On Saturday 15 December 2007 06:03, you wrote: > On 12/14/07, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > > You're almost there! Your Freenet installation is almost complete. > > > Freenet is currently running in insecure mode, which allows you to get > > > up and running on the Freenet network, but isn't very secure. > > > It is (relatively) easy for an attacker to find out that you are running > > > a node, connect to it, or even trace your requests. > > > > > > You can dramatically improve your security by adding connections to > > > people you trust through the Friends page. > > > When you have at least 10 Friends, please turn off insecure mode and > > > your node will become invisible to the outside world.
Re the below, we're using Friends with a capital F as a technical term here while trying to maintain the implication from the previous sentence that they're actually non-capital friends too ... and that's likely to lead to confusion. So how about: "You can dramatically improve your security by adding connections to people you know through the Friends page. When you have connected to at least 10 friends, please turn off insecure mode and your node will become invisible to the outside world." (Keep the first paragraph). > > > > That's not bad, although obviously it's longer. Ian? Anyone? > > I agree with the intent, but I'm just not sure this will achieve > anything in practice. "When you have at least 10 friends"? I'm sure > they probably already have 10 friends, the problem is that they aren't > Freenet users. This could simply lead to a repeat of #freenet-refs, > where the definition of "friend" becomes someone, anyone, not found > through the opennet mechanism. > > We can't ask people to make new friends just so that they can have > friends running Freenet nodes, because such convenience friends are > unlikely to be much more trustworthy than opennet strangers. > IMHO we can address this to a degree with better wording. See above. > I think all we can do is ask users, that don't currently have > (genuine) Freenet-using friends, to persuade some of their existing > friends to use Freenet. Even in this case, it won't really improve > connectivity to the rest of the Freenet network. That is exactly what we are doing here. And the objective is not connectivity, it is security - robust connectivity. > > In general, I'm really not sure how we can make it easier for people > to go from opennet to darknet apart from making Freenet as pervasive > as possible (and opennet is essential for this). There are lots of things we can do e.g. much shorter noderefs. However, having lots of users is essential. Given that opennet provides a false sense of security, IMHO we have to have some indication on the homepage, but it should be as clear and concise as possible. Hence the above debate. > > Ian. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20071215/de643774/attachment.pgp>
