[Cryptography] Dark Web should really be called the Twilight Web

Tom Mitchell mitch at niftyegg.com
Fri May 29 20:06:39 EDT 2015

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Dave Horsfall <dave at horsfall.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 28 May 2015, grarpamp wrote:
> > For whatever part of your threat models above includes global passive
> > adversary watching the input and output points of your network of choice
> > and lining up traffic observations... there is little defense to be
> > taken other than filling your unused capacity with fill traffic. No
> > network to date appears to be developing or using that defense.
> What about military systems?  They certainly use fill-traffic on radio,
> but do they do it on wire as well?  I'd be surprised if they didn't.
> <cryptography at metzdowd.com>

Military systems -- I suspect they would try to depend on links that they
and not an obfuscation system like ToR.

Passive snooping would see source and destination even if encrypted.
Messaging like mail would be more revealing as the store and forward
stamps communicate a lot.  Passive snooping is so possible that Internet
communications would be well managed thinking old school radio and

I am glad I do not know anything specific about such systems... their
issues are very different than individuals and the public.

The communication graph of Hillary's email might be more interesting
than the email content to some.

Interesting times...

  T o m    M i t c h e l l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20150529/4ee2a694/attachment.html>

More information about the cryptography mailing list