Introduction
Anonymous technology is often used to conceal the user’s IP address as well as to encrypt the traffic between service and user. However, these technologies are used in legitimate as well as illegitimate manners. The study focuses on one such technology which is Anonymous P2P communication along with evaluating its use for different purposes. Summarising the working of the Anonymous P2P communication The network nodes between two peers are referred to as anonymous when there is no identifier in the nodes. However, as suggested by Puthal et al. (2018), often anonymous P2P communication is identified by its cryptographic key instead of identifiers. Anonymous P2P communication works on the basis of nodes where every node acts as a universal receiver and sender so as to maintain anonymity between the networks. As opined by Panwar et al. (2019), the anonymity between two nodes is maintained due to the nature of universal
sender and receiver. that if the nodes are of a singular type then the other neighboring nodes can understand from where the information is being
transmitted. Therefore, in order to be considered as an anonymous network for P2P communication, it is necessary for nodes to exchange information on other networks to maintain anonymity.
Discussing the legitimate use of Anonymous P2P communication by internet users Anonymous P2P communication is used by users in order to manage their privacy as a receiver or sender for various reasons. One of the uses of this technology by internet users is to prevent tracking activities that are used by internet service providers. According to the words of Iordanou et al. (2018), the ISP uses the IP address to track the internet activities of the users. In this context, it can be said that one of the legitimate uses is to prevent the tracking of internet activities. Furthermore, this technology is also used by internet users for the purpose
of whistle-blowing. Whistleblowers are often in constant threat of their identity being identified. Thus, Anonymous P2P communications are used by these users to prevent other networks from identifying the sender. This in turn creates a safe passage for internet users to provide confidential information for the betterment of society. As suggested by Mahajan and Gupta (2018), there are several techniques for managing anonymity over the network such as onion routing, proxy servers, and others. Moreover, these techniques are used by internet users with the help of specific applications such as TOR, Freenet and others. Discussing the illegitimate use of Anonymous P2P communication by cybercriminals In present time every technology has its legitimate as well as illegitimate uses that need to be assessed by the users. For instance, Anonymous P2P communications are often used by cybercriminals in order to promote criminal activities such as copyright infringement, data theft, congestion attacks, and others. Cybercriminals are promoting illegally hacked software, video, and music through the Anonymous P2P network. This software further increases the risks of data theft and congestion attacks on the user’s device due to malicious virus attached to the copyright materials. As suggested by Gozman et al. (2018), an anonymous P2P network allows users to get access to a wide variety of materials ranging from premium software to videos. However, this software can be rigged with malicious viruses or malware that can affect the device. In this context, it can be said that the sender of the Anonymous P2P network can also initiate device hijacking as well as privacy infringement through the use of illegal software that is downloaded by users on the Anonymous P2P network. Therefore, it is evident that this anonymous technology has its own set of advantages as well as disadvantages that are used for legitimate as well as illegitimate purposes. Discussing and evaluating the measures for mitigating illegitimate use of Anonymous P2P communication by cybercriminals The illegitimate use of Anonymous P2P communication needs to be mitigated in order to prevent cybercrimes. In this context, it can be said that there are few measures such as blacklisting, web filtering and spam marking that can prevent unauthorized access to the network anonymously. As suggested by Grahn et al. (2014), blacklisting refers to the method of preventing a specific node from communicating with the network. In this case, it can be said that by blacklisting certain anonymous nodes the users can prevent data theft and privacy infringement effectively. However, this process is time-consuming as the user has to identify the anonymous nodes first before blacklisting them. Moreover, the cybercriminal can create other nodes that can enter the network anonymously which can break down the network. Thus, this method is suitable for preliminary measures to prevent the immediate threat of Anonymous P2P communication. Web filtering is another measure that can assist a user in preventing illegitimate use of Anonymous P2P communication. For instance, this method filters out the network based on the IP address as well as the DNS of some web pages. This in turn can prevent the user from accessing malicious and anonymous networks. Lastly, the method of spam marking allows a user to analyze the email received from anonymous P2P communication along with marking it as spam in order to prevent scam and further communication. As opined by Wen et al. (2020), the analysis of the email is based on content as well as behavior. In this context, it can be said that the spam marking can assist in the prevention of illegitimate cyber activity through Anonymous P2P communication. Moreover, congestion attacks and data theft can be mitigated effectively. However, some emails can be sent in such a manner that would not be considered spam, thereby, making the method ineffective. Thus, every measure against cybercriminals can have some flaw that needs to be considered before implementing it.
Critically evaluating the literature
The main objective of attacking anonymous users is to identify the receiver or sender. As suggested by Grahn et al. (2014), attacks against anonymous users can be classified under two aspects which are active attacks and passive attacks. An active attack is focused on disrupting the flow of data between nodes through deletion, modification and replication. On the contrary, passive attacks are more focused on eavesdropping rather than disrupting or modifying the content of the message. There are around four common types of attacks such as Sybil attack, intersection attack, predecessor attack, and timing attack (Grahn et al. 2014).
All these attacks are focused on disrupting the flow of communication between the sender and receiver. However, these attacks can be managed with the help of different measures such as defensive dropping, gamma buffering defense, and others. The main reason for these attacks is the use of untrusted internet environments that can lead to the launching of DDOS attacks by anonymous users. As suggested by He et al. (2020), this can lead to the breakdown of the whole network. Moreover, it can affect network security and user privacy. According to the words of Grahn et al. (2014), blacklisting and spam marking allows a network to manage the authority of the user over the network in terms of sending or receiving messages. Similarly, He et al. (2020), suggest that service providers use the black
listing as a method to prevent attacks from anonymous users in a network. In addition to this, it has been identified that the threat from cybercrimes over anonymous P2P communication can be mitigated by user behavior tracking. In this context, it can be said that the user behavior can be tracked based on two aspects which are source address translation and self-verifying identifier. As opined by He et al. (2020), source address translation can use an IP address to track the behavior of the sender. On the other hand, the identity of the users is encrypted through a self-verifying identifier due to which the attackers cannot decrypt the identity of the user. However, both methods have some disadvantages such as exposing IP addresses and security issues due to the involvement of
third-party proxy respectively. Thus, anonymous P2P communication often leads to illegitimate activities that need to be controlled with the help of the above methods.
Comparing and contrasting the legitimate and illegitimate viewpoints of Anonymous P2P communication
The anonymous P2P communication allows people to communicate freely without disclosing their identity. However, as argued by Kobusińska et al. (2016), it also protects illegitimate uses such as fraud, copyright infringement planning of criminal activities, and others. Legitimate uses involve protection from tracking activities from ISP. On the contrary, illegitimate uses include the launching of congestion attacks as well as data theft over anonymous P2P communication. In addition to this, illegitimate usage also involves piracy of videos and music as well as premium software. Moreover, people with limited technological knowledge often use anonymous technologies to access it only to get scammed into downloading malware. This results in data theft and other issues with the users. However,
according to Shirazi et al. (2018), anonymous P2P communication also allowed people to reveal confidential information which led to the betterment of society. In this context, it can be said that anonymous P2P communication has versatile usage depending upon the user’s intent and knowledge. Moreover, there are certain measures that be undertaken by users to prevent such cyber crimes effectively.
Conclusion
The study concludes that anonymous P2P communication has legitimate as well as illegitimate usage depending upon the perception of the users. Furthermore, there are certain measures such as blacklisting, spam marking as well as web filtering that can be used to prevent cybercrimes associated with anonymous P2P communication. Moreover, the study concludes that the main objective of such attacks on the network is to disrupt the communication flow between nodes.
