Figure out what to do with the FC paper proposing adaptive bridge address distribution
We had a deliverable for sponsor F year 1 "analyze FC paper proposing adaptive bridge address distribution," and we left it in a good enough state for the milestone, but with more work to do. The status on November 30 was:
"There are four building blocks involved here: 1) A way to discover how much use a bridge is seeing from a given country: see the WECSR10 paper and usage graphs. 2) A way to get fresh bridge addresses over time: see this blog post. 3) A way to discover when a bridge is blocked in a given country: see this blog post. 4) Distribution strategies that rely on different mechanisms to make enumeration difficult. The bottom of the bridge-testing blog post gives an overview of the Proximax idea. We've uncovered a further set of research questions that will need more attention in year2."
I'm creating this ticket to remind us that there's still work to do. but not for the November 30, 2011 milestone. From an IRC conversation on December 1, 2011:
12:47:40 < karsten> armadev: should I create a ticket "Figure out
what to do with the FC paper proposing adaptive
bridge address distribution," add the text from
the year1 page, assign it to the sponsor f march
2012 milestone, and call the year1 item done?
12:48:25 < armadev> karsten: sure. except i'm not sure if we'll have
anything useful to say by march 2012, so we may
end up putting it off at that point.
12:49:21 < armadev> karsten: a lot of it depends on how the "deploy
some bridge reachability testers" and "solve all
the bridge enumeration attacks" items go
12:49:55 < armadev> karsten: since the whole proximax idea is based
on the premise that the only way for the
adversary to learn bridges is to get told them by
a corrupt or weak distribution channel
12:50:57 < armadev> karsten: i haven't decided yet if the fact that
these other enumeration attacks are going to be
an ongoing problem is enough to kill the proximax
design, or just enough to slow it down.
12:51:36 < armadev> for example, against an adversary who likes dpi,
it's a pretty dumb strategy
12:51:58 < karsten> armadev: hmmm. would it make more sense for you
to create the ticket, rather than me creating it
and you correcting it?
12:52:37 < armadev> just paste all of this into it and we can sort it
out later