this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
147 points (92.0% liked)
Technology
59648 readers
2650 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Even if you baked in variable packet size into TCP. It would be trivial for anybody monitoring network flow, to see you who you're talking to. There would be no ambiguity.
The only reason this makes sense for a VPN, is there's a lot of traffic bundled together, so a third party doesn't actually know where your traffic flow is going.
Consider the example if you ran your own personal VPN endpoint. So you were the only user on the VPN. Even with randomized traffic flow injected into your VPN connection, it would be trivial for any third party who's monitoring traffic flow to know that traffic is yours. Because you're the only VPN connection talking to the VPN server. This thought experiment applies when you don't have a VPN at all.
If I were to send packets to a single entity over time, I'd have no use for DAITA. I agree with you on this.
However, let's say that I run a bunch of VPN endpoints across VPSes, and the entity trying to track me doesn't know about all of these IP ranges. I could be renting from a colo, the cloud and even a a bunch of friends who have their ports open. If I were to mix this in with my usual internet traffic, it becomes significantly harder for third-parties to figure out what I'm doing connecting to all of these different IPs. A state actor could put the resources behind it, but the average third-party will have a hard time with it. I can certainly see use-cases for it.
I think we're mixing up vocabulary.
Every IP you talk to is visible to anybody monitoring your network. The sale of net flow data is commonly acknowledged by ISPs. So every computer you talk to is common knowledge for sale.
In your scenario, let's say you have five VPN connections set up to go to five endpoints that you control. But if nobody else is using those same endpoints. Your net flow data still exposes exactly what you're doing. There's no ambiguity. Your traffic is plainly obvious to anybody observing the network. Even if those VPN connections are adding randomized traffic onto the links.
Except that I will not necessarily be connecting to the exact same IPs over time, just going to do so in specific ranges which the VPS/colo owns. There's plenty of people who are going to be renting VPSes and will have their traffic originate from the same IP range as mine, which means that if everybody using TCP had their traffic anonymized like so, the third party wouldn't actually know that MigratingToLemmy specifically was connecting to AWS at a certain time and from a certain location, so to speak. This hypothesis doesn't include correlation through other data in the threat model. But it could definitely prevent correlation with traffic across locations, which is similar to what Mullvad states
I'm sorry no. This will not help you avoid flow analysis
What am I missing?
https://hackertalks.com/comment/3687086