.), Vol. 5672. Springer, 73--93. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  115. Rob Sherwood, Bobby Bhattacharjee, and Aravind Srinivasan. 2002. P5: A protocol for scalable anonymous communication. J. Comput. Secur. 13 (Dec. 2002), 839--876. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  116. Fatemeh Shirazi, Claudia Diaz, and Joss Wright. 2015. Towards measuring resilience in anonymous communication networks. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES’15). ACM, New York, NY, 95--99. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  117. R. Shokri, N. Yazdani, and A. Khonsari. 2007. Chain-based anonymous routing for wireless ad hoc networks. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference. 297--302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  118. R. Snader and N. Borisov. 2011. Improving security and performance in the Tor network through tunable path selection. IEEE Trans. Depend. Secure Comput. 8, 5 (Sep. 2011), 728--741. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  119. Ion Stoica, Robert Morris, David Karger, M. Frans Kaashoek, and Hari Balakrishnan. 2001. Chord: A scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for internet applications. In Proceedings of the 2001 Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communications (SIGCOMM’01). ACM, 149--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  120. Paul Syverson, Gene Tsudik, Michael Reed, and Carl Landwehr. 2001. Towards an analysis of onion routing security. In Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Hannes Federrath (Ed.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2009. Springer, Berlin, 96--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  121. Can Tang and Ian Goldberg. 2010. An improved algorithm for Tor circuit scheduling. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’10). ACM, New York, NY, 329--339. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  122. The Tor Project. 2017. Tor Metrics. (2017). Retrieved from https://metrics.torproject.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  123. Juan Pablo Timpanaro, Isabelle Chrisment, and Olivier Festor. 2012. I2P’s usage characterization. In Traffic Monitoring and Analysis, Antonio Pescapè, Luca Salgarelli, and Xenofontas Dimitropoulos (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7189. Springer, Berlin, 48--51. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  124. Juan Pablo Timpanaro, Chrisment Isabelle, and Festor Olivier. 2011. Monitoring the I2P Network. Technical Report. Retrieved from https://hal.inria.fr/hal-00653136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  125. Michael Waidner. 1990. Unconditional sender and recipient untraceability in spite of active attacks. In Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT ’89, Jean-Jacques Quisquater and Joos Vandewalle (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 434. Springer, Berlin, 302--319. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  126. Michael Waidner and Birgit Pfitzmann. 1990. The dining cryptographers in the disco: Unconditional sender and recipient untraceability with computationally secure serviceability. In Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT’89, Jean-Jacques Quisquater and Joos Vandewalle (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 434. Springer, Berlin, 690--690. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  127. Marc Waldman and David Mazières. 2001. Tangler: A censorship-resistant publishing system based on document entanglements. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’01). 126--135. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  128. Marc Waldman, Aviel D. Rubin, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2000. Publius: A robust, tamper-evident, censorship-resistant, and source-anonymous web publishing system. In Proceedings of the 9th USENIX Security Symposium. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  129. Peng Wang, Ivan Osipkov, Nicholas Hopper, and Yongdae Kim. 2006. Myrmic: Provably Secure and Efficient DHT Routing. Technical Report. DTC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  130. Qiyan Wang and Nikita Borisov. 2012. Octopus: A secure and anonymous DHT lookup. In Proceedings of the IEEE 32nd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems. 325--334. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  131. Tao Wang, Kevin Bauer, Clara Forero, and Ian Goldberg. 2012. Congestion-aware path selection for Tor. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, Angelos D. Keromytis (Ed.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7397. Springer, Berlin, 98--113. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  132. David Isaac Wolinsky, Henry Corrigan-Gibbs, Bryan Ford, and Aaron Johnson. 2012a. Dissent in numbers: Making strong anonymity scale. In Proceedings of the 10th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI’12). USENIX Association, 179--192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  133. David Isaac Wolinsky, Henry Corrigan-Gibbs, Bryan Ford, and Aaron Johnson. 2012b. Scalable anonymous group communication in the anytrust model. In Proceedings of the European Workshop on System Security (EuroSec’12), Vol. 4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  134. M. Wright, M. Adler, B.N. Levine, and C. Shields. 2003. Defending anonymous communications against passive logging attacks. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP’03). 28--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  135. Matthew Wright, Micah Adler, Brian Neil Levine, and Clay Shields. 2002. An analysis of the degradation of anonymous protocols. In Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS’02). The Internet Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  136. Matthew K. Wright, Micah Adler, Brian Neil Levine, and Clay Shields. 2004. The predecessor attack: An analysis of a threat to anonymous communications systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 7, 4 (Nov. 2004), 489--522. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  137. Ye Zhu, Xinwen Fu, Bryan Graham, Riccardo Bettati, and Wei Zhao. 2010. Correlation-based traffic analysis attacks on anonymity networks. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 21, 7 (2010), 954--967. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  138. Xukai Zou, Byrav Ramamurthy, and Spyros Magliveras. 2002. Routing techniques in wireless ad hoc networks—Classification and comparison. In Proceedings of the 6th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics (SCI’02)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Survey on Routing in Anonymous Communication Protocols

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Computing Surveys
      ACM Computing Surveys  Volume 51, Issue 3
      May 2019
      796 pages
      ISSN:0360-0300
      EISSN:1557-7341
      DOI:10.1145/3212709
      • Editor:
      • Sartaj Sahni
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 12 June 2018
      • Accepted: 1 January 2018
      • Revised: 1 November 2017
      • Received: 1 January 2017
      Published in csur Volume 51, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • survey
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader