On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 12:36:36PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 03:47:37AM -0600, Brandon wrote:
> > Not a problem if you have always-on Internet access, which not everyone
> > does. I consider having to periodically update a guessable key to be not
> > totally acceptable for a number of reasons. Not only do you have to have
> > regular Internet access, but it also provides a way to track a
> > publisher. If you're inserting updates from the same node it might be
> > possible to incrementally track you down one hop at a time. This attack
> > only requires the ability to snoop one connection at a time, not total
> > surveillance over the whole network. Key hashing doesn't help since
> > the next key to be inserted is known. Connection encryption doesn't help
> > since a MITM attack can be done on each connection between nodes. PKI
> > helps somewhat, but irregular updates help a lot.
>
> Er, this is somewhat tenuous to say the least, PK is the solution to
> this, not irregular updates. I hope this isn't the best reason you can
> come up with for irregular updates?
Am I the only one who finds this discussion a little pointless? We
disagree on so much around here, shouldn't we keep our arguing on topics
that are leading somewhere.
Whatever one believes about this, I'm sure we are all happy that date
redirects are working well for people as it is, so that we don't need to
feel any rush to implement true updating. However it is done, true
updating will always be a "routing intensive" procedure, so we better have
the routing nailed damn well before we start dabbling in it. The current
solution gives us the leeway to do that - and some people consider it to
work perfectly, then all the better!
>
> Ian.
--
'DeCSS would be fine. Where is it?'
'Here,' Montag touched his head.
'Ah,' Granger smiled and nodded.
Oskar Sandberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
