The zig-zag traffic analysis attack (confirmed supported in Geedge TSG leak)
rapidly enumerates all static proxy pools. With ζ_watch ∈ {4, 6} steps and a
best-quality classifier (ρ_TP=0.99, ρ_FP=0.001), almost total proxy enumeration
and user blockage occurs well before step 300. Even ζ_watch=2 leaves ~50% of
users blocked. Collateral damage is high across all settings when ζ_watch ≥ 4:
eventually ~50% of innocent servers are also blocked. However, Snowflake-style
ephemeral proxies resist zig-zag effectively: reachability remains above 95%
after 360 steps because churn prevents the censor from expanding its known proxy
set beyond agents' direct assignments.
From 2026-fares-game — The Game Has Changed: Revisiting proxy distribution and game theory
· §5.1, Fig 3, Fig 4
· 2026
· Free and Open Communications on the Internet
Implications
Static server-side proxies (fixed IP, long lifetime) are critically vulnerable to zig-zag once even a few censor-controlled clients connect to them; Lantern's infrastructure proxies should rotate IPs or be front-ended by CDN/fronting layers to break the proxy→client→new-proxy enumeration chain.
Geedge's TSG implements zig-zag natively per the leak; Lantern deployments in countries using Geedge (Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Myanmar, Ethiopia) face this attack today—the mitigation is ephemeral peer proxies or IP rotation, not distribution algorithm tuning.