Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

They explain that in the first paragraph or so.

This allows edit nodes to decide what types of content will be routed to their node.



And opens the network to abuses Tor was meant to protect against. If proof-of-destination is built into the network then that is a huge step towards invalidating the main benefit of using a VPN -- you don't want someone (your local authority) knowing where you've been. Current VPNs sort-of work by not being in your local jurisdiction. Decentralizing it makes it easier to attack.


It uses zero knowledge proofs, so it doesn't really give anyone on the way proof-of-destination.


You have proof that someone visited a specific site because it uses a value derived from that site's SSL cert. You just don't have any more knowledge than that.


No.. You wouldn't need a ZKP for that.

From the paper:

> Note that such a proof is not straightforward. We firstly prove that a ciphertext, CS N I , is the result of an encryption without disclosing the public key nor the plaintext. This causes the highest overhead in our construction. We use the construction presented in [7] for this purpose.

> Then we need to link the public key encrypted in clause two, with the one used in clause one. For this we use a proof that two commitments hide the same secret [5].

> Finally the third clause can be openly computed by A given that it received the public key from R.

> Using this, S can convince A that the tunnel created is to a domain that the latter considers valid, without disclosing which one.


Tor can also have whitelist for clearnet domains.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: