XPost: alt.privacy.anon-server, misc.phone.mobile.iphone   
   From: noreply@mixmin.net   
      
   In article <20251011093805.1f245Np76V50@sewer.dizum.com> Bob wrote:   
   >Yamn Remailer wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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 | reason why Type 1 remailing is obsolete and was abandoned years ago in   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?   
      
   Yes, he seems to be right.   
      
   >   
   >We should ask ourselves the following questions for a) and b).   
   >   
   >a) What can ISPs see when examining tor cells, each 514 bytes in size?   
      
   That's easy:   
      
      
   > Can they   
   >count that you always send equal in size remailer packets when using YAMN and   
   know then that you use a remailer service?   
      
   No, because the transmission of the 20k packet itself is only a small   
   portion of the whole mail server interaction including SSL negotiations.   
   If that would be of any relevance writing a few lines of code to add   
   some random dummy load to the mail message's header or body section   
   won't take more than a few minutes.  But there's no need to do so.   
   Furthermore, that Tor thingy is irrelevant concerning anonymization.   
      
   OTOH with your OC's message transmissions, putting any more complex   
   protocols aside, sniffing of transfer block sizes really matters.   
      
   > I would say yes.   
      
   We're accustomed to your misassessments.   
      
   > With adaptive padding they have a much harder time to guess, no?   
      
   No, not with OmniMix interacting with the Mixmaster or YAMN network.   
      
   >   
   >b) Don't you loose remailer packets, if you use copies=n with the same chain   
   when one node is down or when selecting random yamn chains and a node is down?   
      
   First of all, don't fix what isn't loose.   
      
   Apart from that, with one packet lost in transmission still n-1 copies   
   arrive at the exit remailer.  A fantastic strategy, isn't it?   
      
   And now a challenging calculation:   
      
     If you send only one single Onion Courier packet and that gets lost?   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     Right, it results in 1-1, which is?   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     .   
     Right again:  Zero, zip, zilch, nada, nil, nothing, niente, bupkis!   
     Which means:  OC=BS.  Q.e.d.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)