Slashdot Mirror


MIT Says Their Anonymity Network Is More Secure Than Tor (pcmag.com)

An anonymous reader writes from a report via PC Magazine: Following the recent vulnerabilities in Tor, researchers at MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne have been working on a new anonymity network that they say is more secure than Tor. While the researchers are planning to present their new system, dubbed Riffle, at the Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium later this month, they did say the system uses existing cryptographic techniques, but in new ways. A series of servers are what make up Riffle, each of which "permutes the order in which it receives messages before passing them on to the next," according to a news release. "For instance, messages from senders Alice, Bob, and Carol reach the first server in the order A, B, C, that server would send them to the second server in a different order -- say C, B, A. The second server would permute them before sending them to the third, and so on." Nobody would know which was which by the time they exited the last server. Both Tor and MIT's anonymity network use onion encryption. Riffle uses a technique called verifiable shuffle in addition to onion encryption to thwart tampering and prevent adversaries from infiltrating servers with their own code. Last but not least, it uses authentication encryption to verify the authenticity of an encrypted message. The researchers say their system provides strong security while using bandwidth much more efficiently than similar solutions.

81 comments

  1. Re:Stop breaking the law by aliquis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you're not breaking the law

    The problem is that spreading ideas and information isn't legal.

  2. Latency must be bad... by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "For instance, messages from senders Alice, Bob, and Carol reach the first server in the order A, B, C, that server would send them to the second server in a different order -- say C, B, A."

    The communication latency must be even suckier than that of Tor then... Oh, well...

    Now, is it really a great new tool for privacy, or does it have inherent back doors and the announcements are to lure us away from Tor, which authorities have found too difficult to break? Will we even ever know?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Latency must be bad... by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      And yet, still much better latency than IP over avian carrier (RFC 1149).

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Latency must be bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Phantom Anonymity Network is very similar in performance to this.

    3. Re:Latency must be bad... by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      and the annou ncements are to lure us away from Tor, which authorities have found too difficult to break?

      THANKS OBAMA.

      Seriously, why the tin foil hat? The research is being done by university researchers and uses a pretty easy to understand improvement on Tors onion routing capable of generating a mathematical proof that the message hasnt been tampered with. This is important as the current vunerabilities in Tor rely on a malicious party being able to manipulate the onion routes to de-anonymise the transmitter or reciever.

      You state that Tor is "too difficult to break" and yet we know this isnt true (And of course if you read the article, which you clearly didnt, you'd know that too) and after Operation Onymous, the european cops pretty much said as much. And if the euro spooks know how to do it, then you can bet the american spooks know how to as well. But hey, if we're gonna talk conspiracy theories here, I might as well remind you Tor was actually developed by DARPA (And if you dont believe me wikipedia it).

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    4. Re:Latency must be bad... by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Duckduckgo.com doesn't give me a hit when I search for 'Phantom Anonymity Network'.
      Did you maybe mean 'Phantom Protocol'?

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    5. Re:Latency must be bad... by mi · · Score: 1

      Seriously, why the tin foil hat?

      Because I do not fully understand the proposed improvements nor the mathematical proofs included with them — and so must take it on faith. Just as I was asked to take Tor on faith.

      You state that Tor is "too difficult to break"

      I made no such statement. Read carefully...

      I might as well remind you Tor was actually developed by DARPA

      I know that very well. I also know, US has spent considerable efforts to break it — and they can only do that in some cases and not reliably. The proposed changes may be just what's advertised, or they may be hiding some brilliantly-devised backdoor.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:Latency must be bad... by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Well, assuming you were indeed referring to the Anonymity Protocol of Magnus Brading, I have a few 'problems' with it.
      First he states he wants to give a 'generic' description, but when it comes to the connection, he assumes it will be a static one.
      I think that's a flaw. Think of all those mobile phones that can be used to construct a dynamic finely meshed network outside of the regular internet (as he proposes). Then you'd better design for a dynamic path that can switch on, switch off, and reconnect various nodes during the transmission of the message.
      And how is he supposed to avoid 'centralization' when flooding his signed commands to each client? Or establishing new keys? Or, banning certain IPs en manually editing the network database? And why should we trust the person that issues a new verification certificate?
      And that talk about 'EULA' is totally useless. If people are anonymous, how is anybody going to enforce their 'promises'?

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    7. Re:Latency must be bad... by computational+super · · Score: 0

      to lure us away from Tor

      Run it as a hidden service inside of Tor. Problem solved.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    8. Re:Latency must be bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tor has never been considered secure against the US government.

  3. This does NOT fix the linked "vulnerabilities" by NotInHere · · Score: 1

    This approach does NOT fix the linked "vulnerabilities" about the TOR network, where compromised nodes as members of the network can spy on traffic, and a sufficiently large amount can even totally identify users. This vulnerability is unfixable by systems where you let everyone set up a node.

    1. Re:This does NOT fix the linked "vulnerabilities" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but MIT's thing, while using UDP-like packet switching in a sense,
      does not do ANYTHING against GPA's for which EVERY current anonymous
      overlay network that does NOT use full network padding is vulnerable to.

    2. Re:This does NOT fix the linked "vulnerabilities" by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      GPAs? What are those?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  4. Re:Stop breaking the law by WorBlux · · Score: 0

    Tell that to you U.S. intelligence agencies who created and continue to fund Tor to this day. ;)

  5. Sorry, MIT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...but after what you helped the U.S. government do to Aaron Swartz, i.e. drive him to the brink of suicide and then over the edge, I find any claims you make regarding your abilities to be suspect at the very least.

    Sad, really, that the name in education that has been synonymous with "hackers" for decades, now serves as one of their worst enemies. Much like CMU aiding the FBI in "discovering" the locations of hidden Tor services (http://www.teaparty.org/academics-accused-helping-fbi-unmask-anonymity-web-users-129406/), MIT and their graduates have shown their true colours...by bending over and taking it from the fascists in Quantico and Washington, by using their talents and their education to take freedom _away_ from the world rather than give. All for the same sort of fat government cheques they were getting in the 80's, making bold claims about how they could implement artificial intelligence sophisticated enough to power Reagan's insane "Star Wars" missile defense system. This in _spite_ of the fact that full debugging of such software would _require_ a world-ending, nuclear war to occur.

    Fuck MIT and their shitty software. Say what you want about traitors, most people accept that they aren't to be trusted.

    1. Re:Sorry, MIT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Don't forget when they threw Star Simpson under the bus.

      On the other hand, both actions were by administration, not students or profs. Star stuck around and graduated despite what the assholes in administration did to her. A school is more than its admin staff, a good school can be good despite its admin staff.

    2. Re:Sorry, MIT... by Viol8 · · Score: 0

      Star Simpson? The utter moron who wore a fake bomb to an airport for "art"? Oh boo hoo, poor ickle her.

      You're going to have to do better than that piss poor example my friend.

    3. Re:Sorry, MIT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if the big fishes at MIT are not trustworthy and "hacker" friendly anymore can tell that many others still are. Not that is of any useful of course.

      Aaron Swartz's tragedy happened while the first edX Python programming course was running. The staff people was shocked and dismayed to say the less and the course set to a crawl: their boss was one of the course teaching heads and who throw Aaron Swartz under the horses.

      The "certificate" I earned for that course signed by that MIT Dean is definitely the most deeply disliked of all them, and a permanent remainder of what MIT has definitely lost after Aaron Swartz's death.

    4. Re:Sorry, MIT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      fake bomb? You are an idiot or a troll.

    5. Re:Sorry, MIT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Any* claims about security should always be vetted, regardless of who made the claim.

    6. Re:Sorry, MIT... by myrdos2 · · Score: 1

      MIT and their graduates have shown their true colours...by bending over and taking it from the fascists in Quantico and Washington, by using their talents and their education to take freedom _away_ from the world rather than give.

      What, every single one? They did launch the One Laptop Per Child program, and released 2,000 courses online for free in their OpenCourseWare project. What about the ones who work in the cancer research building? Do they cackle while plotting the downfall of American freedom? Not to mention alumni Richard Feynman, Buzz Aldrin...

      Yes, there are people in MIT who work in security, and yes they find and reveal holes in security solutions. Is that somehow different from other Universities? As I recall, there wasn't even any evidence showing that the FBI had actually paid MIT anything.

      How does this ignorant hate speech get modded up?

    7. Re:Sorry, MIT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are good examples that you cite and is why for many people there is a before and an after Aaron Swartz for MIT.

    8. Re:Sorry, MIT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > but after what you helped the U.S. government do to Aaron Swartz

      You mean by telling the DoJ you didn't want to prosecute? How is that their fault?

    9. Re:Sorry, MIT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swartz was a criminal who deserved what was coming to him (prosecution). He broke into an IT closet and attached his own equipment. In what world is that OK, even if his intention was to free journals that he believed should be freed?

  6. Re: Stop breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ignorance like this actually makes me feel sad, because it is indicative of where humanity has been going for quite some time.

  7. Re: Stop breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    No, you shouldn't be allowed to distribute ISIL propaganda or texts like the Anarchist's Cookbook, either. Those ideas and information should be illegal, no matter how much you might wish otherwise.

  8. Re:Stop breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correction: YOUR problem is that spreading ideas and information isn't legal in YOUR backwards, racist, vile excuse for a country. I'm not even going to assume where that is, I don't need to. The fact that "spreading ideas and information isn't legal" in your neck of the woods is proof enough that if the world needed an enema, they'd stick the hose in your back yard in more ways than one.

    Some of us (i.e. the rest of the developed world that you didn't learn about in geography) don't live in fascist nations. Don't try to project your failures onto the rest of the world, they're your failures. I wouldn't doubt you voted into power the same people who you're now crying out "oppression" against, yet I doubt you'd accept any of the blame for the results if you were asked. In either case, you live in a fascist nation. That's your problem, not ours.

    Oh, incidentally? Training people to kill, then giving them no opportunities or aid when they come back destroyed, both mentally and physically, from the front lines? Not a smart move.

  9. Re:Stop breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't break the law or be a pervert.

    Shove it up your ass, you fucking piece of shit. Things like TOR exist to promote free speech everywhere, especially in countries where attempting to express yourself will get you jailed and/or killed. Just because it's also open to be used by people with criminal intent does not mean it's a bad or wrong thing and you're completely and totally out of line to even attempt to demonize it for that reason. So how about you fuck the fuck off, asshole?

  10. Yes, but... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    How much kitty porn can I transfer per second over it?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re: Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Depends on how many cats you have I suppose.

    2. Re: Yes, but... by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

      The Internet is a series of tubes, and the tubes are filled with cats.

  11. Re:Stop breaking the law by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

    Don't challenge the dominant paradigm. Then you won't need encryption!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  12. Re:Stop breaking the law by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't illegal... yet. Trump cold still get elected in November, and anybody that can think rationally really pisses him off!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  13. So who funded this project? by bobbied · · Score: 1

    My guess is some three letter government organization....

    Let's face it folks, if privacy and security are important to you, DON'T do it on the Internet. There is no such thing as Privacy and Security on the Internet and that is NEVER going to change. Sure, you can obfuscate and encrypt and maybe buy yourself some time, but as soon as a packet hits your ISP, you had better just figure it's public knowledge because *somebody* could be listening in and you'd never know it.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:So who funded this project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being developed at mit, it is already way more trustworthy than something from carnegie mellon

    2. Re:So who funded this project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And would that be the same MIT that helped convict Aaron Swartz? Yes, yes it would.

      Being developed at MIT makes it no less than being developed by the traitorous dogs at CMU.

  14. Re:Stop breaking the law by Fwipp · · Score: 1

    I wonder if it's the same country that MIT is in?

  15. MIT is a government contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and those contracts can be a powerful incentive.
    If it is 100% free and open, then maybe.
    wait and see

  16. For now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NSA doesn't own most of their endpoints...yet.

  17. UNDERGROUND LAN BETTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if you need to actually want to be secure on "the main Internet" you should use Tails 1.4.1. Look for it on kat.cr (kickass torrents)

    You should also add these two lines to your torrc because the US Gov is the primary problem and wasted the most tax dollars on Earth to set up surveillance. The most ever in history.

    find your torrc and add
    StrictNodes 1
    ExcludeNodes {us}

    Comment them out if you absolutely have to with # before each line, change back for unrestricted Tor. Or use bridges btw.

    1. Re: UNDERGROUND LAN BETTER by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      So, the mighty CIA, NSA can't compromise nodes outside USA or set them up?

      Do you have a clue about their budget or manpower?

  18. Re:Stop breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop breaking the law

    And start mocking the troll, then it will go away. The OP is just fucking around. Don't take it seriously..

  19. Very suspicious and doubtful by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    If it were truly effective, it would be "born secret" and not released to the public unless it is crippled.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  20. Re: Stop breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I might dislike ISIL propaganda and the anarchists cookbook or Mein Kampf. I don't believe it should be illegal to distribute or read. To say otherwise is starting down the slippery slope of thought crime.

    I may not agree with what you say, but Ill defend to the death you're right to say it.
    - Kim Jong Il

  21. Claim... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "MIT claims new anonymity network that they say is more secure than Tor."

    Until they get hacked by UCSD, UofT, ParisTech, Anonymous, NSA, GCHQ, the Russians, the Chinese, ...

  22. Re: Stop breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If we're going to make ideas illegal to distribute I'd love to start with your idiotic ones.

  23. Re:Stop breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck you

  24. Re:Stop breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Parent post was made from a comfortable bedroom in a middle-class house in the USA.

  25. Re:MIT is a government contractor by jfdavis668 · · Score: 0

    MIT has been a government contractor since the 1940's

  26. Re: Stop breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hey faggot, how about we ban all religious texts while we're at it? Look at all the horror and death that's happened because of religion? Also ban all books on science and technology, since that knowledge can help people create weapons. Also all chemistry and biology books, since chemistry and biology can help you make things like bombs and poisons. Also all books about plants, since there are poisonous plants, and sticks from trees with good dense wood can be sharpened into weapons. And all books about geology, since rocks can be used as weapons. Cookbooks are right out, too, since you can make things with commonly found ingredients to make people sick. Any book on medical science is practically a sin, since it involves cutting into people (surgery), injecting things (drug use), and the icky, indecent innrer working of the human body -- only God should know those things! Scout manuals are next, since it's all about making weapons, setting things on fire, etc. No sewing books, either! Needles and scissors are sharp and can be used to KILL PEOPLE, so no clothes for you, either. Any book on self defense should be a jailable offense for obvious reasons. In fact let's remove people's hands and feet, since they're natural weapons. Like medical or biology books, any book talking about nasty, indecent SEX is outlawed -- as is sex itself, since it's just so icky and gross and SINFUL..

    Oh, what the hell, let's just outlaw the human race in general. Into the ovens with all seven billion of them! Then there won't be anyone around to possibly offend anyone else, commit any crimes, upset anyone, or otherwise stir up trouble. Problem solved! AC please report to the nearest people-disposal oven immediately, we wouldn't want you setting a bad example!

  27. Re: Stop breaking the law by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Spoken like a true cry-bully SJW who wants to dump the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments into the gutter.

    Go start your own fucking country, asshole. You obviously don't understand this one.

  28. Re: Stop breaking the law by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I'ts not a coincidence that ISL and Nazi Germany and North Korea and SJWs and all the goddamn petrol-dictatorships in the Middle East BAN SPEECH in JUST they way you want to.

    Wake the fuck up and catch up to the 21st century. Free speech is the best known cure to abusive regimes and policies. Why do you think every time you turn around some fascist government or fascist social movement is trying to clamp their hand around somene else's mouth?

      Why do you think that is? Because their ideas about How Other People Should Live are vigorously reasoned and empirically sound that they can endure an unflinching examination by unsympathetic observers willing to level withering criticism?

    Yeah, that must be it.

  29. Still just talk. by faldore · · Score: 2

    Where's the download link?
    Where's the exit nodes?
    Where's the network?

    I don't see a website for Riffle, only a .pdf.

    There are even other projects at MIT with the same name. (Riffle water monitoring system)
    https://civic.mit.edu/blog/hhcraig/open-water-project-exploring-open-source-water-quality-monitoring

    This 'Riffle' is just a paper not an actual network, afaict.

  30. Re:Stop breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice to see more young people on /.

    But 13 year olds really shouldn't be here.

    Now go tell your Mommy that you've been a bad boy, and GTFO.

  31. Re:Anything's better than Tor by mars-nl · · Score: 1

    First, Tor would be knowingly aiding and abetting in the distribution and consumption of child pornography.

    Other things that aid or abet child pornography:

    • Computers
    • Cameras
    • Internet
    • Electricity
    • Electrons
    • Math
    • Oxygen
    • Children
    • Child pornographers

    Let's just focus our attention to that last one.

  32. Re:Anything's better than Tor by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    yeah as if they were critical to it. plus, cameras are all fingerprinted and backdoored just fyi..

  33. Re:Stop breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't break the law or be a pervert. Then you won't need encryption. If you're not breaking the law (that includes stealing content by peer-to-peer downloads) and being a pervert, you have nothing to worry about.

    Ok so people bit. Now what?

  34. I doubt it will be better than MaidSafe by garompeta · · Score: 1

    MaidSafe's Safe Network is definitely going to change the internet as we know it.

    1. Re: I doubt it will be better than MaidSafe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My maid swears by it!

    2. Re:I doubt it will be better than MaidSafe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > MaidSafe's Safe Network is definitely going to change the internet

      That's nice. For all I care, it's vaporware as of now. TOR is, what we got. Use it! At least until something better comes along.

  35. What about EepSites? by c.s.carlson6 · · Score: 1

    Is the source code available for review? Have significant security reviews taken place? If you're looking for a tor alternative, why not consider EepSites first? They appear highly recommended and have been around much longer. I doubt they're even monitored yet, since I so rarely hear of people using them...

  36. Re:Stop breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't break the law or be a pervert. Then you won't need encryption. If you're not breaking the law (that includes stealing content by peer-to-peer downloads) and being a pervert, you have nothing to worry about.

    I have stuff to hide from CRIMINALS, as does everyone else with common sense.

    You're either an ignorant fool or a shill.

  37. 20 years ago it would have been laughed off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our liberties -- even the liberty to do stupid pranks without disproportionate consequences -- have been curtailed.

    1. Re:20 years ago it would have been laughed off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone pranking airport security with a fake bomb is committing suicide. Best they get shot before they can propagate their idiocy back into the gene pool.

    2. Re:20 years ago it would have been laughed off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strawman, don't worry you still can keep propagating your evident idiocy here in slashdot instead of back into the gene pool.

  38. Re: Stop breaking the law by slashrio · · Score: 1

    Oh, what the hell, let's just outlaw the human race in general. Into the ovens with all seven billion of them!

    No worries. we, the NATO, are working on that...

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  39. Re:Stop breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well the "CRIMINALS" have run rings around every so called self proclaimed security expert in the world including the good folks at MIT. And lately the "CRIMINALS" don't give a shit about anything personal you may have on your computer they just want to encrypt everything and extort money from you. All these people worried about their privacy like to pretend they actually do anything the government or any one else actually cares about. Their little lives are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things but they still behave like they are trying to protect the nations nuclear launch codes.

  40. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GREAT!!! Now let's ask Aaron Swartz how trustworthy MIT is.

  41. Maybe but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It undoubtedly has a backdoor for US "intelligence" agencies to snoop on it.

  42. Re:Stop breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember that before you close the bathroom door next time. You don't need privacy if you aren't breaking the law after all.

  43. Re:Stop breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They wouldn't spy if they didn't "give a shit".

    This is basic logic and you failed it.

  44. Re:Stop breaking the law by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Isn't illegal... yet. Trump cold still get elected in November, and anybody that can think rationally really pisses him off!

    Bullshit.

    It shouldn't matter WHAT you THINK OR SAY.

    You obviously dislike Trump and think he would outlaw some SJW-talk or Black pride or whatever. I don't know how likely that is.
    But people who dislike Trump are more likely to want to outlaw talking about the stuff Trump talk about, such as immigration.

    Whatever Nazist, Socialist or Islamist rule things could be outlawed and it's not good in either of the situations. People should be free - even if that includes the Nazis, the Socialists and the Islamists - their opinon should just be irrelevant since it's anti-free.

  45. Re:Stop breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People should be free - even if that includes the Nazis, the Socialists and the Islamists - their opinon should just be irrelevant since it's anti-free.

    Do you listen to yourself? "People should be free except the ones I've decided shouldn't, because they're against freedom"

  46. Re:Stop breaking the law by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Do you listen to yourself? "People should be free except the ones I've decided shouldn't, because they're against freedom"

    That's not what I said?

    I said their opinion should be irrelevant. They are still free to have it. They should just not be granted the power to limit the freedom of others. I reject democracy for a free society.