On Thursday 14 February 2008 23:43, Michael Rogers wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> "Ultra-lightweight" could actually be a disadvantage here, because if > >> the peers can easily handle that number of requests they won't throttle > >> the attacker. > > > > No, he has to do a real request to get a ULPR subscription. Therefore it is > > subject to all the normal throttling mechanisms. > > But a real request can be, what, 100 bytes? 200? And the attacker only > needs to send 3 per second to each peer.
Hmm, so what you're saying is that if we reject a request because of overload we should NOT remember that peer and offer them the data. Fair point. Fixed in trunk 17940. > > Cheers, > Michael -------------- 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/20080215/cbd10d6b/attachment.pgp>
