On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 11:23:25PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > 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.
It is not more secure then running a transient node with a fixed set of
contacts. So the real question is whether it is preferable to that in any
way.
> > 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.
Well, if you are, and have reason to be, so paranoid that you do not wish
your IP to be known, then you better pick shields that you have some sort
of trust for, and that almost always 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.
Yes, of course, but there is a difference between that and really "grab
your ankles" type features. This is equivalent to having an open mail
relay with no transfer limit.
>
> 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
