On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 06:34:44PM -0400, Peter Todd wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 11:25:51AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > content on Freenet - all for a cosmetic improvement. Also, don't forget > > the dangers of relying on KSKs, how would a future Rob Malda feel if > > someone mounted a KSK attack and gained control of www.slashdot.free? > > The best way to prevent this is to encourage people to hand around CHKs > > and SSKs. > > Well an attack aganst www.slashdot.free is very unlikely to work > globally. My KSK-replacement has mostly failed on the popular > test.html, only the almost totally unrequested test.jpg worked. > > However I still go with your view %100; having spoofing possible at > all is unacceptible.
Actually with new nodes, I often get the spoofed "test" file - which has got to have been one of the most popuar requests. I have also reached your "test.html" file on more than one occasion. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010529/1ccbc03b/attachment.pgp>
