[tbb-bugs] #18361 [Tor Browser]: Issues with corporate censorship and mass surveillance

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#18361: Issues with corporate censorship and mass surveillance
------------------------------------------+--------------------------
 Reporter:  ioerror                       |          Owner:  tbb-team
     Type:  enhancement                   |         Status:  new
 Priority:  High                          |      Milestone:
Component:  Tor Browser                   |        Version:
 Severity:  Critical                      |     Resolution:
 Keywords:  security, privacy, anonymity  |  Actual Points:
Parent ID:                                |         Points:
 Reviewer:                                |        Sponsor:  None
------------------------------------------+--------------------------

Comment (by tne):

 Replying to [comment:217 jgrahamc]:
 > Yes. We have all sorts of different systems for dealing with different
 types of abuse because they are quite different. The IP reputation part,
 which is the source of the CAPTCHAs that Tor users are seeing, is a small
 part.

 Sure, I think we all understand that; the decision to block using a
 CAPTCHA is based on the reputation of the origin IP only. Can you, in
 addition, take into account the status of the destination site? (Similar
 to what you do in DDoS situations when you classify sites as "Under
 attack" in order to, as I understand it, deploy different
 countermeasures.)

 Of course, as you say, we're not talking about DDoS situations -- the
 "Under attack" terminology might not be appropriate. Say "Observing abuse"
 instead if that helps.

 So: if the site is "actively observing abuse" and the IP has bad
 reputation, block using a CAPTCHA as usual. If the site is not "actively
 observing abuse" or the IP reputation is good, let the request go through.

 My question (hopefully clarified now) is: How hard would it be to
 establish (and remove) this "observing abuse" status (if it makes sense at
 all)?

 The obvious assumption here is that a non-trivial amount of sites are not
 being actively abused and so it doesn't make sense to put the walls up
 around them, since it unfortunately prevents many legitimate users from
 reaching them painlessly as well (or at all, depending on their patience).
 Barring evidence to the contrary, I believe this assumption to be true.
 Intuitively, it wouldn't help the most popular sites, which are
 undoubtedly under *constant* abuse, but it would alleviate a big chunk of
 the pain expressed in this whole debate.

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/18361#comment:218>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online