<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Measuring and mitigating AS-level adversaries against Tor · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1505.05173/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1505.05173/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Measuring and mitigating AS-level adversaries against Tor — mentioned by otoburb</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9586259</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1505.05173:9586259</guid><pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2015 01:33:07 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;&amp;gt;Astoria [is] both most effective and most usable when at its highest security level, the researchers say, so &amp;quot;Astoria is a usable substitute for the vanilla Tor client only in scenarios where security is a high priority.&amp;quot; I&amp;#x27;m still working through the research paper[1] linked at the end of the article, but if Astoria is as good as described, wouldn&amp;#x27;t Tor either adopt the same node selection policies, or people shift over to Astoria wholesale? [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.05173.pdf EDIT: From the paper, quotes below provide much clearer context for the quote in the article: &amp;quot;From our…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1505.05173/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CR</category></item></channel></rss>
