From: Joerg Micheel (joerg@cs.waikato.ac.nz)
Date: Wed Feb 14 2001 - 15:17:05 PST
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 03:03:33PM -0800, Cristian Estan wrote:
> I understand that even if we come up with a new scheme that is as secure
> as the old one, if the people whose networks the traces come from don't
> feel confortable with it, the right thing is to continue using the old
> scheme. What is not clear to me is whether the encryption I proposed, or
> an improved variant thereof can provide the level of privacy they want.
A good part of this problem is that there is noone to talk to. The systems
get installed by computer centers at institutions, personel of which is
sworn in to protect privacy and security by whatever rules exist locally.
They invite us to measure their networks with the assumption that whatever
we do at that measurement point will not degrade existing security/privacy.
If you want to explore new ways of anonymization, you may potentially have
to talk to lots of individuals to gain a common understanding of what is
proper research here and get everyone to support this new standard. Good
luck with that.
> I think that if we can define the privacy needs clearly enough, deriving
> a good encryption scheme that preserves the routing table (or proving
> that we cannot make up one) will not be that difficult.
So what exactly is it you are trying to achieve ? Have you thought of
alternatives ? Remember you can always come to us with a piece of code
that is interesting enough to be run by us for analysis.
Joerg
-- Joerg B. Micheel Email: <joerg@cs.waikato.ac.nz> WAND and NLANR MOAT Email: <joerg@nlanr.net> The University of Waikato, CompScience Phone: +64 7 8384794 Private Bag 3105 Fax: +64 7 8585095 Hamilton, New Zealand Plan: PMA, TINE and the DAG's
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Sep 27 2001 - 16:24:41 PDT