On 27 Dec 2000, Mr.Bad wrote:
> >>>>> "SGM" == Scott Gregory Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> SGM> kAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGHHHHHH. Then WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU
> SGM> CREATING A CLUSTER? I'm sorry, I'm loosing my patience here.
> SGM> You keep failing to address this point. The point of
> SGM> creating a cluster was to protect a group of people (you
> SGM> claim), but in fact it actually *increases* their liability.
>
> But it -decreases- their chance of getting identified, in cases where
> the enemy cannot seize the gateway computer.
Why would they not be able to seize the gateway computer? It has to be
the one connected to the public Freenet, and is going to be the first
discovered. The argument that its placed in a 'secure' location is bunk,
because that implies the other nodes arent, and thus are vulnerable to
detection as well (even if someone can't connect to you doesnt mean they
can't detect you), and compromising *any* node in a cluster gets you the
whole cluster.
>
> I'm not sure that I agree, though, that liability is actually
> increased by being in a cluster (and by "liability" I think you mean
> "risk"). It seems right now that the best-case scenario is more
> probable than the worst-case one.
No, I mean liability, because you are tied to the actions of the
cluster-mates, where you have no relationship with references on your
node.
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
