XPost: alt.privacy.anon-server, misc.phone.mobile.iphone   
   From: noreply@mixmin.net   
      
   In article <20251010195133.258zcHOK7l0l@sewer.dizum.com> Onion Courier   
    wrote:   
      
   >Fritz Wuehler wrote:   
   >> Claas wrote:   
   >   
   >> > Besides the points above. Messages entering the pool are encrypted with   
   >> > 24 hrs rotating keys, in RAM, which are memguard protected. So in case   
   >> > third parties would look at the RAM pool (not a RAM disk) they would only   
   >> > see encrypted blobs with equal size.   
   >>   
   >> You're naive.  In a compromized VM they debug your processor registers   
   >> to get valid data.   
   >   
   >Give us an example of how it compares to YAMN or Mixmaster, with their   
   >open pools, and my implementation, so I and others can learn from it.   
   >(and do not forget People can run their Onion Courier Mixnets from home!)   
   >   
   >IIRC correcly, when I ran myself Mixmaster and YAMN remailers, I could   
   >look into the pool and see messages and there destinations, along their   
   >padded encrypted payload. I had never ran logs, but I know from postix   
   >how they work.   
   >   
   >So, do a comparison and let us know the results. If my implementation   
   >is flawed I will correct it and ask for better memguard advise for the   
   >rotating keys at the right places.   
      
   You're mad! He did a comparison including a score for each of the items.   
      
   The most severe problems seem to be   
      
   | >> So tell us some facts about the superiority of your system compared   
   | >> with the Mixmaster / YAMN design, where for example we have   
   | >>   
   | >> - a uniform packet design irrespective of message size   
   | >   
   | >The Onion Courier Mixnet uses with it's client random adaptive padding   
   | >when sending messages, so that third parties do not know what is send,   
   | >compared to fixed padding payloads. Once the messages enters the pool   
   | >padding will be removed and then fixed size padding at each hop will   
   | >be applied.   
   |   
   | Worse - That's a devastating flaw of your not so modern Type 1 system,   
   | as padding only increases size and a larger message is doomed to stick   
   | out like a sore thumb, whereas with Type 2 remailers all packets are of   
   | equal size of 4 kB (Mixmaster) or 20 kB (YAMN) with larger messages   
   | being split and reassembled at the exit remailer.  That's the main   
   | reason why Type 1 remailing is obsolete and was abandoned years ago in   
   | favour of Type 2 Mixmaster / YAMN!   
      
   and   
      
   | >> - message routing through multiple chains to increase reliability   
   | >   
   | >The Onion Courier Mixnet, compared to the Mixmaster and YAMN Mixnet,   
   | >is totally decentralized and anonymous mix nodes can communicate with   
   | >public Tor Hidden Service mix nodes to form different chains.   
   |   
   | Worse - Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAICS each message is sent through   
   | just one single chain of nodes, which means it gets lost if one of these   
   | nodes is down.   
      
   To me those are knockout criteria.   
      
   So a simple question: Is he right?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)