Re: [Freenet-dev] Node Operator Anonymity - the issues

[Ian Clarke]

> I did understand this, but the fact that the "shadow" node still eats as
> much bandwidth as it provides remains. 

The price of added security for those who want it I guess.  Lets hope
that not many people need to do this.

> Also, I don't think you can be quite random, since the node doing the
> "shadowing" would be best off having a list of nodes that it will shadow
> for - otherwise the ability to ask a node to do unlimited data transfers
> without caching the data is just asking for DOS attacks.

I don't like the idea that people need to seek permission before using
another node as a shield - this almost sounds like it requires human
intervention.

It will always be possible to do a DOS attack on any node, since any
server on the Internet, Freenet or not, is vulnerable to DOS or DDOS
attacks.  The point of Freenet is that each node is individually
expendable, and so DOS attacks won't hurt the overall network.

Ian.

PGP signature