Re: Reordering, not Latency (Was: Re: Remailer)

[nobody@replay.com (Name withheld on request)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Wed, 25 Jan 1995 Michael Handler wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jan 1995 Louis Cypher wrote:
>
>> In recent discussions, the consensus
>> was that message reordering was superior to (and the actual intent of)
>> latency.  Reordering is not sufficient, a form of latency is required
>> to make it effective.
>
>        I have literally hundreds of messages archived from the CP list
of
>several months back where Eric Hughes repeatedly states that reordering,
>not latency, is the key. Reordering of a sufficient magnitude will
>introduce latency inherently. Otherwise you are still vulnerable to
>traffic analysis (which is an art, not a science, remember).
>
>--
>Michael Handler
<grendel@netaxs.com>

If you read my analysis with more care, you will note that I do not argue
that
latency is superior to reordering, nor that it should be used in place of
reordering.  Reordering is far superior to latency. My point is that pure
reordering is vulnerable to attack. It is less vulnerable if combined with
latency.

Also note that this was a repost of a message I sent to the list some
months
ago. I sent it because it seemed similar to the work that Wei Dai has been
posting.


        -Louis Cypher

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAwUBLyiy0qyHUAO76TvRAQF6qAQAk6IDl+UknPQ+c6hbmPvlgCtF2xwG0KZ3
aUXiuv/XJ5e5prRwLQ4X6rOUSflT2f+mRPO4fveVmWePWcr8BtV6LUQM+qJOLe5k
Ay7CD+OGN9ni9EhRbIg3Sgdv6yB8cX2CpdMSByFD8J9rM240UWqSt/DgNQIlkTtC
Jx+0NQP80QA=
=aKOE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----