[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: future proofing algorihtms
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Tim May wrote:
> A LAM approach is low tech, and can be implemented easily enough. (And
> PipeNet becomes much more feasible...)
> Even an adventurous company, with many machines on various networks, could
> deploy a LAM on their network.
There are several such companies outside the US that I can think of.
> (Though the laws about corporate culpability are written in ways that a
> Silicon Graphics or Sun or C2Net would have much to fear in having their
> corporate network associated with a LAM of any sort. Hence my point about
> many and varied residential users in a physical building being the LAM
Sure. A LAM would not happen at any of the above companies. But there are
several non-US ISP's and other outfits with triple fiber to the backbone
that could set this up. [You know who I am talking about, lurkers. :-) How
> Another point about LAMs is that they are useful as "concentrators" for
> PipeNet connections. To wit,
> Suppose someone has deployed a PipeNet connection to another node. Fine,
> but the NSA and Mossad and GCHQ and other enemies of freedom may watch the
> traffic flowing into the node feeding that PipeNet connection.
> So why not do a better job of "loading" this PipeNet connection by having a
> LAM at the site? Then, watchers see the stuff flowing into the LAM, and
> have less idea (correlation-wise) of what's then making use of the PipeNet
That setup would work even better if operated by a major ISP. If you run
10% of a country's (and be it a small country) IP traffic through a LAM,
the computations an attacker has to perform become complex to the point of
being intractable. Especially if the ISP runs dial-up. [Lurkers, your
Of course we won't see such sites until somebody writes the
Cypherpunks write code,
-- Lucky Green <[email protected]> PGP v5 encrypted email preferred.
"Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"