Anonymous HD video streaming

68 Pages·2014·6.3 MB·English

.....
Anonymous HD video streaming
Peer-to-peer onion router
Risto J.H. Tanaskoski
t
f
el
D
t
ei
t
si
r
e
v
ni
U
e
h
c
s
ni
h
c
e
T

..
Anonymous HD video
streaming
Peer-to-peer onion router
by
Risto J.H. Tanaskoski
inpartialfulfilmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeof
MasterofScience
inComputerScience
attheDelftUniversityofTechnology,
tobedefendedpubliclyonFridayJuly4th,2014at11:00AM.
Studentnumber: 1365177
Supervisor: Dr.ir.J.A.Pouwelse
Thesiscommittee: Prof.dr.ir.H.J.Sips, TUDelft
Dr.ir.J.A.Pouwelse, TUDelft
Dr.ir.S.E.Verwer, TUDelft
Anelectronicversionofthisthesisisavailableat
http://repository.tudelft.nl/.

Preface
ThissystemwouldnevergettoanimplementationwithoutthehelpofR.Plak,N.Zeilemaker,
E.Bouman,E.MilonandtherestofTriblerteam.AlsoIwouldliketothankdr.ir.J.A.Pouwelse
forsupervisingmymasterthesisproject.
ChrisTanaskoski
Delft,June2014
iii

Abstract
Noscalableprivacy-enhancingtechnologiesexiststhatiscapableofanonymousHDvideo
streaming.OurpaperdiscussesthenewanonymizerbuiltintoTribler,asocialcontent-sharing
client.
WithanonymousHD-videostreamingasthemainobjectiverequirementsasatleast10
Mbit/sthroughput,userbandwidthdonationsandNAT-traversalaredefined. UsingtheTri-
blerAPIandrelatedtoolsasDispersytheProxyCommunityisdesigned. Thiscommunityof
proxiesprovidespeerdiscovery,onionroutingandmulti-tunnelproxying.
Our system evolved through various stages. From the initial standalone routing pro-
totype, tothefirstTriblerversion. Thiswasfollowedbyprofilingtoachieveperformance
improvements. Finallytheversionwithlibtorrentandcryptography-readynesswasimple-
mented.
Ourperformanceevaluationshowsthattheproxycommunityisabletodiscoverothers
onthenetworkeffectivelyandbuiltcircuitswiththem. Overthesecircuitstherequired10
Mbit/sthroughputforHDstreaminghasbeenachieved.Preliminaryreal-worldtestingshows
thatthesystemworksinthewild. Howevermoretestingneedstobedoneandimportant
workonoursecuritymodelremains.
v

Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Anonymity and onion routing 3
2.1 Chaum’s mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 TOR - The Onion Router. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Tarzan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 I2P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5 Gnunet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6 Attacks on anonymity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 Problem Description 9
3.1 High-definition video streaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2 User bandwidth donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 NAT-compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4 Why not TOR?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4 Design 13
4.1 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2 System context — Existing technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3 Network protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4 Functional view point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5 Continuous improvement and feedback 25
5.1 Standalone routing prototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2 Onion routing community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.3 Bypassing Dispersy messaging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.4 Libtorrent and crypto-readyness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6 Evaluation 35
6.1 Real-world trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.2 Synthetic experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7 Future work 41
8 Conclusion 43
Experiment scenario 47
Glossary 49
References 53
vii