On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Signal 11 wrote:
>
> > We would have to put the information in public metadata. But then
> > that opens a range of evil attacks, like an evil person inserting
>
> Stop right there. Let's first define what a successful attack on
> Freenet would be. That means we need to figure out what we're
> protecting. Freenet's goals, as I understand them, are about like
> this:
>
> - Distributed, dynamic mirroring
> - Pseudo-anonymous access
> - Encryption support (plausible deniability) for clients
> - No centralized control ("There is no off switch")
>
> Those are the big ones. So now we know what resources we are
> protecting, namely:
>
> - Bandwidth
> - Anonymity
> - Server utilization
can we add spam/advertising crap insertion/user harassment to that ? Some
guy on flatplanet.net has been using gnutella to spam his message
across...every search from that node (or set of nodes he's using) is being
returned with fake ips and positive search results with the spam attached
i.e. SPAMSPAMSPAM<search result>.
Is freenet vulnerable to that ? Could a rogue "hacked" client do that ?
Its very annoying and large amounts of spam can easily clog a
network. just look at what spam did to usenet.... A collective group of
spammers could easily overwhelm small networks...especially since theyre
already trying to overwhelm email servers which are essentially
distributed and hard to kill anyway.
Thanks.
-Ys-
yhs at mimic.onesourcecorp.com
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
