A Survey on Routing in Anonymous Communication Protocols

TL;DR

This survey comprehensively reviews various routing approaches in anonymous communication protocols, categorizing them based on topology, information sharing, and performance to clarify their differences and implications.

Contribution

It introduces a taxonomy that classifies anonymous communication routing protocols, analyzing their characteristics, deployability, and performance to aid understanding of their trade-offs.

Findings

Provides a taxonomy for anonymous routing protocols

Highlights differences in topology and information sharing

Analyzes performance and scalability aspects

Abstract

The Internet has undergone dramatic changes in the past 15 years, and now forms a global communication platform that billions of users rely on for their daily activities. While this transformation has brought tremendous benefits to society, it has also created new threats to online privacy, ranging from profiling of users for monetizing personal information to nearly omnipotent governmental surveillance. As a result, public interest in systems for anonymous communication has drastically increased. Several such systems have been proposed in the literature, each of which offers anonymity guarantees in different scenarios and under different assumptions, reflecting the plurality of approaches for how messages can be anonymously routed to their destination. Understanding this space of competing approaches with their different guarantees and assumptions is vital for users to understand the consequences of different design options. In this work, we survey previous research on designing, developing, and deploying systems for anonymous communication. To this end, we provide a taxonomy for clustering all prevalently considered approaches (including Mixnets, DC-nets, onion routing, and DHT-based protocols) with respect to their unique routing characteristics, deployability, and performance. This, in particular, encompasses the topological structure of the underlying network; the routing information that has to be made available to the initiator of the conversation; the underlying communication model; and performance-related indicators such as latency and communication layer. Our taxonomy and comparative assessment provide important insights about the differences between the existing classes of anonymous communication protocols, and it also helps to clarify the relationship between the routing characteristics of these protocols, and their performance and scalability.