> > How much would silent Bob HTTP encapsulation slow down an average > > connection? > > Presumably it would have no impact after connecting to the node...? HTTPS > > encapsulation? > > I don't think that this would be effective, even if an Eve couldn't see > what was being communicated, it could monitor the pattern of information > being pushed and pulled across the secure connection, and infer that it > is a Freenet node. Freenet traffic already looks like pure random data, > the only way to distinguish it is to look at the flow of information in > either direction.
That last statement isn't true. Freenet traffic can be differentiated programatically from other traffic just by looking at the stream. We send a Freenet-specific exchange of numbers in MPI format in order to start the encryption. SSL, on the other hand, is indistinguishable from web traffic encrypted with SSL (on the stream level). _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl >From devl-admin at freenetproject.org Thu Apr 12 18:34:17 2001 Return-Path: <devl-admin at freenetproject.org> Received: from hawk.freenetproject.org (postfix@[4.18.42.11]) by funky.danky.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA11308 for <danello at danky.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:34:15 -0400 Received: from hawk.freenetproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hawk.freenetproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C8D258010; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:16:06 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: devl at freenetproject.org Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow034o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.122]) by hawk.freenetproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A85F57FE9 for <devl at freenetproject.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:15:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bagrat42 ([213.48.100.90]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Thu, 12 Apr 2001 01:24:49 +0000 Received: from toad by bagrat42 with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14nVnI-0006ya-00 for <devl at freenetproject.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:21:08 +0100 To: devl at freenetproject.org Subject: Re: [freenet-devl] Freenet Usage Message-ID: <20010412022107.A20727 at cableinet.co.uk> References: <20010411205453.A8428 at gw.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <20010411205453.A8428 at gw.localdomain>; from pete at petertodd.ca on Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 08:54:53PM -0400 From: toad <[email protected]> Sender: devl-admin at freenetproject.org Errors-To: devl-admin at freenetproject.org X-BeenThere: devl at freenetproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: devl at freenetproject.org List-Help: <mailto:devl-request at freenetproject.org?subject=help> List-Post: <mailto:devl at freenetproject.org> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl>, <mailto:devl-request at freenetproject.org?subject=subscribe> List-Id: Discussion of information related to Freenet development <devl.freenetproject.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl>, <mailto:devl-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 02:21:08 +0100 X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2178 Lines: 45 On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 08:54:53PM -0400, Peter Todd wrote: > As for the other thing traceable to me... And the rather rash and > probably not all that great an idea in forsight thing! > > If anyone ran over the childporno.html etc. keys with nothing in them > but a 1x1 webbug that was my doing. My little webbug recorded 383 hits > over 5 days. 25 of those users used Linux, 183 Windows 98, 16 Windows > 95, 114 Windows NT and 45 other. Don't ask for a copy of said logs for > a more detailed analysis of browsers etc. shred -u access_log* :) > > I'll be the first to admit doing this was rash and pretty > stupid. Especially using a domain name *very* easilly traceable to > me. Oh well, I was rather pissed off when I found that those MSK sites > actually pointed to something. :( Don't know if the pictures (I was > using Lynx of course) work but the sites themselves do exist. Oh well, > there's Free Speach for you. Anyway better to stop this stuff at the > source, IE the producers, rather then relatively harmless > distributers. Now if only there were more good MP3's on > Freenet... (evil grin) What do you mean re MP3s? You think the more legitimate content on freenet, the less child pornography? If the network scales well, that's rather unlikely, although it will be a smaller fraction of the total it will probably be a larger volume of files. As regards free speech, that's a
