On 17/10/15 22:31, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Samstag, 17. Oktober 2015, 21:04:23 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >>>> I do think we could provide better anonymity than Tor in the long run >>>> though. But we can't prevent blocking - *any* peer-to-peer network >>>> running over the regular Internet can be detected cheaply. >>> Even when Freenet integrates steganography features? >> Yes. Traffic flow analysis can identify p2p networks by looking at the >> topology of the connections - even if the traffic looks like e.g. HTTPS. > Not if we’re willing to pay with high latency and only exchange data > when people actually call each other with video-telephony or run their > game client with mumble-chat. Then you get into hard stego. The catch is dealing with that sort of latency is hard, even if it's acceptable to the user (which it probably isn't) ... and worse, it radically cuts your bandwidth. > Also Freenet-over-wireless would kill traffic analysis. As I mentioned before, you still need the long links. If it's mostly wireless, and the long links don't connect directly to each other, and you have some credible stego ... then maybe. It depends on how determined your opponent is though. Wireless has limited capacity, especially if you're not building relatively expensive, easier to detect, possibly illegal, directional infrastructure links. > Best wishes, > Arne
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
