Abstract
Neither of the two anonymisation services Tor and AN.ON clearly outperforms the other one. AN.ON’s user-perceived QoS is generally more consistent over time than Tor’s. While AN.ON’s network latencies are low compared to Tor, it suffers from limitations in bandwidth. Interestingly, Tor’s performance seems to depend on the time of day: it increases in the European morning hours. Utilising AN.ON’s reporting of concurrently logged-in users, we show a correlation between load and performance. The reported number of users should be adjusted, though, so that it serves as a better indicator for security and performance. Finally, the results indicate the existence of an overall tolerance level for acceptable latencies of approximately 4 seconds, which should be kept in mind when designing low-latency anonymisation services.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
ActiveState ActivePerl: (2006), http://www.activestate.com/Products/ActivePerl/
Alexa Top Sites: (2006-02-06), http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites
AN.ON: Protection of Privacy on the Internet (2006), http://www.anon-online.de
Bauer, K., et al.: Low-Resource Routing Attacks Against Anonymous Systems. Technical Report (2007), http://www.cs.colorado.edu/department/publications/reports/docs/CU-CS-1025-07.pdf
Boehme, R., et al.: On the PET Workshop Panel Mix Cascades vs. Peer-to-Peer: Is One Concept Superior? In: Martin, D., Serjantov, A. (eds.) PET 2004. LNCS, vol. 3424, pp. 243–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Chaum, D.: Untraceable electronic mail, return addresses, and digital pseudonyms. Communications of the ACM 4(2) (1981)
Draper, N.R., et al.: Applied Regression Analysis, p. 17. Wiley, New York (1966)
Federrath, H.: Privacy Enhanced Technologies: Methods - Markets - Misuse. In: Katsikas, S.K., Lopez, J., Pernul, G. (eds.) TrustBus 2005. LNCS, vol. 3592, pp. 1–9. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
I2P: (2006), http://www.i2p.net
JMeter: (2006), http://jakarta.apache.org/jmeter/
Köpsell, S.: Low Latency Anonymous Communication - How long are users willing to wait? In: Müller, G. (ed.) ETRICS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3995, pp. 221–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
LWP: ParallelUA 2.57 (2006), http://search.cpan.org/~marclang/ParallelUserAgent-2.57/
Paxson, V.: End-to-end routing behavior in the internet. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communications, pp. 25–38 (1996)
RFC2616 Hypertext Transfer Protocol - HTTP/1.1. Section 14.9 (2006)
Servertest: (2006), http://softwaregarden.com/products/servertest/index.html
Sheskin, D.J.: Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures, 2nd edn., p. 247. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2000)
Tor: An anonymous Internet communication system (2006), http://tor.eff.org
Tor FAQ: Why does Google show up in foreign languages? (2006), http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/TorFAQ#GoogleLanguage
Tor Wiki: (2006), http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/FireFoxTorPerf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wendolsky, R., Herrmann, D., Federrath, H. (2007). Performance Comparison of Low-Latency Anonymisation Services from a User Perspective. In: Borisov, N., Golle, P. (eds) Privacy Enhancing Technologies. PET 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4776. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75551-7_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75551-7_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-75550-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-75551-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)