Jeremy, As I understand it, your node doesn't know what is passing though it. All that your node can know is the amount of encrypted data passing though it -- not enough to create relevant keywords.
Best Regards, Drew http://www.drewbradford.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeremy Caleb Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:36 pm Subject: [freenet-dev] Search Engine Idea > Hello again, > > > > I have been reading the discussion about searching Freenet and I think > perhaps a different idea is possible (bear with me though, perhaps > it would > be impossible or extremely difficult to implement). I think what > keepsFreenet out of the mainstream file-swapping/publishing genre > is the > inability to conduct searches in the Google manner. > > > > Since we are talking about a distributed network, it doesn't > really make > sense to me for there to be spiders in the typical sense that > create large > index files. That seems unusable especially if you try to scale > it to a > large size. > > > > What about this idea: > > > > - When individuals browse through Freenet, everything > they see > passes through their node, as does everything that they are relaying. > > - We add a spider function to the node such that it > creates a local > index of keywords, rankings, etc., of everything that passes > through it and > their matching keys. > > - We then add a new protocol message that searches the > local index > for keywords. > > > > This new message type would pass through the system much like current > messages, preserving anonymity. And since the index was of everything > viewing locally and relayed the node operator still maintains > plausibledeniability. > > > > The one thing I see with this idea, is that the index could not > simply be > plaintext as that would leave traces of what the local user was > viewing. To > combat that problem, we could use a global hash function that > would hash the > search keywords individually before the search message was ever > sent. This > would protect the contents of the search, but would still be > vulnerable to > dictionary attacks against the hash. > > > > Let me know if this idea is completely far fetched or not. I'm just > brainstorming aloud here. It's just I doubt that any searching > can really > succeed on a large scale without it being an integral part of the > protocol. > > > Jeremy > > _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
