On Friday 15 August 2008 09:18, Theodore Hong wrote: > Ian Clarke <ian.clarke at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Matthew Toseland > > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > >> On Friday 15 August 2008 00:42, Ian Clarke wrote: > >>> What is the point in that? If they are intent on using Freenet, then > >>> forcing them to select an inappropriate option doesn't make them any > >>> more secure! > >> > >> The point is not to give them a false sense of security, and to make it clear > >> that their security is reduced if they do need opennet. > > > > Both of these are about conveying information, not restricting > > behavior. Your goal seems to be to (futilely) restrict the user's > > behavior, not just to inform them. > > The way I see it, the paranoia selector is simply an easy way to > select certain bundles of options, e.g.: > High == opennet off, foaf off, extra encryption on, etc > Medium == opennet on, foaf on, extra encryption on, etc > Low == opennet on, foaf on, extra encryption off, etc > (Like the way ZoneAlarm and Internet Explorer do it.) > > There could also be a Custom level where experts can select the > options individually. If you select High and then try to set opennet > on, you'll see that your selector drops from High to Medium or Custom, > because opennet on implies security level is no longer High. That's > not a behavior restriction, that's just a fact. > > I think it also makes sense to phrase it in terms of security level > settings rather than personal situation settings because someone in a > non-life-threatening situation might nonetheless choose to run High > security (and vice versa).
Okay, so we just need to preceed each threat level explanation with a security level? Throwing in nextgens' 3-dimensional point, we get the below. Arguably we could probably get rid of the treachery selector, in which case we have only two questions, the latter (seizure) being much easier than the former. We don't have to ask the user about opennet, so this is IMHO slightly better than Ian's proposal of asking about opennet and threat level separately. As Theo says, the user can always manually enable opennet afterwards, this will automatically reduce his network threat level. I have simplified the remote threat level to only 3 levels, I am not sure if this makes sense or not: it means that we only really have 2 paranoia levels for most settings, since MEDIUM and HIGH have to be equal for those who are concerned but need opennet. Nonetheless, I believe the choice of threat level and opennet belong together; maybe we do need four threat levels?? Thoughts? An obvious criticism is this is quite long, but nextgens has made significant progress in stripping down the rest of the wizard, and this stuff is more obviously related to what Freenet is for so I doubt users will be greatly distressed by it... REMOTE ATTACKERS: NETWORK THREAT LEVEL How concerned are you about the government, corporations etc tracing your identity on Freenet, blocking Freenet altogether, and so on? HIGH: If you intend to access information over Freenet which you could be arrested, imprisoned or worse for, you should select this threat level. Also, select this level if you are worried about the government/ISPs blocking Freenet. Note that Freenet is still under development, and has known design flaws and attacks: It may however be safer than the alternatives in many cases. Freenet will only connect to your friends, so **you must have at least 5 friends already using Freenet to enable this mode**. If you do not, try MEDIUM. MEDIUM: If you would like to make it difficult for others to monitor your communications, but live in a country which respects freedom of speech, choose this option. Freenet will be reasonably careful to protect your anonymity, at some performance cost. Freenet will automatically connect to the network, but we strongly recommend you get some friends running Freenet, and connect to them, so you can upgrade to high security. LOW: If you do not care whether your activities can be monitored (for example because you are just experimenting with it), enable this mode for maximum performance. It is likely that your identity can be compromized without a great deal of effort by governments, corporations, and bored kids! TREACHERY: FRIENDS THREAT LEVEL How concerned are you about your friends betraying you (attempting to attack your node and discover what you are accessing on Freenet), either deliberately or because their computers are compromised? Note this is a general guideline, there is also a per-friend trust setting. HIGH: I would like Freenet to take extra caution to avoid my friends betraying me. MEDIUM: I am not overly concerned about my friends betraying me, but I would like Freenet to take reasonable precautions, without too much of a performance cost. LOW: I am not concerned at all about my friends betraying me. I trust them, I know they look after their computers, and it is highly unlikely that they will be compromised by a third party. SEIZURE OF EQUIPMENT: Are you worried about your computer being taken away by the bad guys, and what they might find on it? Freenet can take some basic precautions but you really should use disk encryption if so. [] Yes [] No > > theo -------------- 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/20080815/542f819f/attachment.pgp>
