On Sunday 03 October 2004 08:02 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The way freenet insures anonymity of both the producer and the consumer of > information is by making it difficult or impossible for anyone to determine > whether the computer to/from which they are sending/receiveing a request is > the actual originator/destination of the request. Freenet's method of > accomplishing anonymity results in non-hierarchical addressing of data > which means that finding the data essentially involves a node to node > search that could, in the worst case, require that all but one node be > searched. While it is true that the propogation of data resulting from > transparent copying following a successful search will make future searches > potentially shorter, as the size of the network grows it will become more > and more dificult for less popular (though not necessarily les important) > data to be found. Another result of not having a hierarchical addressing > scheme for data is that the data becomes uneditable, even by it's author. > While many clever answers have been proposed to alleviate some of the > problems caused by a non-hierarchical addressing scheme for data, it seems > evident from a philisophical point of view that as long as nodes only know, > at most, the direction in which a particular piece of data used to lie (and > that only if they have encountered a successful search for the data > previously), no algorithm will provide routing choices much more efficient > than random guessing. > > Other anonimity services, such as the Anonimizer, use central servers which > act as proxy servers for their subscribers. The problem with these services > is that even if both the producers and consumers of information subscribe > to these proxy servers, the proxy servers themselves are aware of identity > of their subscribers and thus can be "attacked" in an effort either to > eliminate a source of anonimity or to acquire the identities of the > subscribers. > > However, suppose that there were nodes who connected to each other using > existing "tunnelling" technology thus creating a VPN. Suppose further that > these nodes used existing NAT routing technology and acted as NAT routers > for the nodes with which they are connected. With proper protocol design, > it would be imposible to tell whether a request originated with a given > node or whether it was simply acting as a relay node for some other node. > In this way data would be stored using hierarchical addressing, namely the > IP address of the computer which is storing, knowingly or unknowingly, the > data, thus solving the problems resulting from non-hierarchical addressing. > Additionally, since the addressing scheme is the same as that used by the > "regular" internet, interaction with this already existing network of data > becomes much more simplified. Would this arrangement not succeed in > providing both anonimity and ease in locating data?
That is being done. www.i2p.net _______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
