Anonymous Stateless Communication Architecture: Design, Network Performance Analysis, and Integration of Tor Hidden Services for Privileged Communications
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26636/jtit.2026.2.2599Keywords:
anonymous communication, Docker, network architecture, stateless design, Tor Hidden Services, WebSocketAbstract
This paper presents the network architecture and empirical performance analysis of the Proof of Concept (POC) for a stateless Tor-based communication system designed for privileged communication. Unlike existing secure messaging platforms relying on centralized server infrastructures, persistent session states, or identifiable network endpoints, the proposed solution achieves server-side and client anonymity simultaneously through the integration of Tor hidden services v3, stateless application design, and containerized microservice decomposition. We formally describe the system's model and its constituent components: an application server, an ephemeral identity registry, and a browser-based client operating over WebCrypto. Next, we analyze performance of the network layer across 100 measurement cycles. Empirical results confirm that cryptographic operations contribute less than 2 ms of overhead relative to dominant Tor circuit latency (mean value of 8100 ms per circuit). Immunity to traffic, session linkability, and server deanonymization are examined against a realistic network adversary model. POC is compared to SecureDrop, Ricochet, and Signal in terms of five architectural properties and is shown to be the only system under evaluation satisfying all five requirements simultaneously. Deployment considerations for production-grade privileged communication environments, including operational security procedures for public key registration, are discussed as well.
Downloads
References
[1] P. Dela, "Selected Aspects of Cybersecurity", Bellona, vol. 724, pp. 99-119, 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0055.6958
View in Google Scholar
[2] J. Syta, "Challenges in Providing Cybersecurity to Port and Maritime Infrastructure Facilities", GIS Odyssey Journal, vol. 4, pp. 131-144, 2024.
View in Google Scholar
[3] R. Dingledine, N. Mathewson, and P. Syverson, "Tor: The Second-generation Onion Router", Proc. of the 13th USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 303-320, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA465464
View in Google Scholar
[4] Tor Project, "Tor's Fall Harvest: The Next Generation of Onion Services", 2017 [Online]. Available: https://blog.torproject.org/tors-fall-harvest-next-generation-onion-services/.
View in Google Scholar
[5] J. Kosiński, Cybercrime Paradigms, Difin, Warszawa, 300 p., 2015 (in Polish).
View in Google Scholar
[6] Freedom of the Press Foundation, "SecureDrop Documentation: What Is SecureDrop?", GitHub, 2024 [Online]. Available: https://docs.securedrop.org/en/stable/.
View in Google Scholar
[7] B.-J. Koops, M. Hildebrandt, and D.-O. Jaquet-Chiffelle, "Bridging the Accountability Gap: Rights for New Entities in the Information Society?", Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, vol. 11, pp. 497-561, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24926/15529541.3520
View in Google Scholar
[8] T. Janczewski, "Ephemeral Identity: Challenge-Response Authentication with Ed25519 in Stateless Anonymous Communication Systems", Cybersecurity and Crime, 2026 (in press).
View in Google Scholar
[9] L. Øverlier and P. Syverson, "Locating Hidden Servers", IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, USA, 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2006.24
View in Google Scholar
[10] A. Panchenko, L. Niessen, A. Zinnen, and T. Engel, "Website Fingerprinting in Onion Routing Based Anonymization Networks", Proc. of the ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES), pp. 103-114, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2046556.2046570
View in Google Scholar
[11] M. Alsabah and I. Goldberg, "Performance and Security Improvements for Tor: A Survey", ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 49, art. no. 32, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2946802
View in Google Scholar
[12] P. Winter et al., "Spoiled Onions: Exposing Malicious Tor Exit Relays", Proc. of Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETS), pp. 205-220, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08506-7_16
View in Google Scholar
[13] D. Chaum, "Security Without Identification: Transaction Systems to Make Big Brother Obsolete", Communications of the ACM, vol. 28, pp. 1030-1044, 1985. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/4372.4373
View in Google Scholar
[14] I. Fette and A. Melnikov, "RFC 6455: The WebSocket Protocol", IETF, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc6455
View in Google Scholar
[15] M. Jones, J. Bradley, and N. Sakimura, "RFC 7519: JSON Web Token (JWT)", IETF, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC7519
View in Google Scholar
[16] E. Rescorla, "RFC 8446: The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", IETF, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC8446
View in Google Scholar
[17] D. Merkel, "Docker: Lightweight Linux Containers for Consistent Development and Deployment", Linux Journal, vol. 2014, 2014.
View in Google Scholar
[18] D.J. Bernstein et al., "High-speed High-security Signatures", Journal of Cryptographic Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 77-89, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13389-012-0027-1
View in Google Scholar
[19] A. Johnson et al., "Users Get Routed: Traffic Correlation on Tor by Realistic Adversaries", Proc. of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), pp. 337-348, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2508859.2516651
View in Google Scholar
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Tomasz Janczewski

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.