From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1XJTmR-0001JZ-5d for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 20:43:51 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.169; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-vc0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XJTmQ-0007nF-4L for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 20:43:51 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id le20so6444819vcb.14 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:43:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.185.193 with SMTP id fe1mr2435730vdc.31.1408394624571; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.187.132 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:43:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140818203343.GA639@localhost.localdomain> References: <20140818164543.GB31175@localhost.localdomain> <CAAS2fgQZaDOtoh+_oaiZh6jMOacSuHbEM=vktBdThDP_7eRH0Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140818183721.GD31175@localhost.localdomain> <CAAS2fgQa1ZURn1M9-LBnSHsE5fHKdatrVbNJbd+E9JYQYH=wFw@mail.gmail.com> <20140818203343.GA639@localhost.localdomain> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:43:44 -0700 Message-ID: <CAAS2fgR5EEtevfKB2xKwExhtokb8naBH_PsLkJz3ZeJfeW6YFw@mail.gmail.com> From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> To: Ivan Pustogarov <ivan.pustogarov@uni.lu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1XJTmQ-0007nF-4L Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Outbound connections rotation X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 20:43:51 -0000 On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Ivan Pustogarov <ivan.pustogarov@uni.lu> w= rote: > The attack I'm trying to address is described here: https://www.cryptolux= .org/index.php/Bitcoin > It was discussed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D632124.0 > > It uses the following observation. Each NATed client connects to the Bitc= oin network > through 8 entry peers; he also advertises his public IP address to these = peers which > allows an attacker to make the mapping <8-entry-peers, client-IP-address>= . I'm afraid I'm losing you here. The node advertises himself to everyone he is connected to and in/or out, those nodes pass along those advertisements. When I receive an advertisement from a node I do not know how far away the advertised peers is, presumably I can accurately exclude it from being 0-hops=E2=80=94 itself=E2=80=94) 1 or more= should be indistinguishable. Is there a reason that they're distinguishable that I'm missing? Can you explain to me how you propose to produce this mapping?