MLEFlow: Learning from History to Improve Load Balancing in Tor

[1] M. AlSabah and I. Goldberg, “Performance and security improvements for Tor: A survey,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 49, no. 2, p. 32, 2016. Search in Google Scholar

[2] R. Annessi and M. Schmiedecker, “Navigator: Finding faster paths to anonymity,” in 2016 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS P), 2016, pp. 214–226. Search in Google Scholar

[3] K. Bauer, D. McCoy, D. Grunwald, T. Kohno, and D. Sicker, “Low-resource routing attacks against Tor,” in Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Workshop on Privacy in Electronic Society (WPES), 2007, pp. 11–20. Search in Google Scholar

[4] H. Darir, “mleflow,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/hdarir2/mleflow Search in Google Scholar

[5] H. Darir, H. Sibai, N. Borisov, G. Dullerud, and S. Mitra, “Tightrope: Towards optimal load-balancing of paths in anonymous networks,” in Proceedings of the 2018 Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, 2018, pp. 76–85. Search in Google Scholar

[6] R. Dingledine, “The lifecycle of a new relay,” The Tor Project Blog, https://blog.torproject.org/lifecycle-new-relay, Sep. 2013. Search in Google Scholar

[7] ——, “Tor security advisory: “relay early” traffic confirmation attack,” https://blog.torproject.org/tor-security-advisory-relay-early-traffic-confirmation-attack, Jul. 2014, tor Blog. Search in Google Scholar

[8] R. Dingledine and N. Mathewson, “Anonymity loves company: Usability and the network effect.” in WEIS, 2006. Search in Google Scholar

[9] R. Dingledine, N. Mathewson, and P. F. Syverson, “Tor: The second-generation onion router,” in USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX, 2004, pp. 303–320. Search in Google Scholar

[10] M. Edman and P. Syverson, “As-awareness in tor path selection,” in Proceedings of the 16th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, 2009, pp. 380–389. Search in Google Scholar

[11] D. Goulet and M. Perry, “Make relays report when they are overloaded,” Tor Proposal 328, https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/torspec/-/blob/master/proposals/328-relay-overload-report.md, Nov. 2020. Search in Google Scholar

[12] A. Greubel, A. Dmitrienko, and S. Kounev, “Smartor: Smarter tor with smart contracts: Improving resilience of topology distribution in the tor network,” in Proceedings of the 34th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, ACSAC 2018, San Juan, PR, USA, December 03-07, 2018. ACM, 2018, pp. 677–691. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3274694.3274722 Search in Google Scholar

[13] S. Herbert, S. J. Murdoch, and E. Punskaya, “Optimising node selection probabilities in multi-hop m/d/1 queuing networks to reduce latency of tor,” Electronics letters, vol. 50, no. 17, pp. 1205–1207, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

[14] R. Jansen, K. Bauer, N. Hopper, and R. Dingledine, “Methodically modeling the tor network,” in 5th Workshop on Cyber Security Experimentation and Test (CSET’12). Bellevue, WA: USENIX Association, Aug. 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/cset12/workshop-program/presentation/Jansen Search in Google Scholar

[15] R. Jansen and N. Hopper, “Shadow: Running Tor in a box for accurate and efficient experimentation,” in Proceedings of the 19th Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS), 2012. Search in Google Scholar

[16] R. Jansen and A. Johnson, “On the accuracy of Tor bandwidth estimation,” in Passive and Active Measurement Conference (PAM), 2021. Search in Google Scholar

[17] R. Jansen, T. Vaidya, and M. Sherr, “Point break: a study of bandwidth denial-of-service attacks against Tor,” in 28th USENIX Security Symposium, 2019, pp. 1823–1840. Search in Google Scholar

[18] A. Johnson, R. Jansen, N. Hopper, A. Segal, and P. Syverson, “PeerFlow: Secure load balancing in Tor,” Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, vol. 2017, no. 2, pp. 74–94, 2017. Search in Google Scholar

[19] juga, “How bandwidth scanners monitor the Tor network,” Tor Project Blog, https://blog.torproject.org/aggregation-feed-types/sbws, Apr. 2019. Search in Google Scholar

[20] M. G. Kendall, A. Stuart, and J. K. Ord, Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics. USA: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1987. Search in Google Scholar

[21] K. Loesing, M. Perry, and A. Gibson, “Bandwidth scanner specification,” https://gitweb.torproject.org/torflow.git/tree/NetworkScanners/BwAuthority/README.spec.txt, 2011. Search in Google Scholar

[22] M. Perry, “TorFlow: Tor network analysis,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Hot Topics in Privacy Enhancing Technologies (HotPETs), 2009, pp. 1–14. Search in Google Scholar

[23] R. Snader and N. Borisov, “EigenSpeed: Secure peer-to-peer bandwidth evaluation,” in 8th International Workshop on Peer-To-Peer Systems, R. Rodrigues and K. Ross, Eds. Berkeley, CA, USA: USENIX Association, Apr. 2009. Search in Google Scholar

[24] ——, “Improving security and performance in the Tor network through tunable path selection,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 728–741, 2011. Search in Google Scholar

[25] The Tor Project, “Deploying the simple bandwidth scanner,” https://sbws.readthedocs.io/en/latest/DEPLOY.html, 2018. Search in Google Scholar

[26] ——, “Differences between Torflow and sbws,” https://tpo.pages.torproject.net/network-health/sbws/differences.html, 2020. Search in Google Scholar

[27] ——, “Tor directory protocol, version 3,” https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/dir-spec.txt, 2020. Search in Google Scholar

[28] ——, “Tor metrics: Servers,” https://metrics.torproject.org/networksize.html, 2020. Search in Google Scholar

[29] ——, “Tor metrics: Users,” https://metrics.torproject.org/userstats-relay-country.html, 2020. Search in Google Scholar

[30] F. Thill, “Hidden service tracking detection and bandwidth cheating in Tor anonymity network,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Luxembourg, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

[31] M. Traudt, R. Jansen, and A. Johnson, “Flashflow: A secure speed test for tor,” 2020. Search in Google Scholar

[32] T. Wang, K. Bauer, C. Forero, and I. Goldberg, “Congestion-aware path selection for Tor,” in International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, 2012, pp. 98–113. Search in Google Scholar

[33] P. Winter, R. Ensafi, K. Loesing, and N. Feamster, “Identifying and characterizing sybils in the tor network,” in 25th USENIX Security Symposium, 2016, pp. 1169–1185. Search in Google Scholar

[34] M. K. Wright, M. Adler, B. N. Levine, and C. Shields, “The predecessor attack: An analysis of a threat to anonymous communications systems,” ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC), vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 489–522, 2004. Search in Google Scholar

• Proof-of-Vax: Studying User Preferences and Perception of Covid Vaccination Certificates

• AriaNN: Low-Interaction Privacy-Preserving Deep Learning via Function Secret Sharing

• Zen and the art of model adaptation: Low-utility-cost attack mitigations in collaborative machine learning

• Making the Most of Parallel Composition in Differential Privacy

• OmniCrawl: Comprehensive Measurement of Web Tracking With Real Desktop and Mobile Browsers

• Toward Uncensorable, Anonymous and Private Access Over Satoshi Blockchains

• User Perceptions of Gmail’s Confidential Mode

• The Effectiveness of Adaptation Methods in Improving User Engagement and Privacy Protection on Social Network Sites

• Multiparty Reach and Frequency Histogram: Private, Secure, and Practical

• Circuit-PSI With Linear Complexity via Relaxed Batch OPPRF

• Differentially private partition selection

• Setting the Bar Low: Are Websites Complying With the Minimum Requirements of the CCPA?

• Polaris: Transparent Succinct Zero-Knowledge Arguments for R1CS with Efficient Verifier

• MLEFlow: Learning from History to Improve Load Balancing in Tor

• (∈, δ)-Indistinguishable Mixing for Cryptocurrencies

• From “Onion Not Found” to Guard Discovery

• Masking Feedforward Neural Networks Against Power Analysis Attacks

• Forward and Backward-Secure Range-Searchable Symmetric Encryption

• Personal information inference from voice recordings: User awareness and privacy concerns

• Privacy-Preserving High-dimensional Data Collection with Federated Generative Autoencoder

• Editors’ Introduction

• Disparate Vulnerability to Membership Inference Attacks

• If You Like Me, Please Don’t “Like” Me: Inferring Vendor Bitcoin Addresses From Positive Reviews

• Privacy-preserving FairSwap: Fairness and privacy interplay

• Polymath: Low-Latency MPC via Secure Polynomial Evaluations and Its Applications

• If This Context Then That Concern: Exploring users’ concerns with IFTTT applets

• Ulixes: Facial Recognition Privacy with Adversarial Machine Learning

• Towards Improving Code Stylometry Analysis in Underground Forums

• SoK: Cryptographic Confidentiality of Data on Mobile Devices

• DataProVe: Fully Automated Conformance Verification Between Data Protection Policies and System Architectures

• How Can and Would People Protect From Online Tracking?