Re: Anonymity at any cost, from The Netly News

At 12:31 PM 11/24/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>*********

>http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1594,00.html

>The Netly News (http://netlynews.com/)
>November 24, 1997

>Anonymity At Any Cost
>by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)

>        When Lance Cottrell created an easy-to-use anonymous e-mail service
>	back in 1994, he feared that nobody would use it. "I used to be
>	worried that people didn't want anonymity enough to pay for it,"
>	he says. Today his company, Infonex, boasts 3,000 customers who
>	pay $60 a year to browse the Web without leaving behind digital
>	footprints. 

        Making the cookie read only and erasing previous additions does the
same thing for free. Cottrell is PT Barnum speaking. 

-=-=-
The 2nd guarantees all the rest.

Mikhael Frieden <mikhaelf@mindspring.com>
> >Anonymity At Any Cost
> >by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
> 
> >        When Lance Cottrell created an easy-to-use anonymous e-mail service
> >	back in 1994, he feared that nobody would use it. "I used to be
> >	worried that people didn't want anonymity enough to pay for it,"
> >	he says. Today his company, Infonex, boasts 3,000 customers who
> >	pay $60 a year to browse the Web without leaving behind digital
> >	footprints. 
> 
>         Making the cookie read only and erasing previous additions does the
> same thing for free. Cottrell is PT Barnum speaking. 

That's no where near what the anonymizer does for you.

For $60 Lance gives a years use of an SSL connection to an anonymizing
web proxy.  That means as well as stripping out the cookies, browser
type, and other identifying info -- it means that your IP# isn't even
listed, and what's more passive snoops (eg snoopy Feds) of net traffic
into and out of infonex might have a bit of problem figuring out who
was accessing what under the cover of SSL.  

(Modulo traffic analysis -- web traffic is patchy, pauses in transfer
will show through the SSL layer, so you would probably be better off
browsing the dodgy stuff at peak web usage times, for the cover
traffic.)

I think Lance's success with this is tremendously good for privacy,
and it is also a positive to see that some people do care enough about
privacy to pay for it.

Adam
-- 
Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <199711251009.KAA01273@server.test.net>, on 11/25/97 
   at 05:09 AM, Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> said:

>Mikhael Frieden <mikhaelf@mindspring.com>
>> >Anonymity At Any Cost
>> >by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
>> 
>> >        When Lance Cottrell created an easy-to-use anonymous e-mail service
>> >	back in 1994, he feared that nobody would use it. "I used to be
>> >	worried that people didn't want anonymity enough to pay for it,"
>> >	he says. Today his company, Infonex, boasts 3,000 customers who
>> >	pay $60 a year to browse the Web without leaving behind digital
>> >	footprints. 
>> 
>>         Making the cookie read only and erasing previous additions does the
>> same thing for free. Cottrell is PT Barnum speaking. 

>That's no where near what the anonymizer does for you.

Absolutly, I can't beleive that Mikhael is *that* clueless.

>For $60 Lance gives a years use of an SSL connection to an anonymizing
>web proxy.  That means as well as stripping out the cookies, browser
>type, and other identifying info -- it means that your IP# isn't even
>listed, and what's more passive snoops (eg snoopy Feds) of net traffic
>into and out of infonex might have a bit of problem figuring out who was
>accessing what under the cover of SSL.  

>(Modulo traffic analysis -- web traffic is patchy, pauses in transfer
>will show through the SSL layer, so you would probably be better off
>browsing the dodgy stuff at peak web usage times, for the cover traffic.)

>I think Lance's success with this is tremendously good for privacy, and
>it is also a positive to see that some people do care enough about
>privacy to pay for it.

I had posted awhile back when these HTTP proxies first appeared about some
inherent security risks with using them.

The biggest problem with any proxy agent is one of trust. When one looks
at what a proxy agent does one can see the scary potentials for abuse.
Lets take the example of the Evil Proxy agent at www.nsa.gov.

Case #1

- -- User connects to Evil Proxy sending a request for it to retreive a web
page. -- Evil Proxy Logs who is connecting, time, and what web pages they
are requesting. -- Evil then retrieves the web pages and transmits them to
the user. -- Evil Proxy processes log data periodically to check for
either Bad User or Bad Web Page usage and flags such activity for the
Lea's.

Case #2

- -- User connects to Evil Proxy sending a request for it to retreive a web
page. -- Evil Proxy Logs who is connecting, time, and what web pages they
are requesting. -- Evil Proxy finds that web page in Bad Web Page list.
- -- Evil Proxy returns a forged web page to the user rather than the page
that the user requested. (imagine such a proxy being set-up to flag any
pgp.zip file requests and returning pgp_nsa_spoof.zip instead.) -- Evil
Proxy processes log data periodically to check for either Bad User or Bad
Web Page usage and flags such activity for the Lea's.

Case #3 (This is theoretical as I am not sure it is possessable with
current browsers)

- -- User connects to Evil Proxy sending a request for it to retreive a web
page. -- Evil Proxy Logs who is connecting, time, and what web pages they
are requesting. -- Evil Proxy finds that User in Bad User list.
- -- Evil Proxy returns the requested web page but also returns an extra
file which is saved to the Users HD without his knowledge (imagine storing
some kiddie porn gif's on a political opponents computer). -- Evil Proxy
processes log data periodically to check for either Bad User or Bad Web
Page usage and flags such activity for the Lea's.

A less damming case but still troublesome would be where Evil Proxy was
being run by commercial interest rather than governmental:

Case #4 (Not much different than Case #1)

- -- User connects to Evil Proxy sending a request for it to retreive a web
page. -- Evil Proxy Logs who is connecting, time, and what web pages they
are requesting. -- Evil then retrieves the web pages and transmits them to
the user. -- Evil Proxy processes log data periodically and sells it to
whomever want's it (Lea's, Spamford, GM, Microsoft, ... ect).

I think that you can see that the security of HTTP Proxies is the same for
a single E-Mail remailer. The natural evolution for these proxies is to
use chaining and encryption in the same way e-mail is processed through
remailers.

- -- Chaining of Proxies
- -- Multiple Layers of Encryption with the inner most layer being
end-to-end encryption.

HTTP proxies are good but still have a long way to go.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNHrvxo9Co1n+aLhhAQEZ2AP/XToQgVc9bgGZqupPUZUc14cXjiTLTYOn
tZFH8qy6fWnOyy6kz+zCZkn6R6rQ9nr7r1VTpVaYpA05hUzocO8YIDUBPlI6ZMBH
FJjFE/i3N4NK3IeS4w6nfDh1gV8OmHAB/oX++Fmv0zmLSFAgDDijHEf0LkrNkOTm
kwLlF+Pj8OY=
=hn/s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Besides the risks of using proxy.evil.nsa.mil or proxy.blacknet.net,
there are other subtle things that a proxy server could do.
For instance, replacing banner ads is easy - you can't recognize them all,
but ad.doubleclick.net and linkexchange.com are easy targets;
an anonymizing proxy might replace those ads with its own,
or at least with static images that load faster.
This has a lot of implications when using the proxy to access
advertising-supported web sites, and there have been lawsuits over
web services that provided access to other web-based news services
while adding their own advertising banners in another frame
(one such target was totalnews.com.)

Of course, if you want to make advertising banners go away,
you can start by aliasing ad.doubleclick.net to 127.0.0.2 or whatever;
I've found it loads much faster this way :-)
				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, stewarts@ix.netcom.com
Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

An entity claiming to be Mikhael Frieden wrote:

: 
:         Making the cookie read only and erasing previous additions does the
: same thing for free. Cottrell is PT Barnum speaking. 
: 

Considering that the bulk of the online population doesn't even know how to
use the 'attrib' command, that's a useless argument.  Anyway, that's only one
aspect of the Anonimizer service.

Mark

- -- 
[] Mark Rogaski                   "That which does not kill me
[] wendigo@pobox.com                 only makes me stranger."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNHup7cHFI4kt/DQOEQJTHwCeNrRjT+jPVNyZXLuzjL5OkzqbC9AAoKDE
8YhHySNUFV7nb1i7R6z2lj5F
=mav7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----