Re: [freenet-chat] How many people are using Freenet?
On Monday 24 Sep 2012 14:01:34 Paul Baade wrote: Dear Freenet Project, I'm currently writing my masters thesis on anonymization networks and was not able to find reliable figures of how many users/nodes are using Freenet. The only thing I found was: http://www.quora.com/How-many-people-are-using-Freenet Which did not seem very quotable ;-) Do you roughly know how many users you have, and how do you know? Thank you very much! The simple answer is about 10,000 users over a week. Have you tried installing it? There are stats published on Freenet. I think they were posted on the web too ... Best Regards, Paul signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
[freenet-chat] Designed for Windows 8 = Won't run Linux ever
New trusted boot feature, supposedly to prevent malware (which unfortunately is a legitimate problem), allows the vendor (or more likely Microsoft) to decide exactly what operating systems you are allowed to install. This already happens with mobile phones, although some vendors (Apple) tend to be fascist about it, and some are very lax due to customer pressure (HTC). Odds are servers will generally not enable this except where corporates want it; cheap laptops and Apple will probably enable it without providing an off switch; custom motherboards will leave it to the user, but since you can't build a laptop, it's still a worry ... and migrating existing users to linux will probably become a lost cause (not that it's easy now). I smell a major anti-competition lawsuit, but they have several very plausible excuses re security ... This may signal a new push for TPM, which after all is in most business laptops nowadays, but this may or may not happen given the apparently rather large software development cost (it isn't needed for this bit). The conspiracy theorist in me says if this becomes a matter of law or policy there will be some major cyber-attacks to prove that such things are needed ... Bottom line: If it has the Designed for Windows 8 logo (next year), you probably can't run Linux on it; another possible outcome is you may only be able to run OSs approved by the hardware manufacturer, which could be very messy, less likely. China will be delighted: The cheaper and more widespread this nonsense becomes, the more of the expensive development is done by third parties, the easier it will be for them to really lock down cyberspace once they have political support for doing so (their incompetent, half hearted and illegal effort in Green Dam was successfully rejected by the people but that was before the Arab Spring, the hardliners are stronger now and economic chaos will likely make this worse). http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/09/21/062231/how-microsoft-can-lock-linux-off-windows-8-pcs http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/78727 Note to Freenet folks: I apologise for not being around much lately. I hope to be able to spend one day a week on Freenet consistently soon. I am cooking a small build, which you can test (please test it!), and I am hoping to make further tweaks on load management soon. However, some reports re performance are very encouraging e.g. ArneBab reporting 14KB/sec file insert speeds. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-chat] [freenet-dev] bitcoinds over freenet
On Tuesday 08 Mar 2011 14:06:49 folkert wrote: Developers of bitcoinds over freenet might like to read into this project: https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions/wiki which also makes transactions untraceable (according to the developer). Looks like a classic centralised online digicash system. Such things are interesting in that they offer more anonymity than Bitcoin does (but IMHO that is fixable), but are in no way compatible with Freenet, and the central authority (whose main function is to verify that a coin hasn't been spent twice) is a highly vulnerable point. CC'ed to chat, more appropriate there. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-chat] Project Evergreen: Looking for testers
On Saturday 01 January 2011 21:34:49 Martin Wehner wrote: Happy New Year everyone! I'm looking for a few alpha testers for a project I've been working on, Project Evergreen. It's basically trying to be like Facebook, but running on top of Freenet. Here is the latest USK to its Freesite: USK@hD51wZWVvKLLa2Be7fbRz17QhuMRVpSdnSb9~CPey10,8q6UAEEzyforXdRFFwSePvl-wx2HneU6FdffKADK2WU,AQACAAE/evergreen/18/ Evergreen requires a Freenet node and Python 3. More details and instructions on how to get started are available at the Freesite above. If you do get a chance to check it out, I'd love to hear your feedback. Thanks in advance, Martin Awesome. Don't have time to test it at the moment. Lots of interesting tradeoffs and decisions w.r.t security. Plus Freenet itself has arguably two different social networks (they just don't look like social networks): darknet and WoT. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
[freenet-chat] Fwd: [freenet-dev] US government tries to bring back the Clipper Chip - on steroids
Much of the below is second hand or half-remembered, feel free to correct me, I have some URLs at the end. The strategy issues at the end might be interpreted as condoning illegal filesharing; my views on copyright are well known, filesharing is a legitimate technology, and there are legitimate privacy and censorship issues. Besides, we have already discussed this on IRC. And of course, IANAL! Legislation will be introduced in the new year by the obama administration to (amongst other things) force peer to peer software developers to redesign their systems to allow intercept warrants to be serviced. I don't know what form warrants take i.e. whether they can require a pseudonymous identity to be traced or whether it is limited to intercepting comms between two known pseudonyms and whether that includes downloads etc. The Tea Party scum use the constitution in their rhetoric but are unlikely to stand against intercept powers to beat terrorists etc. It is highly unlikely that this will get past the Supreme Court, based on a previous judgement that crypto export restrictions violate freedom of speech (think about it), and there is no need to manufacture a test case; as soon as it passes a suit can be filed. At least twice a decade congress attempts such a monstrosity and it is generally repelled. Having said that, a good deal of legislation that is unconstitutional does actually pass, some of it is repealed by the courts and then immediately reinstated in a slightly different form. Extrajudicial sanctions against casually-provable filesharers are coming in Europe but would likely be unconstitutional in the US. There is law to block copyright infringing sites going through the process as well; extrajudicial blacklists would almost certainly be unconstitutional in the US, whether getting a low court to block it and forcing them to appeal would be is unclear. Takedown notices (implement or contest in court at your own expense) already exist for content hosted by ISPs, and many argue they are unconstitutional, but would be a cheap way to block sites, although the current proposed law just allows the attorney general to create an optional blacklist (and the courts to create a mandatory one). In Europe, extrajudicial sanctions are common. They will be implemented some time soon here. Blocking of sites has been implemented here, although it may need secondary legislation. I don't know exactly how it works, it may require involvement of a low court. In some countries there are laws against developing p2p software, such as France. The ECHR is even slower than the US Supreme Court, and is generally weaker. IMHO we will see big problems in Europe first. Meanwhile the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement will introduce blocking and probably filesharing sanctions and other things via international treaty. The movie industry body recently asked whether they could use it to block WikiLeaks! The DMCA, which is widely argued to be unconstitutional but remains in force, was also the product of an international treaty, and was emulated in europe. However, there are two key positive areas to consider: 1. The state of the music industry. It still manufactures ridiculous numbers based on the assumption that everyone who downloads a track would have bought it. These numbers are likely based on assuming they would have bought them off iTunes, rather than the much cheaper option of getting a Spotify subscription (or listening to them for free but I imagine there are volume limits?). Anyway, arguably because of pressure from filesharing as much as anything else, you can get cheap all-you-can-eat deals, and because users don't like DRM, the music industry has largely given up on it. 2. Even if conventional filesharing is systematically persecuted, this will drive users to us - provided that we have a fast, easy to use, adequately secure, scalable offering. In the short term, this will likely be by tracing users of known illegal content and suing them or taking extrajudicial sanctions. This has already had a big effect on the number of French Freenet users. At which point Freenet would become the target, but it would be big enough to build a real darknet. Assuming freenet is adequately secure (whether this can be achieved on opennet is uncertain), there would have to be specific legislation (or unilateral action by ISPs), and either blunt blocking of all customer-to-customer connections (e.g. via abusing the RBL's), with substantial collateral damage, or traffic flow analysis and blocking of everything that looks like a peer to peer network (which would cost more and produce somewhat less collateral damage). Either way you'd likely snare various legitimate peer to peer networks although a licensing scheme might be set up; this would of course discourage innovation, but corporatist nonsense favouring big corporations and ultimately weakening competition and capitalism
Re: [freenet-chat] [freenet-dev] US government tries to bring back the Clipper Chip - on steroids
On Tuesday 28 September 2010 00:38:51 you wrote: On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote: One very bad thing about this, should it pass (which depends mostly on whether the Tea Party folk actually defend the constitution, which seems unlikely) I don't agree here - the teabaggers are a relatively small group of angry white economic conservatives who only really agree on the fact that they all hate Obama. They only get the air-time that they do because they make for good TV. The teabaggers didn't exist when the Clipper Chip was defeated in the 90s. You are going to have almost every technology company in the US up in arms about this, as they were with the Clipper Chip. They make up ALL of the new Senate candidates. and be upheld (which is a more plausible battleground) is that we are dependant on paypal. Even if we move outside the US, paypal would have to kick us, and nobody trusts any other service. Same would be true of Google Checkout; we might be able to get credit card handling from some non-US-based bank (like WorldPay), but it'd be expensive. I don't know if its necessarily true that we could no-longer use Paypal, but in any case I think this thing passing is actually quite a remote possibility. Plus once it happens in the US it will happen everywhere else... Combined with laws in Europe allowing blocking copyright infringing sites (xenu.net? wikileaks.org?), things could get very bad. Ultimately we can move development onto Freenet itself if it came to it, but I really think it is unlikely that it will. There are so many powerful groups that will be opposed to this. Hopefully you are right. And it will reinforce an important precedent - that restricting software is very dodgy in the US. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-chat] [freenet-dev] US government tries to bring back the Clipper Chip - on steroids
On Tuesday 28 September 2010 20:17:26 Ian Clarke wrote: On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:57 PM, jdavie...@tx.rr.com wrote: Thanks for that, Joel. The Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party movement has been the unfortunate victim of a very successful smear campaign - partly because it's managed to attract a handful of the wrong sorts of people, but mostly because it's become a very real threat to the Washington establishment. We scum are Freenet's best hope - as you can see, the current, supposedly tech-savvy U.S. political administration hasn't lived up to your expectations. I certainly don't think the tea party are scum, I just think that a lot of libertarians, who think that the tea party is about libertarianism, are going to get a rude awakening once they get into power, just as they did when the Republicans took over the house and congress in the mid-90s. Also, a lot of their positions are contradictory. They claim they oppose the deficit, yet they want a tax cut for people who don't need it, paid for by increasing the deficit. They oppose spending, yet supported the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq war, which together dwarf the combined effect of the recovery measures, tarp, and the economic downturn, in terms of their impact on the deficit. I am replying to the two tea party fans off-list since even on chat@ there is some expectation that content be vaguely Freenet-related. For the record, if I had originally written the mail for wide distribution I wouldn't have called the Tea Party scum, but that *is* what I believe, and I will justify this position off-list. (I might post it on my blog too). signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-chat] [Forwarded from FMS] 0.8.0, the two big security issues
I guess I should reply to this... On Monday 12 July 2010 22:09:12 3BUIb3S50i wrote: o...@lkxpu0~cdv6dh0idyw4mbwkusgn~h~bs3qqvxyoxsay wrote : The Seeker wrote: On 7/11/2010 6:21 AM, o...@lkxpu0~cdv6dh0idyw4mbwkusgn~h~bs3qqvxyoxsay wrote: joh...@6kzjmqcftzffej0wthb29r63t5jkjg2xy5hzsvitg1a wrote: Matthew Toselandt...@amphibian.dyndns.org IMHO we should attempt to fix, or at least realistically work around, the two big known security issues for 0.8.0, and get a paper published at the same time as the release. These are: 1. The Pitch Black attack. Oskar has a good idea how to fix it but has not yet simulated a fix. This blocks publishing a paper, and it also prevents use of darknet anywhere where there may be internal attackers. As I understand it implementation should not be particularly difficult - the main work needed here is to implement it in a simple simulator and tweak it until it works, right? 2. The mobile attacker source tracing attack. What this means is an attacker knows what is to be inserted (or requested), and he is initially distant from the inserter. He recognises the blocks, and uses the keys' locations (and path folding, and possibly announcement) to move towards the originator, gaining more and more of the stream as he moves closer. This is primarily a problem on opennet, but it is also feasible on darknet - it's just massively more expensive. It can be worked around for inserts by: i) Inserting with a random splitfile key. THIS IS IMPLEMENTED AS OF 1255, provided you insert to SSK@, AND ii) Providing an easy to use selective reinsert mechanism, AND iii) Putting a timestamp on the inserts on any small reinsert, and only routing to nodes that were connected prior to that timestamp. IMHO the second and third items are relatively easy. At the same time, we can substantially improve data persistence (1255 already does that for big files, but the insert tweaks that are going to be tested real soon now would probably gain us a lot more), ship Freetalk, WoT and FlogHelper for improved end-user functionality, a fixed wininstaller, lots of bug fixes and minor usability tweaks, and everything else we've done since 0.7.5. And having a paper published at the same time would surely help with publicity amongst certain kinds of folk. *lol* Is this the same Toad who managed to break all nodes since 1250+? Must have been fun for latest users, he will have to publish a lot of papers to attract more users than are currently leaving. As I understand it: - We had a few relatively simple problems around 1250. - A few builds later we introduced even segment splitting. This was disruptive in that it changed the CHKs resulting from inserts, and it did not introduce proper back compatibility code. - I therefore attempted to make all planned metadata changes at once in 1255, resulting in a great many changes at once, including some bad bugs. However it did include much improved back compatiblity support. - I did try to test thoroughly but it is difficult when there are very few testers. - Anyhow, each build since 1255 fixes a bunch of bugs, most but not all of which were introduced in 1255. New, promised features are worthless if the node is broken and resets your datastore or up- and downloads. Fortunately we haven't had a datastore resetting bug for a *long* time. Arguably the salted hash store is incapable of such a problem short of corruption of the metadata files... As regards resetting uploads and downloads: - 1255 included a small change that might have resulted in corruption being detected when it hadn't before. - 1255 changed the internal data structures quite a bit, and this combined with a long-standing bug related to defragmentation to cause catastrophe for some people who had always defrag on startup enabled. - Fundamentally, *all* databases regularly corrupt themselves when exposed to the real world: End users with finite disk space, power cuts, unclean shutdowns, overclocked or overheating CPUs, and so on. Hence we need auto-backups. - One of the reasons that we have not yet released 0.8.0 is that there is not yet any auto-backup for the downloads database. It has been planned for some time, sorry I haven't got around to it. What is he smoking to call this *improved persistence*? The biggest change in 1255 was a couple of changes to FEC encoding, to split segments more evenly and to use extra cross-segment redundancy for files of 80MB+. All simulation work (yes we actually simulated this in advance rather than just doing things at random, thanks to evanbd) shows that this should dramatically increase the retrievability of larger files. There are also good grounds to think that other changes we are testing in 1255+ will eventually lead to significant improvements in block-level persistence. But we have to try them to find out (this is stuff that can be turned on
Re: [freenet-chat] Running freenet off an SD card?
On Saturday 10 July 2010 08:00:31 Juiceman wrote: On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 1:56 AM, pineapple pineapplecow...@yahoo.com wrote: Has anyone tried running freenet off an SD card or thumb drive? Is the speed sufficient for freenet? ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe Emailing this again because I forgot to CC the mailinglist Freenet's usage pattern does not lend itself to flash SSDs or SD cards due to the large number of small, random access writes. Freenet is extremely hard on disks, many a regular hard drive has succumbed to it. It *will* wear any flash device out much quicker than normally a user would. That being said, a very conservative node, configured to use only a few max peers and a small datastore, logging turned completely off, only used for small downloads, browsing and inserting a few small files (for example a thumb drive you could take with you somewhere, post a blog or upload some important document and go back offline shortly thereafter) might be feasible. You would want to use one with fast specifications and don't expect too much... If you try this, let us know how it works out. Also it's good to point out that modern flash disks with proper wear levelling will do fine with Freenet. But this is likely not true of cheap, small, slow portable storage devices such as SD cards. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-chat] How would * change Freenet's protocol?
On Tuesday 29 June 2010 01:04:05 Tom Sparks wrote: --- On Tue, 29/6/10, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote: On Monday 28 June 2010 05:39:23 Tom Sparks wrote: How would a Delay-tolerant network and a Mobile ad hoc network change freenet's protocol? This is really a question for the tech list. IMHO delay tolerant darknet is a potentially interesting area for Freenet. This would involve sneakernet (exchanging USB keys), short range high bandwidth transfers between mobile devices etc. It would be routed (allowing access to a wider range of data than what is on your direct friends' nodes). It would rely heavily on passive requests / subscriptions, as well as on requests being relayed over a period of days, whenever friends connect.. It would likely be rather slow, because each hop might take a day or more. It could take advantage of fast links where they are available however (e.g. underground wifi). It would be deployable in places where the Internet is so locked down that Freenet doesn't work. About half the devs think this is not something Freenet should ever deal with because e.g. it would need larger block sizes. But even if it is not Freenet it might reuse a lot of Freenet code. And it would have to be darknet: Data is only exchanged between people who have been pre-established as Friends. That means it is not ad hoc. If you are interested in ad hoc / opennet, have a look at Haggle, which essentially relies on mobile devices being able to broadcast requests for files to everyone in the immediate vicinity, with some opportunistic forwarding iirc. IMHO this is rather risky, which is why I suggest a delay tolerant darknet Freenet system might be possible. I am writing a book/game/role-playing game addon about a fictional network and freenet is the closes network to my idea, but there are a few differences * hash-based IP address You mean you have an internal, quasi-traceable addressing system? Or that your fictional network can relay TCP connections and other traffic to a hash-based endpoint? IMHO central but anonymous servers (like tor hidden servers) are a bit of advanced functionality that *may* happen eventually on Freenet but will be *SLOW* - and you can do a surprisingly large amount without centralised anything, just with distributed storage, scalable indexes, distributed revision control (git/mercurial), wikis, databases, etc. And they don't make much sense with sneakernet/high latency networking; you have to have an end-to-end network to have anything real time. * gateways between city network and city-to-city network Agreed this would be needed. In the freenet darknet model, the assumption is that there are a lot of short links and a small number of long links. Long links in an underground scenario (freenet illegal and the public networks heavily restricted e.g. by preventing all p2p connections) might be people commuting long distance and taking data with them, or sending data through the post / a box of DVDs in a truck etc. So there is no single centralised network design - meaning if there are enough of these long connections there is always redundancy and it is not too vulnerable to attack. One difficulty is that carrying data on planes is becoming increasingly hazardous, with customs people having the right to inspect your laptop, force you to give them access, etc, and increasingly exercising this right in the name of copyright (I believe ACTA talks about this, although historically speaking they could always refuse entry if you fail to cooperate). * underwater network and surface to air network Meaning guerilla wifi, ronja's (home-made free space optical data links) etc? I.e. fixed, hidden, semi-permanent, directional links, and maybe disposable self contained open mesh boxes for mobile stuff - if they are cheap enough; depends how much effort it is to lock down commonly available hardware, if you have to buy everything black market then disposable doesn't really work ... Another interesting possibility - some of the network might be real time but low bandwidth. Maybe even some over-the-regular-internet stuff e.g. steganography faking VoIP calls, games etc. This can be combined with non-real-time links which are much higher bandwidth but also much higher latency, so the requests get relayed quickly but the data trickles back when possible. If hardware isn't too expensive, there are a lot of possibilities, but redeploying stuff even if it's cheap could potentially lead to people being busted. Really it comes down to just how mad the state is. If they are prepared to spend 10% of their GDP having half the population spy on the other half (East Germany), or boil people in oil on random suspicion (Iraq), there are severe limits to what you can do even to keep lines of communication open... But in the short term, everyone uses opennet, which is hideously insecure
Re: [freenet-chat] (no subject)
On Friday 11 June 2010 12:00:32 Abdulla Barajash wrote: Im a new member please tell me how to participate Maybe you could start by installing Freenet? http://freenetproject.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-chat] Add frost page to Freenet Default Bookmarks
On Sunday 04 April 2010 23:54:20 artur wrote: Hi, I have noticed that Frost is no longer in the default bookmark list of Freenet. I think it should be because: - Many people are using Frost to communicate. - It is much more easy and faster to setup than FMS. Freenet has never been the fastest system, but it takes a long time to setup FMS and get announced. While you can just fire up frost and get started. - Frost has been a part of Freenet for a very long time now, it is widely spread and tested. But new users do not know all the alternatives of communication in Freenet. They have a shot look what is there, try it, and if it does not work most of them will leave again. If there is an alternative, they might have a second try... Frost is broken by design. The only way we could link it would be with a warning to the effect that it is known to be broken, and is actively attacked. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-chat] Publicity for freenet
On Saturday 29 May 2010 02:42:07 henri godron wrote: Hi, I want to suggest the freenet team to make an IAMA on reddit.com This section of reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/iama) is very very huge, and has a lot of attention from the reddit users. The thing is, a lot of people on reddit will love freenet, and can contribute because plenty of them are nerdy. Just browse this section (select by most popular since the last month), read some IAMA, and you'll get my point. :) Henri Please post this to devl or directly to ian. I don't think he will see it here and he is generally in charge of publicity stuff. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-chat] [freenet-dev] Add frost page to Freenet Default Bookmarks
On Friday 09 April 2010 09:08:18 artur wrote: Hi, Am 08.04.2010 17:42, schrieb Evan Daniel: On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote: On Tuesday 06 April 2010 18:17:33 artur wrote: ... On the other hand, Frost is broken by design, Freetalk will be integrated in the node soon (how soon nobody knows), and if we put it back on the homepage the spammer may come out of the woodwork. Anyone else have an opinion? Ok, Frost is spamable (like nearly every other communication system in the internet). So, I would not call this broken by design, but I know which problems the spammer caused for frost. In Freenet terms, spammable is broken by design. This is not people advertising black market pharmaceuticals. This is a deliberate and effective attempt to make the system completely unusable, at least on target boards. And it can be done anonymously, so the classic countermeasures of blacklisting IP addresses etc don't work. I think if we link to it, we should support it, at least to a point. I'd rather we weren't. But, we seem to be doing that regardless, so... OTOH, I think we should have a messaging system of some sort, and that isn't yet Freetalk. And I don't know whether it's better to link to a messaging system that's so spammed it's unusable, or link to nothing. Do you support Freemail? Freesite? FMS? Are you in one way or another connected to the content published on the various index pages, linked in the default bookmarks? I think the freenet authors do not want to associate them self with what is on that pages. The way a search engine does not account them self responsible for their search results... We are talking about software here. And no, we don't link directly to questionable material - we link to index sites e.g. that make it easy for users to find what they want to find. Frost is a good tool for Freenet. Without Frost, Freenet would have had a lot of less active users, an so it would have today. It has been the main communication tool within Freenet for years. Today there is a strong alternative with FMS, but I could argue that FMS is brogen by design as well. When Freenet is all about anti censorship, FMS is the tool to bring it back. I don't want to say it is bad, but it has its own disadvantages. Freetalk and FMS both use a distributed reputation system supporting negative trust. This makes it possible to block spam very effectively, because a new user who posts spam can be blocked by a few people who see it and then nobody will see the new user any more. There are alternatives that may be more acceptable, and implementing these will not be difficult - it's just not a priority for anyone actually working on this stuff at the moment. The main alternative is to have a positive trust system. This would mean that new users don't show up at all until the user has gained some trust from others, so we would need either new users to show up to everyone (meaning if a spammer is creating new identities to spam they have to be blocked one at a time by *each user*), or that they would show up to some subset of everyone - e.g. maybe the people whose captchas they solve and those who trust them. Frost is also a download manager. I was under the impression that the Frost download system was DoS'ed at the moment, i.e. out of action due to exploitation of the fact that it is fundamentally broken. Fuqid might do a better job as a stand alone tool, but it is not cross platform, has never been really Freenet 0.7 compatible and its development has been abandoned. So use Thaw. It's a perfectly good download manager, even if you don't find the indexes easy to deal with. (Just in comparison: Frost has had 17 Commits last month.) And a good download tool is wanted by the community (1) There is no such thing at the moment, sadly. Frost certainly isn't it. Thaw isn't it. Maybe we will have a good download tool based on WoT sometime soon. Freetalk: Frost will also work as a Freetalk frontend. So, introducing the more spam resistent freetalk will not make Frost obsolete. The integration is not yet complete, but the basics have already been implemented... Even if we bundle Frost, very few new users will realise it exists and therefore very few of them will use it. It is much better to have a chat system that is integrated and works out of the box. This is what the uservoice entry about one UI for all is about. (1) http://freenet.uservoice.com/forums/8861-general/suggestions/156393-write-a-killer-file-sharing-application?ref=title Cheers artur signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat
Re: [freenet-chat] number of people of community Freenet
On Thursday 08 April 2010 19:03:16 giulia capasso wrote: Hi, I'm a student, and I'm doing a study on the size of the community around Open Source projects. IS it possible knows the number of people of the Freenet Community?? Yes. In terms of users, there are 15-20k users, although only 6-8k online at any given time. See evanbd's stats page (you will need to install Freenet first): http://127.0.0.1:/u...@gjw6stjzoz4oag-pqoxip5nk11udqzorozd4jld42ac,BYyqgAtc9p0JGbJ~18XU6mtO9ChnBZdf~ttCn48FV7s,AQACAAE/graphs/318 However, the size of the active chatting community on Frost, FMS or Freetalk is considerably smaller. See: http://127.0.0.1:/u...@wojh0rcfhn7o4tgncjsvabwaoxesw43xbp2sg~cutes,hSb98zf-5gOC18Ed4nzTtmvhkktK08phJav63sh04o4,AQACAAE/fmsstats/96 http://127.0.0.1:/u...@bqbl2ozw8vj4niv3aoe8rhk9hwv1huqh4rrnk~gkcoi,C~fzch9vg1vJZW9HJT6zjr2gp~N5NE0Gylc1Q83cMfw,AQACAAE/boardstats/171/ We expect the proportion of Freenet users who use the anonymous chat applications, as well as the total number of users, to increase considerably when Freetalk is made an official part of Freenet. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-chat] Freenet news in the web interface
On Saturday 12 December 2009 15:19:23 alex wrote: Hello, for some time I've been thinking about points that make me disconnect from freenet from time to time. One of them, I think, is that once you manage to connect, you feel quite alone in there. Freesites are static in nature, there's a feeling that you're in the middle of the night and here and there you stump into unrelated freesites. Index sites mitigate somewhat this feeling, but not much. Frost and FMS, they're not trivial to setup nor in the web interface. Sure, I lurk in the dev mailing lists. That's great since I see activity and community there. But, putting myself in the shoes of an average user (in the end, I'm a techie), that's only trying freenet via the web interface, I think there's something (that many other projects do) that could do, with little effort, much to diminish the feeling that freenet is a bunch of freesites. I'm namely proposing to add to the freenet interface (in the welcome page or a dedicated page) an official announcement section, where the freenet team publish news related to the project. Basically, the same updates that go thru dev, could be distilled in a (weekly?) post that the node would present to the user. This way one feels that things are moving even without having chat yet, nor subscribing to mailing lists. Plain users would have quick access to a minimal but regularly updated what's happening with freenet page, sanctioned by the devs. I'm not talking about entering into conflicting debate or technical detail, just plain understandable updates that show that the project is well alive and moving along. What do you think? I know that some freesites are sanctioned and linked in the browse freenet page, but I'm aiming at something even more basic: the freenet team news. A latest news section. Ways to implement this sort of thing (which is probably a good idea): 1. Official Freesite. The problem is people will trust it, so if the private key were ever leaked we'd be in deep trouble. The fix for this is Revocable SSKs. This will happen eventually. There are easy ways to do RSKs and hard ways, but we can do a reasonably easy way which is forward compatible. 2. Per-build update notes. We could either include a file with the build, or insert it as a CHK and have the node fetch it. We could display it as a dismissable alert or something, and have it come back when the next build comes out, unless the user tells it to go away forever. 3. Something in between. An official SSK containing regular updates, for example. This has the same revocation problems as an official freesite, although there are easier solutions than RSKs, such as just tying it to the auto-updater (which has its own revocation mechanism). signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
[freenet-chat] MI5: disconnections will result in darknets
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8328820.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8329710.stm This looks like executive disconnections, most likely the result of a private rightsholder-dominated agency, with ISPs paying half the cost if it messes up and gets sued... very similar to France. It is a major U-turn in government policy as the Digital Britain report explicitly stated that the communications and creative industries are about the same size and killing one to save the other is not acceptable, and handed the question to ofcom. I haven't found a source for the comments about MI5, but they have a point... Even MI5 disagree with Mr Mandelson - they are convinced we will see a rise of a 'Dark Net' of infringers. - Open Rights Group In the event we are instructed to impose extra judicial technical measures we will challenge the instruction in the courts. - TalkTalk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
[freenet-chat] Freenet on phones, sneakernet/long term
Some recent discussion about Freenet on phones (and routers, see my other message on tech). Clearly running a regular broadband based Freenet node on a cracked iPhone is unlikely because of cost and power issues (although it has 256MB of RAM and at least 8GB of storage). However, a smartphone with some fast short range networking would be ideal for 1) Haggle, and 2) Freenet darknet rendezvous. Haggle is, roughly speaking, opennet sneakernet. It was originally conceived for phones and is more or less ideal, on certain provisos. The basic operating principle is this: - Shout at the top of your voice Does anyone have a copy of [ censored ] wherever you happen to be - on a bus, in a crowd - and if they have it they'll send you it. - Hope that nobody has tracing equipment. - I believe there is some level of opportunistic relaying of requests, but it's not really routed in a scalable sense we would recognise. - One worry is that phones might not have untraceable wifi. Another is that relatively cheap infrastructure or patrols with tracing equipment could bust a lot of users, if the law is sufficiently harsh. But really it *is* an interesting system, it's just not Freenet. This may be an out of date view of Haggle, see here: http://www.haggleproject.org/index.php/Main_Page Freenet darknet rendezvous is essentially darknet sneakernet, but without having to pass around USB keys. Your phone detects when your registered friends are nearby, and does a burst transfer over UWB (wireless USB, 480Mbps over very short range) with them. Modern phones are built to do the detection phase cheaply, but don't yet have UWB; it is likely they will soon however. Host-side USB with a networking cable would be another possibility. Thus any time you go for a pint with friends you automatically propagate data, requests, etc, without having to do anything. When you go home your phone will again automatically sync with your fixed node (PC/router), which then forwards stuff over your fixed connections - regular Freenet connections (possibly with the same friends, which gives some nice optimisations), stego connections over the internet, fixed wifi links, etc. Unlike Haggle, it is strictly limited to known friends (hence safer), and has a more freenet-like (and therefore probably slower, because less broadcasty) routing system. Publish/subscribe is essential, but much of it is organised around global (and anonymous) streams. Routing is also possible: although it may take days or weeks depending on the transports, popularity, etc, it should be possible to obtain a huge variety of content. So what we are talking about is a robust, anonymous, often slow meta-internet capable of using whatever connectivity is available. This is a natural evolution of current Freenet IMHO: Messaging and other applications require good publish/subscribe for efficiency in the medium term. Even now, Freenet's expectation that nodes will be online 24x7 is unreasonable. Darknet (connecting only to friends) was introduced to make it possible to run Freenet in places where opennet may be harvested and blocked. Darknet networks composed of low-uptime systems are unlikely to have full end-to-end connectivity most of the time, which means we will need some form of persistent requests. And any competent state trying to eliminate an underground Freenet darknet (note Iran's recent communications crackdown) will soon realise that looking for long-lived peer to peer UDP connections will bust most nodes. Steganography can only go so far, traffic flow analysis will ultimately find all nodes - but even good stego will need to not exchange data continually, making the uptime issues even worse. Ultimately sneakernet and rendezvous based transports become very attractive. And they can have pretty good bandwidth too, although latency is poor. All that routing really requires (provided we can figure out a way to assign locations), is that there be many short links (e.g. meeting up in a pub after work, fixed wireless links), and a few long links (LUG/2600 meetings, mailing a box of disks etc). So I expect *before 1.0*, and largely on the basis of our present network behaviour (poor node uptime, messaging) we will have to implement: - Good publish/subscribe (aka passive requests) - Bloom filter sharing (awareness of data on friends' nodes, speeds up routing considerably but also has some nice impacts when you reconnect) - Long-term requests (meaning they persist on the network, pick up data as nodes come online, and forward it back to the originator) Both of these tie in reasonably well with existing UI and APIs IMHO. After 1.0, we should look very seriously into sneakernet, and non-real-time steganographic transports (e.g. faking VoIP calls). With the above feature set, it becomes quite plausible. Obviously fetching rare content could take weeks - but popular content should be faster, and popular publish/subscribe
Re: [freenet-chat] freenet for mobile phones?
On Wednesday 08 July 2009 05:22:31 Alan Grimes wrote: Jelbert Holtrop wrote: What just happened in Iran made me thinking, would it be possible to communicate with others without making use of the IT infrastructure. The mobile phones that have wifi could talk to each other without an external hub. So i'm imagining a network where users transport the mesages by moving around with their phone. When the phone is in poximity of other phones with the software they transmit the mesages from the network. If a user travels to an other town the mesages will be spread to that other town. Maybe it could intergrate with freenet to also have a faster distribution world wide. way way back in the long long ago, there was a protocol called UUCP, if I recall. The internet backbone hadn't yet been built, see, so how it had to work was each mainframe/mini/BBS, etc, collected mail from all of its users each night at around 2 AM, and then dialed up each of its peers. it would then exchange usenet news postings and e-mail. Each e-mail address was something like f...@bar!baz!bat!boof etc... This was called a bang path. So the first machine would dial boof and send the message, the second would dial bat and send the message, and baz would dial bar... fuckit, I have a dusty old book I was about to chuck, lemme see what it sez; bleh, why bother The thing that bothers me the most about using mobile fonez is that they're pre-0wn3d by the NSA coming out of the store. I do not own one and I do not want one. What do you guys think of this? It would be complicated to make. I'm not a very good programmer, never got the hang of oo. So where to start? Are there any other programmers out there interested in this? When the Shit Hits The Fan (TM), and there is no if, then another thing to consider is sneakernet. Portable media these days has huge capacity and is very tiny. Every time you meet someone, ask them if they have a chip to swap with you. If they do, then take it read it, update the files in any way you choose, then swap it with someone else. The gubbernment would have to go to absurdly extreme lengths to even try to shut down sneakernet! =P Unless they go totally orwellian, there is no way to detect it much less stop it more than a small handful of participants. Most of the above points hold. There are 3 different network principles here: 1. Opportunistic networking (assuming phones can be trusted, which IMHO is not a valid assumption). Basically the principle is you get on a bus, your phone announces I WANT ILLEGAL FILE NUMBER 27, and any phone in the vicinity sends you it. This works (you hope) because you spoof the MAC address on the wifi and hope it's not practical to trace you before you get off the bus. Work on this principle: Haggle, Pocket Switched Networking. 2. Simple Sneakernet: The simplest way to do sneakernet is to assume everyone has infinite storage capacity, and/or everyone is interested in more or less the same thing. So everything that you receive you rebroadcast. This is fine for some emergency situations, and it can be implemented manually - and if the latter, it can be filtered manually. Other options include some level of automated relay via subscriptions. 3. Freenet with hard stego. IMHO it is perfectly reasonable in the future (approx post-1.0), for Freenet to function over both sneakernet and opportunistic networking (as well as other non-realtime transports) - but with the caveat that it remains darknet i.e. you only communicate with your friends. If there is enough light, and the data involved is small enough, that you can use the above options, they may be better. After the changes scheduled for 0.10, Freenet will support long-term (non-realtime) requests, passive requests and some form of publish/subscribe, meaning it will be able to efficiently propagate the popular data while still allowing for requests to propagate until they find a copy of the desired file - our key feature being routing. Another interesting point is that in safer environments we can combine sneakernet with conventional transports to increase performance - daily swaps of an 8GB USB key give bandwidth of 1Mbps per peer each way. In more hostile environments, traditional transports just won't work - either internet connectivity is illegal, or it is so severely locked down or surveilled that we can't use it. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-chat] China starts to get serious over cyberspace
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 03:54:31PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: All new PCs shipped in China include a piece of software called Green Dam. This is supposedly to prevent children accessing offensive material. A report by the OpenNet Initiative has found that Green Dam can monitor activities outside of web browsing, and can terminate applications. Professor Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard's Berkman Centre told the BBC that it can be used for broader purposes, such as the filtering of political ideas. Recently it has been in the news because of allegations that it includes pirated code from CyberSitter. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8091044.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8101978.stm IMHO this is very interesting. It was always going to be necessary for a totalitarian regime to take control of the client side as well as filtering at the network level (which they already do, extensively although not yet with very sophisticated technology, including blocking access to freenetproject.org, and apparently the 0.5 FNP protocol too). According to surveys, 80% of users won't have Green Dam, presumably mostly because they already have computers and have no desire to add it, or are buying second hand hardware. But this will change over time. Currently it only runs on Windows. The next steps are obvious: Provided that Microsoft completes the implementation of TCPA in Windows 7 or some future version, and provided that Intel and AMD start shipping CPUs with the TPM integrated (which given the demand for TCPA from laptops for the corporate market is likely, despite massive opposition from tech enthusiasts resulting in mail order desktop motherboards almost never having a TPM), and once all the old hardware has been retired (which will take a long time), China can lock down cyberspace completely, excluding any realistic long-term possibility of bypassing government filters by requiring a state-approved operating system to connect to the Internet. Whether similar things happen in the west depends on political trends, the power of the entertainment industry, how much consumers care about DRM, how much of a problem spam and malware become, and so on. After a sustained campaign in the press, a legal challenge and several security holes being discovered, China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has clarified that The use of this software is not compulsory. Those who uninstall it will not face prosecution. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8106526.stm ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-chat] Does Freenet qualify for DMCA Safe Harbor?
On Thursday 12 February 2009 13:12, jimmy90 wrote: ? :) IANAL, but my understanding is that DMCA safe harbour is contingent on your accepting DMCA takedown notices, which is rather problematic for Freenet (and not very useful either). Have a look at the EFF's legal advice for (US-based) p2p devs. One important thing they say is you can either filter everything or filter nothing; we take the latter approach. http://www.eff.org/wp/iaal-what-peer-peer-developers-need-know-about-copyright-law pgpDOqBENN3ey.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
[freenet-chat] UK Government plans on filesharing: not as bad as assumed
The Digital Britain review, and the government's response to the peer to peer consultation, result in the following: ISPs will be obliged to tackle repeated infringement. The emphasis is on dealing with specific individuals. ISPs will be obliged to warn individual infringers when presented with evidence of infringement. So far, content owners have proven extremely bad at identifying repeat offenders, so ISPs are to be required to count the number of notices they send to their customers, which can then be provided on a court order along with the user's personal details, in order to sue serious offenders. It is believed based on experience elsewhere that these measures should reduce offending by around 70%. Ofcom, with the ISPs and content owners, will develop a Code of Practice dealing with appeals, standards of evidence, cost sharing, etc. It is strongly implied that ISPs will be required to disconnect users at some point, else why the need for appeals? In the original consultation this was also to look into technical options such as filtering, but it was generally focussed on dealing with repeat offenders; hopefully if it is part of the Code of Practice it will be targeted against known offenders, since the government has rejected any general requirement for filtering. So what this means is that the government has no intention of forcing ISPs to block peer to peer software, and the intention is to warn offenders, sue the most serious offenders, and presumably have disconnection, filtering of the offender's connection, or similar sanctions as a middle road, subject to appeals and requiring evidence. This is probably the most we could have hoped for; under French law, developing peer to peer software is illegal as well as there being arbitrary disconnections, apparently without evidence or appeal (but I have not investigated this in detail). Other interesting conclusions from the Digital Britain review: - The communications sector is roughly the same size as the creative economy. - The role of legislation is not to prop up old unsustainable business models. - They may consider taxes on blank media and/or internet connections to subsidise content creation in the near future, since these appear to have worked well in other countries. (IMHO this is a reasonable measure given the alternatives) - DRM may have a role, but needs to be flexible enough to not limit the customer's using content how they like. (IMHO this is a contradiction...) URLs: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7854494.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7858062.stm http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file49907.pdf http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file47139.pdf http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/broadcasting/5631.aspx pgpOBSWHKHAdx.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-chat] [freenet-support] node via XeroBank
Thread moved to chat@ On Tuesday 05 August 2008 12:39, Chris Burge wrote: Sorry, my statement was intended to note that when using a digital transaction a credit card was used much more than digital gold carriers. Actually, the number one use in transferring terrorist money by Bin Laden is something called Hawala Banking. It has been around in Eastern societies for thousands of years so there is no way they are going to nail that sucker. No, this whole Real Id/KYC/grab your ankles and say please forced upon Americans is out of the need to control a failing global economy. They know that they are *[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the current state of the global economy and the only way to keep it from resulting in riots is to start a gradual clamping down on freedoms before it all hits the fans. I heard they had successfully shut down the major hawala networks... Brute force and dubious governments only too eager to please can do a lot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawala#Hawala_after_September_11.2C_2001 Sigh...Anywho, this discussion has all inspired me to charge up Freenet again and try to get on the boards. For whatever reason, I never got invited to be able to get on the message boards (forgot what that program is called) when I tried out Freenet a few months ago (I forget how many times I filled out the CAPTCHA...LOL). Maybe my luck will get better this time around. BTW, is there a board there or somewhere where I can get involved in discussions like digital gold and such forth. Most of the ones that I see out there are scammers. Personally my favourite alternative currency system is Ripple: http://ripple.sf.net/ It doesn't necessarily provide full anonymity ... but it does have many other interesting properties. Thanks and starting up Freenet now! :) On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 4:09 AM, Volodya [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: nevermind that terrorists use credit cards in most cases... I don't have much to add to this thread, but this is a lie (are you watching too much Fox News by any chance?). Out of all the attackers or even supposed attackers on USA or UK there wasn't a single one to my knowledge who has purchased a ticket with a credit card. This information was spread to make them labelled as thieves in the public eyes. - Volodya -- http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast http://eng.anarchopedia.org/ Anarchopedia, A Free Knowledge Portal http://freenetproject.org/ The Free Network project None of us are free until all of us are free.~ Mihail Bakunin ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Interested in selling your home? Ask me! pgpRYE4EjN4Cd.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Why is freenet so difficult?
On Wednesday 21 May 2008 02:23, William J Brown wrote: I've been trying to use freenet for a week. I can't send mail or post a msg using FMS. Freenet is going nowhere without without some easy way to get help. I set up Outlook's news server for local host 1119, and i get FMS boards, but can't send, it tries to send on port 3025 for freemail i think. When i go to use windows exploder, it won't connect to the internet, thinks it's suppose to use localhost port 1119. Normally i don't use all this microsoft junk, but Freenet put a plugin on my firefox. First off, using Internet Explorer with Freenet is *STRONGLY* discouraged, because Internet Explorer's behaviour with MIME type detection makes it impossible to prevent freesites from breaking your anonymity. Secondly, what is the problem with using the customised Firefox profile we provide exactly? It is optimised for use with Freenet, and you can access it by simply clicking on Browse Freenet. Thirdly, you are confusing the instructions for settings up FMS with those for setting up Freenet. FMS is a completely separate application. To access Freenet, you need to point your browser to http://127.0.0.1:/ (usually), although as I said the customised Firefox is the best option for several reasons. You have already set up FMS, and you've connected your newsreader to it. You can't post messages because you haven't announced your identity yet. You need to open http://127.0.0.1:8080/. Then click on Create Identity and make an identity (if you haven't already done this). Then click on Announce Identity and do 30 or so of the CAPTCHAs. Then wait 24 hours, because it takes a while for it to pick it up. When your identity has been successfully announced, this will show on the Local Identities page, and you will then be able to post messages. Unfortunately the last part of the instructions are neither on the FMS site nor on the Freenet Applications Freesite. I will forward your complaint, hopefully we can have the documentation mention the need to announce. My view is that FMS is much less user friendly than it could be, mainly because it doesn't have any proper interface - Frost was much more user-friendly, but was vulnerable to massive denial of service attacks, which have more or less shut it down now. Too damn difficult. I don't see a simple what you should do type of document Where did you hear about Freemail and FMS? The Freenet Applications Freesite? Or from IRC? Or somewhere else? 1. install freenet 2. install freemail 3. d/l some 3rd party mail prog because ms sucks. With no guide and now live help, I think the application is worthless. Live help is available on IRC. I agree the documentation should be improved. But Freenet itself consists only of the web interface (allows you to manage your node and access anonymous websites) and a couple of bundled applications (for filesharing and uploading freesites). pgpDQuIyXL5CV.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Testing
I'm not sure whether the mailing lists are working... pgpUMYb49DJGo.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Yet another test
Yet another test. pgpCma4mz40SO.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Testing again.
Sorry, we're having major problems, and nextgens is asleep. :( pgpB3MEVrgLED.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] $15M US anti-censorship fund
From Frost: - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2008.01.14 - 13:09:09GMT - (Crossposted here because news is DOSed) Does anyone have any idea which projects receive these $15 million ? Can freenet also have a share of this ;) ? http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3286113C=america The U.S. Congress is funding a modest assault on the great firewall of China. The newly approved budget for the U.S. State Department includes $15 million for developing “anti-censorship tools and services” which could help Internet users breach electronic firewalls set up by China, Iran and other “closed societies.” The money is part of the 2008 budget for the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. It is to be awarded competitively to software developers to produce “internet technology programs and protocols” that enable “widespread and secure internet use” in countries where the Internet is now heavily censored. The funding bill says the anti-censorship effort is intended “for the advancement of information freedom in closed societies, including the Middle East and Asia.” In a report that accompanies the bill, the House Appropriations Committee singles out China as a particular target. It cites recent efforts by Chinese President Hu Jintao “to ‘purify’ the Internet via further monitoring and censorship,” and through punishing Internet users who engage in uncensored communications. The report also decries recent Internet crackdowns by the Cuban and Russian governments. The $15 million for anti-censorship technology is a small part of a $164 million “Democracy Fund” that the State Department receives to promote democracy around the globe, but is a 30-fold increase over the half-million dollars provided for that purpose in 2007. A spokeswoman said the State Department “is engaged globally promoting freedom of expression and the free flow of information on the Internet.” Lawmakers said programs they are funding”should be able to support large numbers of users simultaneously in a hostile Internet environment.” The Internet in China fits the “hostile” description. The free-press organization Reporters Without Borders labels China “the world’s most advanced country in Internet filtering.” Chinese authorities monitor Web sites, chat forums, blogs and video exchange sites, and have imprisoned more than 50 Internet users for postings deemed to be anti-government, subversive and otherwise objectionable, Reporters Without Borders reports. The Chinese government has required companies like Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft to censor their search engines as a condition for operating in China. As a result, Internet searches for terms such as “human rights” and “Taiwan independence” have been blocked. According to some reports, a Chinese Internet search on Google for “Tiananmen Square” produces images of buildings and smiling tourists, while the same search in the United States generates pictures of the Chinese tanks used to crush pro-democracy protestors in 1989. Internet censorship in North Korea is worse. Government control makes North Korea “the world’s worst Internet black hole,” Reporters Without Borders says. “Only a few officials are able to access the Web, using connections rented from China.” Cuba is repressive as well. Virtually all Internet connections are government-controlled, and “you can get five years just for connecting to the Internet illegally,” the organization says. The Iranian government boasts that it blocks access to 10 million “immoral” Web sites, including political and religious sites. Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt also make the Reporters Without Borders list of “Internet enemies.” The new funding for State Department efforts to defeat Internet censorship “is a welcome arrow” in a modest arsenal of weapons for defending Internet freedom, said Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology. Protecting the Internet from abusive governments is important to supporting democracy, she said. But accomplishing that “will require the free world to take much harder positions” against abuses such as censorship. Ultimately, the odds may favor technology. “No matter how many restrictions are written in China, the Internet is a very hard technology to control,” Harris said. “The number of users is growing exponentially — blogs, e-mail accounts, the magnitude is extraordinary. At the end of the day, governments trying to control the Internet are going to have a very difficult time.” å pgpxbpg3kb1rb.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] TorrentFreak: Comcast/Sandvine block bittorrent seeding
Seems to be on a traffic analysis level as it works on encrypted bittorrent - I wonder if this would block Freenet? http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic-seeding-impossible/ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18323368-Comcast-is-using-Sandvine-to-manage-P2P-Connections Thanks to whoever originally sent me this URL! pgpzmVax6TRzO.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] TorrentFreak: Comcast/Sandvine block bittorrent seeding
On Friday 07 September 2007 15:26, Florent Daignière wrote: * Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-07 15:22:06]: On Friday 07 September 2007 15:13, you wrote: * Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-07 13:49:26]: Seems to be on a traffic analysis level as it works on encrypted bittorrent - I wonder if this would block Freenet? http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic-seeding-impossible/ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18323368-Comcast-is-using-Sandvine-to-manage-P2P-Connections Thanks to whoever originally sent me this URL! Nothing new as far as I can see ... killing TCP sessions sending out RSTs is what China has been doing for years! The means of killing them isn't the interesting part. It's the means of detecting them that's of interest. As far as I know only transport is cyphered using RC4 ... access to the tracker isn't (unless ssl is involved)... Well it's transport they are interfering with here.. by the way preventing seeding when transfert is over is trivial ... flow analysis ... when you don't download, prevent uploading. Detect that it switches from a symmetrical pattern to an asymetrical one Exactly, it's traffic flow analysis. Widely deployed, cheap traffic flow analysis hardware kills us. pgpzVONnx8Qhc.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] 0.5 users
On Wednesday 09 May 2007 00:33, you wrote: NOTE: I don't subscribe to this list. Any replies will have to be sent to me personally. I recently saw an IRC log where Toad claimed 0.5 had less than 300 nodes. I just wanna comment that that's complete bullshit. I am personally connected to well over 1000 at the moment. 0.5 is still as healthy as it's always been IMO. Sorry, this is just a result of 0.5's opennet sucking. A friend installed a node and it showed 230 or so peers after a few hours. Because of the old assimilation problem, it takes a while to get fully plugged in to the network. pgpOiBgV5EHO8.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [ffii] European Parliament Criminalises Businesses, Consumers, Innovators]
- Forwarded message from FFII Press Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: FFII Press Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ffii] European Parliament Criminalises Businesses, Consumers, Innovators PRESS RELEASE -- [ Europe / Economy / Innovation ] European Parliament Criminalises Businesses, Consumers, Innovators Strasbourg, 25 April 2007 -- The European Parliament today accepted the IP Criminal Measures directive after its first reading in a vote of 374 to 278, and 17 abstentions. It left several unexamined rights in the scope, and threatens to criminalise consumers and incriminate ISPs. Recommendations from an alliance of libraries, consumers and innovators were not followed, although Parliament was clearly divided on several issues. A summary of the adopted text follows: * Apart from copyright (piracy) and trademarks (counterfeiting), also the unexamined database and design rights are included in the scope, as well as trade names (which do not fall under Community Law). Patents and utility models (petty patents) are excluded; * A weak definition of commercial scale was adopted. It does not clearly protect consumers and the young generation; * Inciting an IPR infringement is criminalised. This introduces liabilities for software and service providers; * Abuse of the measures provided by this directive are punishable, fair use-like actions such as infringing for the purpose of criticism, research and reporting are removed from the scope, and the neutrality of the investigations should be safeguarded. Terrorists illegally copying and selling phone directories will probably not sleep very well tonight. Neither will spare parts makers who, according to Parliament, should risk criminal penalties if they infringe on a part's design right. It is very strange that the rapporteur insisted on having these unexamined database and design rights included in the scope, said Jonas Maebe, FFII analyst. Today, 'inciting' is only criminal in some member states, and in exceptional cases such as hate speech. Elevating IPRs to the same level is a scary development. The inciting clause is also reminiscent of the US 'Induce Act', which threatened to make MP3 players such as the iPod illegal, Maebe added. He continued: On the positive side, Parliament did decide that abuse of these misguided measures has to be punishable, and that the neutrality of investigations should be safeguarded. It also explicitly mentioned several statutory exceptions to IPRs, where criminal measures should not be applied. We are also thankful for the strong support our position received from the Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups, as well as from several Members of the EPP, PSE and ALDE groups. A number of Members from the EPP and PSE groups afterwards concurred that the directive did not get the time it deserved for discussion, and that many Members became aware of its dangers too late, Maebe said. The directive now goes to the Council for its first reading. Several Council members, such as the Dutch and UK governments, have already expressed serious concerns about the scope and nature of this directive. Maebe concluded: We hope that they will take the joint recommendations of law experts and civil society into account more fully. Background information The Commission introduced the Criminal Measures IP directive, also known as IPRED2 or Criminal Enforcement directive, as a way to combat organised crime and terrorism. It would do so by turning all intentional, commercial scale infringements of all IP rights into a criminal offence. The problem with this logic is that very few infringements have anything to do whatsoever with criminal activities, let alone with terrorism. Furthermore, the TRIPs treaty already requires criminal measures against commercial scale copyright piracy and counterfeiting, and in most other cases civil law is more appropriate. The directive is also controversial because it is the first time that the European Parliament is co-legislating criminal law in the EU to such an extent. This also means that individual governments lose their veto power when the directive will be treated in the Council. Links * Examples demonstrating the consequences of the adopted text http://action.ffii.org/ipred2/Plenary1_Tabled_Amendments/Consequences * Overview of the tabled amendments http://action.ffii.org/ipred2/Plenary1_Tabled_Amendments * Result of the vote
[freenet-chat] IPRED2 passes first reading in EP was [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Legal certainty, the young generation and innovation at stake in the European Union]
http://www.ipred.org/MainPage (the first block). Patents are out, so the entire EU software industry will not be criminalised overnight. However the text about inciting remains, so presumably also does the aiding and abetting part. The JURI definition of commercial scale also went through; this may or may not protect individual consumers using filesharing. So potentially: (IANAL!) - Developing freenet is aiding, abetting and/or inciting copyright infringement, and will be illegal, and imprisonable. - Running it likewise. - Inciting somebody to run a node might conceivably be covered. - As might providing tools that can be used for copyright infringement (e.g. operating systems which don't have all of Vista's crippleware may be regarded as inciting infringement, if we are very unlucky). - The definition of commercial scale is attacked by FFII and libraries as weak, so we'll see whether it protects downloaders. - However existing liability systems allowed for ISPs are preserved: Directive 2000/31/EC. For a node operator to hide behind art 12's mere conduit status this they would have to a) provide their name, physical address and email address to users and competent authorities (art5(1); no idea how the latter point is implemented), and b) remove and block keys on demand (art 12, 13, 14). Not doing so would presumably remove them from this system and subject them to IPRED2's criminal penalties. (Incidentally this appears to allow for compelling an ISP to block access to a specific website). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoclg=ennumdoc=32000L0031model=guichett Timeline: IPRED2 still has to go through the Council. It might have to go all three readings, or it might be passed quickly. Once it has passed there will be 18 months for member states to implement it. More information: http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/Carte_Blanche_criminal_law_a_threat_to_innovation And links from there. And see the below first. - Forwarded message from Ante Wessels [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Ante Wessels [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Legal certainty, the young generation and innovation at stake in the European Union initial reaction, after the EP vote: http://www.ipred.org/MainPage vriendelijke groet, cordialmente, Ante - End forwarded message - signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Taking Freenet Seriously
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2007.02.28 - 11:46:38GMT - (Source: http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/10/taking_freenet_.html) Taking Freenet Seriously: A Response to Picker on Peer-to-Peer Randy raises a fascinating question below about the appropriate uses for Peer-to-Peer technologies, and he and Tim Wu have begun an interesting dialogue in the comments. Let me suggest an alternative answer to Tim’s. Peer-to-Peer technologies have substantial utility in those circumstances where anonymity or decentralization are desirable. So, as Ian Clarke has long argued with respect to Freenet, peer-to-peer can be an effective mechanism for enabling free political speech in those parts of the world that have repressive governments. It is relatively easy for a repressive government to shut down one or a dozen central servers, but virtually impossible for them to shut down all content-hosting peers, unless they’re willing to turn off Internet access altogether. Similarly, with central severs, it is much easier to compile a list of the Internet addresses belonging to content downloaders, but much harder to do this effectively when the distribution channels are peer-to-peer. There is enormous potential for these kinds of technologies to promote freedom and democracy in authoritarian regimes and robust, uninhibited debate in freer societies where legal liability concerns and social norms constrain discourse unduly. At the same time, anonymity and decentralization have substantial downsides in the speech context. Darknets facilitate child pornography distribution. Peer-to-peer allows privacy-invading MPEG files to spread across the globe in hours, well before any court can intervene with injunctive relief. And anonymity and decentralization on P2P can contribute to the rapid spread of computer viruses, thwarting efforts to control viruses through the imposition of legal liability on content providers and disseminators. So we have an environment in which P2P creates substantial speech-related benefits and speech-related harms. In these settings, we can resolve this issue in one of two ways: Compare the magnitude of the benefits and harms (This is what the Ginsburg concurrence in Grokster seemed to want to do – More people want to use Grokster to obtain porn than political theory); or give the benefit of the doubt to the “more speech is better” philosophy, and tolerate many less savory uses of P2P for the benefit of the occasional blessed use (This seems closer to Breyer’s view of Sony in Grokster.). The former is how the law usually handles economic policy questions, and the latter, I think, is how it handles many free speech questions. So doesn’t this all boil down to the question of “What is Peer to Peer use: Economic conduct or speech?” signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Freenet source and the GPL
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 09:10:26PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'Anonymous' on freenet thinks I'm a troll, however My question about freenet source availability is genuinely sincere. Aside from that, I gotta admit that Boob Routing sure sounds appealing! - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2007.01.30 - 14:22:10GMT - What I find interesting is that all this backandforth flap about freenet source and it's availability is that I have not yet seen one word about it by Toad or Ian. Where do they stand on this? Why can't each release have an accompanying source tarball? Is not their subversion thingy capable of providing this? If it is not, then I suggest that it's broken by design (or the lack thereof). Ummm... It does. If you'd actually read the release announcements, you'd know that we insert a tarball as of a few releases ago. From the 1008 changelog: - First build to have its source code inserted along with the binary for the auto-updater. You can get the binary and the source, on freenet, from the following keys: Jar file: [EMAIL PROTECTED],CPFqYi95Is3GwzAdAKtAuFMCXDZFFWC3~uPoidCD67s,AQABAAE/update-1008 Source code: [EMAIL PROTECTED],CPFqYi95Is3GwzAdAKtAuFMCXDZFFWC3~uPoidCD67s,AQABAAE/update-1008-source Revocation key: [EMAIL PROTECTED],B6EynLhm7QE0se~rMgWWhl7wh3rFWjxJsEUcyohAm8A,AQABAAE/revoked (If you find this key, the keys are blown) I might move the above to update-source-1008 for consistency reasons in future (better compatibility with USKs), but if I do it will be announced with the build affected. I didn't reply to the thread because my Frost was broken due to a DDA issue. - Anonymous - 2007.01.30 - 14:59:13GMT - Ian (sanity) and Matthew (toad) have better things to do than to read Frost messages written by trolls. - Anonymous - 2007.01.30 - 20:28:51GMT - Like nothing. Ummm, like Christmas? I took some time off for xmas, and that dragged out a bit because of hardware upgrades, mythtv, and a bug of the biological variety (which are common during the winter months). - Anonymous - 2007.01.30 - 21:21:16GMT - Not true, they are off on sabbatical at the titty bar with Freenet donation money to meticulously plan the 'theoretical foundations' of the 0.7 network between lap dances. - Anonymous - 2007.01.30 - 22:40:07GMT - a) It's a new design called Boob Routing. b) Ian is gay. First I've heard of it. Pupok (his girl) would probably like to know too! - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2007.01.31 - 01:39:02GMT - ROTFLMAO! -- An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland. - Adolf Hitler, proposing the creation of the Gestapo in Nazi Germany. - George Bush, Talking about the Homeland Security Act and the Patriot Act. Source? I can't believe that even George Bush would be so idiotic as to quote Hitler. Parallel evolution I suppose... The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home. James Madison, fourth president of the United States I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. - Voltaire There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt I like this one. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Finding refs
On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 07:09:48PM -0500, vinyl1 wrote: While the darknet is what they're testing right now, as I understand it, the intent is to have an opennet version eventually. People in countries where Freenet is legal will be able to connect via opennet, while others can use the darknet. Hopefully a lot of people in countries where Freenet is legal will also use the darknet, for several reasons: 1. To help the darknet in places where it is illegal. 2. To build a darknet for the inevitable point when it becomes illegal in their countries. 3. For privacy's sake; a true darknet (where you only connect to your friends) is far more secure than an opennet. Those using darknet will not be detectable by the authorities. But there are many stages of testing to be gone through before this can happen. I'm sure Matthew and/or Ian will chime in if I'm wrong. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: chat@freenetproject.org Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: [freenet-chat] Finding refs Having to find and install an IRC package just to connect once to the freenet channel for refs is a pain in the ass - so hopefully this list will prove useful for that purpose (I have also read where others have found little luck getting refs using the IRC channel, even when there are many people in the channel). To be honest, this ref system is a rather tricky and cumbersome system, and arguably is rather irrelevant. I mean, is it any more secure/safe/better/etc for me to have to put out a mass call for people I don't know to ref me, or to simply have the system establish connections at random? I don't see the difference. In any event -- does anyone want to trade refs? If so, please email me directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. Any comments on the benefits (if any) of using the freenet system over using Tor/Privoxy? ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Research work about your project freenet hosted at Sourceforge.]
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Research work about your project freenet hosted at Sourceforge. X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on servalan X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME,WEIRD_PORT autolearn=no version=3.0.3 Dear FLOSS developer, MERIT at the University of Maastricht along with the University Rey Juan Carlos (Madrid) are studying how developers contribute code to Free / Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects. This is an extension of our previous research projects such as flossproject.org, flosspols.org, flossworld.org, and libresoft.urjc.es. In this study, we are looking for survey respondents like you, who contribute to at least one of a small number of projects that we have selected for the study. About the study, you'll find below more information, but as a summary: - To fill it will not take more than 10 minutes. - All personal information will be kept strictly confidential. Only aggregated and anonymized data will be published, as part of our study. These results will be publicly available under a open documentation license. - We need you resend the included message to your development mail list. We have selected only a few developers to send our message, but we need the participation of all possible developers in this survey. In the survey link, please fill in correctly your CVS login and select your project, that is: freenet Please, follow the survey link: http://libresoft.urjc.es:/Survey/ Please, do not hesitate to contact us if you have any question; you can ask to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Model of message to be sent to your developer mailing list: Dear FLOSS developer, MERIT at the University of Maastricht along with the University Rey Juan Carlos (Madrid) are studying how developers contribute code to Free / Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects. This is an extension of our previous research projects such as flossproject.org, flosspols.org, flossworld.org, and libresoft.urjc.es. In this study, we are looking for survey respondents like you, who contribute to at least one of a small number of projects that we have selected for the study. Therefore, we would like to ask you to participate in a small survey and to fill in our questionnaire, which you will find online at http://libresoft.urjc.es:/Survey/ To fill in the survey takes not more than 10 minutes of your time. Of course, all personal information will be kept strictly confidential, no personal information will be revealed to third parties, and the information obtained will be properly aggregated and anonymized so that no data about named individuals will be published. We also would like to point out that this study has only academic and no commercial purpose, and the resulting analysis will be freely available. Rishab Ghosh ,MERIT (Board member, Open Source Initiative) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ruediger Glott, MERIT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gregorio Robles, URJC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona, URJC [EMAIL PROTECTED] - End forwarded message - -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Practical darknet - or where are the chinese?
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 01:52:21PM +0200, Lean Fuglsang wrote: Hi, I was wondering what the plan is for practial darknet in china. In the west it looks like a practial IP based darknet i possible where a lot of legal communication is encrypted and ISP's are not that government friendly. A lot of legal traffic is encrypted in China too. They use SSL for exactly the same reason that we do; mostly to protect credit card numbers. And in the west many ISPs are very anxious to prevent litigation at almost all costs. The laws that have been passed have been in the style of ban the application, or prosecute the little people. But for now it seems that ISP are independent enough that a IP darknet is possible. But what is the reality in china? What kind of link management is done, I don't believe that darknet would be possible using IP, since it is possible to see that a node is using it. It is just too easy to see that a host have many encrypted udp connection. That sort of traffic flow analysis is expensive. ISPs don't have one computer behind each incoming connection, they have a big router behind hundreds of them. Freenet 0.7 traffic as it is is detectable only by trying to profile packet sizes, timing etc, or by the fact that it isn't anything else. Either way it's not that easy to detect, and if you detect it by it not being anything else you effectively force registration of protocols with the government. This is not the case in China now AFAIK and I doubt it will be the case in the near future. So how is it imagened that freenet should work? Should the steganography go through skype, or other messaging services? If it is phone or video, how can you connect to multiple host? You first call one, and then you call another? Can the network cope with this type of connections? VoIP (preferably including video) is a promising avenue for future research into stego. We can use it parasitically, by for example sending data on the video stream and keeping the voice stream as it is (so the traffic is only what would have happened anyway but it doesn't include video), or we can try to fake timings (which is hard!). What about instant messaging? Here you can talk to a lot of people, but it looks weird if you do it 24/7. Indeed. You can pass files through IM too... The network is not *at present* able to deal with very high latency transports, but I expect that in future we will add such features; I hope to move in that direction, at least. Long term requests, passive requests, publish/subscribe, queueing a fetch of a page which isn't currently available, and so on. What about mobile phones, usb keys and the like? I doubt it's possible with mobile phones. Passing boxes of disks around is feasible but requires more user involvement than most users will want to do. One suggestion was to use PDAs with wifi, which automatically exchange with friends when they come nearby. Of course wifi is another option; either fixed or transient wifi links. What kind of application is it possible to run on each type of network? I would think it could be some type of textmessages, without too much info. This is all far future stuff. Right now freenet 0.7 works in china, if you can get darknet connections; freenet 0.5 doesn't. So is there any chinese out there, that can post to this list and tell us how the reality look in china (in english ;)? Are there any frost forums which have chinese activity? One thing which is important in the nearer future is localisation; even in europe we will get more users if they can use freenet with the GUI in their local language. We have translators lined up for many languages; the bottleneck is implementing translation hooks; if somebody wants to work on this that would be nice, otherwise I will get around to it some time in the beta period... -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Re: Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7
(Moved to chat) On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:52:16PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: opennets are only bad in certain circumstances. The USA is not yet one of them. That depends. China, Iran, and arguably France are. The EU may be in the very near future. And if the network is being actively (electronically) attacked (flooding etc), which is not yet legal for the RIAA etc in most countries, a darknet is better. With a darknet, it may be harder to get into the network, but once your in it's a LOT easier to identify who is sharing and inserting what files. How so? If you are on opennet, you know your peers' IPs and can run correlation/timing/etc attacks against them. If you are on darknet, you know your peers' IPs, and can run correlation/timing/etc attacks against them. I don't see why darknet is less secure. So it could be argued that a darknet is much riskier than an opennet. In a darknet, everyone else pretty much knows who you are. Not true. YOUR PEERS know exactly who you are. That's it! Their peers don't know who you are, nor does the rest of the network. As soon as one computer on the net gets compromised or one person decides they don't like what you're doing, you're all pretty much screwed. Still nonsense. I mean, I'm no expert on darknets, but it seems that if you only have 5 or 10 connections, and you always have the same connections, and you have IRC logs swapping node refs and, better yet, the actual node ref...it would be pretty easy to figure out what nodes host what files. In an opennet, this kind of thing is expected and protected against. How is it protected against on opennet? Correlation and timing attacks are quite possible on both opennet and darknet, but on opennet you can identify every node and connect to all of them. Defences against correlation attacks are hard, and even more so on opennet, because we have even less chance of knowing which nodes are real. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Re: Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:08:13PM -0400, Juiceman wrote: With 10 connections, the data that could intercepted by one attacker is roughly 10%. The problem is the attacker doesn't know how many connections you have, so you could just be passing on data from any number of connections you have. He can work it out, and your requests normally are for splitfiles... -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Caching issues was Re: Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:59:23AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Juiceman wrote: With 10 connections, the data that could intercepted by one attacker is roughly 10%. The problem is the attacker doesn't know how many connections you have, so you could just be passing on data from any number of connections you have. It's currently trivialy easy to find out if a request of a connected peer was forwarded by that peer or if it was a local request from that peer because local requests aren't stored in the datastore/-cache. (http://wiki.freenetproject.org/FreenetZeroPointSevenSecurity, search for the headline Datastore) Thus you only have to probe the datastore of the requesting peer after sending the data to it and can find out if it was forwarded or originated there. In my opinion this isn't really acceptable on either a dark- or opennet (perhaps on a true darknet but that doesn't exist right now) but it certainly would cause havoc on an opennet. This is true (for inserts; requests are cached anyway). The problem is that the alternative, caching local inserts, is equally dire; the attack that the Register highlighted last year: Anything you insert is 100% in your datastore, so if it is seized, or if an attacker makes the requests remotely and times them, they can guess what you've been browsing. (As on 0.5). What do you suggest we do? A client cache (temporary cache using ephemeral keys) would help slightly. Premix routing would seem to be the ultimate solution, but is difficult, and thus not to be implemented before 0.8. I have been toying with the idea of some kind of non-encrypted semi-permanent tunnels to provide some request security; a tunnel would be a random route taken by a whole bunch of requests, or even all local requests from a node over a period; it would be randomly either forwarded or broken up and the requests routed on each hop. While it is being forwarded, the requests aren't cached, and don't check the cache. This would provide a small anonymity set, but better than nothing. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
(Moved to -chat). On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 11:42:32PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group trades connection information with someone in another group? Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network? These three networks will grow, until people are added who are on more than one of these networks. A lot of people in england know people in France or in China. In particular a lot of people in the US know people in China; according to some this is one of the factors behind China's recent economic success. Now, I'm not saying there are no barriers. Plainly there are cultural, national, language, geographic barriers. It may be that some of these barriers are so huge that we need to adapt the routing algorithm to explicitly divide the darknet into subnetworks, and try requests locally before passing them on to distant networks (networks we have few connections to). But this isn't necessarily catastrophic. And if it is the case then it is something we will have to address whether or not we have opennet, because there are many places where you simply CANNOT USE OPENNET. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 12:51:32PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly. The theory of a darknet is you connect to people that you already know and trust. Now, there's a good chance of getting a worldwide-net because someone in group A may know and trust someone in group B, but chances are that not all of group A knows all of group B. So what? Not everyone in group A knows everyone in group A. It doesn't prevent routing from working. A node knows only a small number of other nodes, but if you travel a few hops you can get to a large number of other nodes. For a real-world analogy...I don't have a problem hanging out with my girlfriend and her friends...she has no problem being with me and my friends...but my friends and her friends would never meet independently. If one of her friends has a message for one of your friends, she gives it to your gf, who gives it to you, who give it to that friend of yours. Yes, you become a bottleneck here. But there is every reason from the research to expect that there are other possible intermediaries. Perhaps they would become friends with time...and perhaps people in group A of the darknet would get to know and trust people in group B of the darknetbut that would take time. I mean, I know that personally it's gonna take a few years of knowing someone before I would trust them well enough to talk about the kinda stuff some people do on freenet. I mean, yea, that time might be lowered by someone else you trust saying 'they're cool, don't worry about it'...but still, by the time you have a global network, freenet 1.0 is gonna be out. You don't have to connect to your girlfriend's friends. Plus it makes freenet a much better target for government agencies. Chances are the people you are connected directly to in freenet you know very well. Chances are the people you know very well live in the same country as you, if for no other reason than a shared language. So chances are, if they bust one freenet node, they can bust all connected nodes. So? If they bust one opennet node, they can bust every opennet node. Whereas if they bust one darknet node, they can only (easily) bust the darknet nodes directly connected to it. Spidering outward that way is far more expensive than harvesting the entire opennet, busting a few randomly chosen examples, and cutting off internet access for the rest. And that actually made me think of one other thing. If you have a darknet in, say, Germany, they will most likely all speak German and upload German files. So how would they get joined to a darknet that mostly spoke English and uploads English files? Only people who speak both languages relatively well will bother to connect to both networks. And there are literally millions of such people across europe. But they have to not only speak both languages but also know and trust someone else who speaks the other language. Which seems to point back to smaller networks connected in few places. I accept that there may be internal barriers. I don't accept that these barriers are insurmountable, and I certainly don't expect the constant implication that the darknets will be really small. On 8/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Evan, You are right - there is a lot of data to show that social networks do expand in the method being said here, but that data is based on known, non-anonymous social networks. In an anonymous network the rule of thumb is trust no one. If an openet is not the solution, neither is posting information with an embeded IP number the solution. I don't know how the openet is hackable, especially if node connections pr paths through nodes change randomly (TOR-like), but with a manually established network it only takes capturing 1 node and the entire freenet is at risk. I would be more inclined to exchange node information with someone if the information were encrypted - private/public key. In an anonymous social network I would be more inclined to expand that network to others because my node information is encrypted. From: Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], support@freenetproject.org To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: support@freenetproject.org Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:06:37 -0400 Please justify your assumptions. There is a lot of data on social networks that says that is not how they look. I see no reason to believe the social networks a freenet darknet would be built upon would be different. Evan On 8/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yea, but you don't know all the nodes in the network, you just know the ones your connected to. So if one of those links between the networks goes down, half your downloads stall out and die. And wouldn't that put a pretty big strain on certain computers? I mean, if you get this global network of small networks...90% of the data you
[freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7
Freenet 0.5 had opennet, and yet it was a failure. On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 08:44:42PM -, Hartmut Folter wrote: Freenet 0.7 is nothing more than yet another in a series of Freenet failures-in-waiting until it proves itself, IMHO, by emerging out of alpha with open-net. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Re: Campaigning for Open-Net [WAS Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7]
This is not true. A global darknet is feasible, as I have explained: National barriers, and even language barriers are by no means absolute, and to the extent that they affect the network they can be dealt with. If Freenet provides something of value, we can make a large darknet. AND IF IT ISN'T THERE IS NO POINT IN DOING FREENET BECAUSE IF FREENET EVER DOES MEET ITS GOALS IT WILL BE ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE. That is not to say that opennet isn't important. Opennet will be implemented. But not yet, because it is not time to do it yet. We do not want to introduce more chaos to an already chaotic situation by implementing opennet before we have even started to sort out load balancing, for example. On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 03:53:20AM +0200, somebody wrote: The answer is simple. Without open-net and at least some reasonable percentage of nodes operating as part of both open and dark nets, 0.7 will NEVER become part of any global network. It will instead be limited, broken into hundreds or thousands of little 'island netowrks' Open-net is required to tie these islands into a global network. I will repeat something I read on frost recently, We should all start pestering the hell outta both Ian and Toad to get open-net deployed. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Freenet 0,5 or 0,7
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 06:43:07PM +0200, - wrote: You stated that you believe computer based attacks on Freenet are much easier than social engineering, and therefore support the fact that freenet should be an invite only network. But, I don't think this model's going to work, for several reasons: First, the guiding principle behind freenet right now is anonymity in the numbers of a large number of users doing all sorts of different things. They may easily know you're using freenet, but it's extremely difficult to prove WHAT you downloaded. In other word it's very difficult to get specific evidence against a specific freenet user. It's not *that* difficult. There are correlation attacks, and there is the whole caching issue - either your peers can tell what you've requested for sure (don't cache locally), or your peers *and* anyone who seizes your store can tell (cache locally). True, if freenet becomes illegal, the opennet may not work, but what's the worse that's going to happen? They put up a national firewall making freenet unusable, or freenet users will just get a message from their ISP saying they better stop or they'll be kicked off. This may not happen until 3-5 years from now, even though it may be illegal on paper in France already. And if we aren't ready to switch to a pure darknet, what then? The darknet concept does not provide this sort of anonymity, you are exposed to the people you trust, Not significantly more than your exposure to people you _don't_ trust on opennet. It's pretty much the same thing, except on darknet you choose who to trust; on opennet you have no choice. I haven't heard a single response to the question: what happens if someone in your darknet gets busted or a spy manages to infiltrate by joining? They instantly have reasonable grounds to assume that you are engaged in the same activity, since you're part of the same ring. This should be enough to bust you as well. Or they could just check who you've been emailing/SMSing/calling lately. Which is why they have data retention, wiretapping etc powers. They also now have the ability to specifically monitor WHAT you downloaded. How so? Plus your trusted friend could easily rat on you. And that's that. Sure, treachery is a big problem. Opennet is a bigger problem; treachery is more expensive than harvesting, it's more expensive even than harvesting+ubernodes+sybil etc attacks on an opennet. How can you underestimate the importance of this? In contrast in opennet if a user gets busted, yes they may get a seedfile of hundreds of different users in many different countries all engaged in different activities. That's nice, they know all these people are using freenet, but it will not give them specific evidence against anyone, unless they do some extremely complex traffic analysis, spanning multiple countries and ISPs. The authorities don't need to bust anybody. All they need to do is download the node, harvest, and they can quickly get a picture of all nodes worldwide - including those within their jurisdiction. And your comment about social engineering being more difficult, that doesn't really apply to today's situation, since right now all it takes is going on IRC to join. When is freenet planning to go underground then? #freenet-refs is for bootstrapping and testing. It's a sort of pseudo-opennet. True darknet underground connections happen through other means. I guess the entire 0,7 testing group will have to break into groups of darknets of 2-3-4 people that trust each other in real life. Why must darknets be so small? I see no reason at all to expect them to be that small. I see every reason to expect true darknets to grow and amalgamate. If it goes underground with a few hundred hard core enthusiasts, where's the fresh content going to come from? Relies on the bogus assumption above. And half will be left outside without a darknet. I personally will have to form a one person darknet then. Van -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Not much point fighting individual patents was Re: [Tech] A potential patent threat to Freenet and other P2P networks
I'm sure I've seen md5: URIs as examples in some document, I think an RFC on URNs maybe? I'll have a look sometime if I get around to it, but it's not really worth fighting individual patents until you really have to. The top campaigning priority (even higher than the Community Patent, EPLA and London Agreement) MUST be to fight the IPRED2, because if that passes, we're in deep camel dung: Freenet would almost certainly be illegal per se (aiding and abetting copyright infringement), and most software authors, open source or not, would become criminals (intentional infringement of a patent on a commercial scale, punishable by prison time, judicial winding up etc). http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ipred2/ipred2.en.html http://www.fipr.org/copyright/ipred2.html http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2060510En http://www.ffii.org.uk/archives/23 Frankly the IPRED2 would greatly reduce my respect for criminal law, not to mention for the European institutions involved... Is there an EPO equivalent for the below? I came across the below years ago but could never find it again when I wanted to... On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 10:17:14AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: This patent purports to cover the rather obvious idea of using substantially unique identifiers to identify data items, whereby identical data items have the same identifiers: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5978791.html It was filed in October 1997, and is owned by Altnet, who are currently using it to sue Streamcast (creators of Morpheus), and, if they prevail or of Streamcast caves, could conceivably attack other P2P networks, including Freenet: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060815-7508.html Now it is hard to believe that prior art wouldn't exist for such an obvious idea, claim one is a text book definition of a hash function which have been around for decades, claim 2 would seem to describe a hashtable, also a notion with clear prior art going back decades, claim 5 seems to describe the operation of a cache, and so on. But then the claims discuss using this technique to retrieve things over a network. Now, one might argue that simply applying a common computer science technique to a distributed situation is not novel (I don't believe you can get a valid patent simply by combining two other things you didn't invent), but it would be really useful to find some robust examples of requesting files by their hashes over a network that pre-date October 1997. I have heard that the Xanadu project may have something in 1990, but haven't got any specific references. Is anyone aware of anything concrete? Ian. ___ Tech mailing list Tech@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] new freesites + question
Best guess sometime around year end. On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 12:26:47AM -0500, Edward Langenback wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Greetings, As of the current version, Mixminion Message Sender is now also available on freenet 0.5 (http://freenetproject.org/download-old.html) The freenet url for it is: [EMAIL PROTECTED],ZOJm89bQCLLZw7DJ23i4gw/mmsdev/1// And another site: Lastdays Watch: [EMAIL PROTECTED],ckqhs1YME2xL0Ub3XcWpnA/watch/3// These are on the 0.5 (stable) version. (I'm not putting anything on the new 0.7 (alpha) version until it's out of alpha and open-net is deployed.) Speaking of open-net, is there a working approximation for when that'll happen? in Him, -Ed - -- The best way to get past my spam filter is to use pgp or gnupg to encrypt your Mail to me with RSA Key ID: 0x84D46604 (fingerprint: DA03 1EA4 7F5D DF74 B89F E871 757E 627C 84D4 6604) This key can be found on public keyservers such as http://keyserver.kjsl.com:11371/#extract - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= God's Resting Place http://lurasbookcase.com/gods-resting-place.shtml / \ \ / Join the ASCII-Ribbon Campaign to Stamp Out HTML Email ! X / \ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. iQEVAwUBRPJ+nHV+YnyE1GYEAQJLlQf9GkB2kEWs7MaDz3p25ygGerhgXbP4RgiW ifX6qBRtRLKAARTxb7d0o2D3eJ6geEEpTpAtoUIsdzO8jowCUDp+Spe/sz82a0qY rh+51pUg0PDZBLJiXsr56gEomgvD50U2zEfz8517Zsr7Q9zlyyyH6xDYNsFUgMAJ r4QtmxZ9xePq35IS0b0DmyQWQH2LsxPSzWB4rGTdUpC6IoT93JmyuAmkdyQXkXgm NBbw5VbWxj2L2aXjicwJKUsLedWYpLCj2FPEtAh4R1gopmUjLrZTLaAfssxHAbhh A/og2/X33XLU6BYw2dBQN92kApkeEia7x2TPBWqqjiDCQjiD7b6klQ== =gva+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] EDRI on DADVSI
More on the DADVSI from EDRI. Interesting that the constitutional council explicitly states that software can be illegal even if it is intended for sharing non-copyrighted works; this strongly suggests that blacklisting is now mandatory in France. (An open question being whether blacklisting on demand a la DMCA takedown notices is enough, or whether all P2P apart from the whitelisting varieties is now illegal). - Forwarded message from EDRI-gram newsletter [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: EDRI-gram newsletter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: EDRI-gram newsletter - Number 4.15, 2 August 2006 List-Id: edri-news.mailman.edri.org List-Subscribe: http://mailman.edri.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/edri-news, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] EDRI-gram biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe Number 4.15, 2 August 2006 Contents EDRI-gram in German 1. Digital Rights Ireland Challenge to Data Retention 2. EU might fingerprint children even before 12 years old 3. End of activities Bits of Freedom 4. Telecom Italia wiretapping scandal 5. EU trying to push again biometrics on national ID cards 6. The French copyright law changed by the Constitutional Council 7. The Schengen Information System II delayed 8. Recommended reading 9. Agenda 10. About 6. The French copyright law changed by the Constitutional Council The French Constitutional Council ruled on the most controversial copyright and related rights law, known as DADVSI law, concluding that some provisions of the law violated the constitutional protections of property. The Council has considered as unconstitutional several provisions adopted by the French Parliament that were meant to balance the initial text which was too much in favour of the industry, thus making the law even stricter. One of the aspects considered by the Council as against the equality principle was the gradual system in the application of fines for making works available on P2P networks, which was ranging from 38 to 150 euros. Under the circumstances, the penalties remain at the level of 3 years of imprisonment and 300,000 euros in fines. By eliminating the reduced penalties, the council put ordinary people sharing music back in the same league as criminal counterfeiters, said Jean-Baptist Soufron, legal director for the Association of Audionautes. Probably the most severe decision of the Council is related to provisions related to interoperability. Basically the Council considered the government did not define interoperability properly and withdrew interoperability from the DRM circumventions exceptions. This definitely pleased Apple. Dominique Menard, partner at the Lovells law firm and a specialist in intellectual property said: The Constitutional Council has highlighted fundamental protections for intellectual property in such a way as to put iTunes a little further from risk of the French law. The Council changed also some of the provisions adopted by the French Parliament making the creators of file-sharing software and software that could interact with DRM-protected content to be sued by copyright holders, even if the software is intended for non-copyrighted contents. The law, which is now stricter than the initial text, will be either promulgated and then published in the Official Journal after which it can enter into force or it can be resubmitted to the Parliament for further discussions. DADVSI : The Constitutional Council makes the law tougher ! (27.07.2006) http://www.ratiatum.com/news3414_DADVSI_Le_Conseil_Constitutionnel_aggrave_la_loi.html The DADVSI law validated and made stricter by the Constitutional Council (27.07.2006) http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/30385-La-loi-DADVSI-validee-en-partie-par-le-Conse.htm EDRI-gram : New French copyright law gives Apple satisfaction (5.06.2006) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.13/frenchcopyright Parts of French iPod law ruled unconstitutional (29.07.2006) http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060729-7380.html - End forwarded message - -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Robots.txt
Yes but the other side of it isn't implemented yet (__CHECKED_HTTP__ i.e. providing for links to the outside world as long as the user clicks a button for that specific URL to confirm that they really want to go there). On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:13:33PM +, NextGen$ wrote: * Stefan Grönberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-08-16 01:49:05]: you might wanna fix the URL on the webby like if someone posts an url make an page that first takes you to a page that tells the user that this and that link takes you away from freenet and you cant be responsible for what that url contains, or mark it really good as an external link. There is nothing to fix ... it's to be implemented. http://localhost:/[EMAIL PROTECTED],~Uxr-jFaQ6T26IWmyK~JpQx7TJWoVbQ6qNOR6KPK94M,AAEA--8?type=text/plain http://localhost:/[EMAIL PROTECTED],~Uxr-jFaQ6T26IWmyK~JpQx7TJWoVbQ6qNOR6KPK94M,AAEA--8?type=text/html The content filter is sanitizing the link : the default safe behaviour. NextGen$ Ian Clarke wrote: Oh, and email addresses (if we don't already). Ian. On 15 Aug 2006, at 12:43, Matthew Toseland wrote: On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 11:56:49AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: I don't see why not, its public. Okay cool lets do it. (My view is that as long as we expunge all IP addresses, and make it clear in the channel topic that it is logged, then we're fine). Ian. On 12 Aug 2006, at 16:12, Florent Daignière (NextGen$) wrote: Hi, Shall we let webcrawlers/searchengines index our irc logs ? NextGen$ -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org mailto:chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Ian Clarke*: Co-Founder Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. http://revver.com phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog http://locut.us/blog/ ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Robots.txt
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 11:56:49AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: I don't see why not, its public. Okay cool lets do it. (My view is that as long as we expunge all IP addresses, and make it clear in the channel topic that it is logged, then we're fine). Ian. On 12 Aug 2006, at 16:12, Florent Daignière (NextGen$) wrote: Hi, Shall we let webcrawlers/searchengines index our irc logs ? NextGen$ -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [Tech] Open-net
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 09:15:13AM -, anonymous freenet user wrote: On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Opennet is a high priority, but there are a few things we must do first (such as sort out our load balancing issues, and decide on exactly how opennet should be implemented). Ian. Ok, That's understandable. Is there any kind of roughly-hoped-for-date for deploying open-net? I realize you can't nail down a date and say on x/y/z open-net will activate. I'm looking for some idea of how long it's expected to take in real-time. We'll probably start seriously looking into it around the end of this year. We need to sort out a number of serious issues first. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Several items of news
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/07/27/1315203.shtml In no way does my posting this link mean that my employer endorses illegal sharing of music or other copyrighted materials. (Okay, I'm a little paranoid. Read below for why!) Oh and the DADVSI has passed its constitutional challenge, and is now even worse. But it's all in French so nobody has noticed! (In particular /. hasn't noticed). Accurate translations and analysis, in English, especially of the differences between the EUCD's strict requirements and the DADVSI's implementation, and of the precise wording/meaning of the Vivendi amendment, would be appreciated: http://maitre.eolas.free.fr/journal/index.php?2006/07/27/408-loi-dadvsi-le-conseil-constitutionnel-a-rendu-sa-decision http://linuxfr.org/journal/ The distribution of software obviously intended for the unauthorized provision to the public of protected works or content would be criminalized, according to the babelfished first page. This might include Freenet; see http://freenetproject.org/index.php?page=philosophy Nextgens is of the view that it would include all P2P software that doesn't enforce strong DRM. Finally, the FFII (the group which fought the software patents campaign in Europe, including many of the world's largest IT litigation companies, to a standstill last year) is up to its eyeballs right now. There is a big push for the EPLA, which would both legalize software patents and make it easier to enforce them, and might not require approval from the European Parliament. For the uninitiate, software patents are patents on often trivial techniques used in computer software; they are generally only of value to large corporations who can afford vast numbers of them and thus force cross-licensing, or to patent parasites who don't ship any code. In particular, they present a major threat to open source software, since we cannot pay royalties. Freenet is open source. Arguing we can hide behind IBM is dubious, as IBM has been pushing for software patents, and filing them, for a long time. Apart from that, the IPRED2 rolls on; the IPRED2 makes the intentional (this word may be meaningless) infringement of intellectual property on a commercial scale (this may not mean much either), or attempting, aiding, abetting, or inciting such infringement, a criminal offence punishable by a wide range of sanctions including prison time. This would very likely make it illegal to distribute Freenet in France, and it might have wider effects; the FFII argues that it is impossible to avoid infringing on software patents if you write software, and therefore that all software devs who don't work for megacorps would be criminalized. Open source would again probably be hardest hit. FIPR argues that it would probably result in ISPs blocking sites alleged to infringe intellectual property as well as child porn sites, and if it was interpreted this widely then IMHO it could very well lead to mandatory TCPA as well. http://www.ffii.org/ http://www.fipr.org/copyright/ipred2.html -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Skype cracked
Surely it is patented, and therefore cannot be used in western countries...? On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 12:14:43AM +0200, Magnus Eriksson wrote: I thought this might be interesting: Chinese Company: Skype Protocol Cracked http://www.cio.com/blog_view.html?CID=22974 The 10-person Chinese company, which has received venture capital funding, is planning to release in two weeks three software components based on the Skype protocol that would allow developers to create compatible applications ... By cracking the Skype protocol, the company claims it can also block Skype voice traffic ... Original source: Skype Protocol Has Been Cracked http://www.voipwiki.com/blog/?p=16 So.. Software components that would allow developers to create compatible applications Fantastic! So we have great stego for Freenet. And it might even be possible to bounce traffic off Skype nodes (or, Freenet nodes using that component). But... the company claims it can also block Skype voice traffic We're screwed. :-) But I suppose it might be useful. Another option, if nothing else. And maybe I even can have a client that doesn't automatically report my whole social network to an easily subpoenaed server. MAgnus ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Skype cracked
Is there any evidence of reasonable crypto in skype? I have heard that it is encrypted, but no other VOIP is...? On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 12:14:43AM +0200, Magnus Eriksson wrote: I thought this might be interesting: Chinese Company: Skype Protocol Cracked http://www.cio.com/blog_view.html?CID=22974 The 10-person Chinese company, which has received venture capital funding, is planning to release in two weeks three software components based on the Skype protocol that would allow developers to create compatible applications ... By cracking the Skype protocol, the company claims it can also block Skype voice traffic ... Original source: Skype Protocol Has Been Cracked http://www.voipwiki.com/blog/?p=16 So.. Software components that would allow developers to create compatible applications Fantastic! So we have great stego for Freenet. And it might even be possible to bounce traffic off Skype nodes (or, Freenet nodes using that component). But... the company claims it can also block Skype voice traffic We're screwed. :-) But I suppose it might be useful. Another option, if nothing else. And maybe I even can have a client that doesn't automatically report my whole social network to an easily subpoenaed server. MAgnus ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Skype cracked
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 07:27:25PM -0300, Caco Patane wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 7/14/06, Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any evidence of reasonable crypto in skype? I have heard that it is encrypted, but no other VOIP is...? I mean no other widely deployed or standards compliant VOIP. :) SIP isn't. http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/zfone/zfone.html Saludos, Caco_Patane ! -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Interesting news from Iran
Apparently Iran blocks all HTTP proxies... China doesn't do this yet. abcdef all tor routers are blocked in iran abcdef is there any web-censorship-circumvention net which operates like freenet? abcdef I got a technical question abcdef u c when u try to connect to a proxy in Iran, no matter what port you're using abcdef when you try to load a webpage, it time-outs FuriousRage use an anonymous proxy then it should work abcdef I told my brother who lives in the uk to set up a proxy on his machine abcdef I can access his webpages (apache) abcdef but nomatter what port he sets, it doesnt work abcdef what could the ISP have done? abcdef and that's the reason why tor does not work in Iran abcdef the whole idea behind tor was so stupid it's unbelievable abcdef by unbelievable i mean UNNNbelievable Bludapoto In what way abcdef? Bludapoto I mean, it's just an automatic proxy chain for socks traffic abcdef it uses proxy to connect, uses certain routers which are blocked by all filtering products FuriousRage abcdef: i belive you can use *any* port for tor abcdef it could have been a distributed net like freenet FuriousRage try use port 80 and see if it works abcdef already tried that FuriousRage abcdef: ask in #tor they should have more indept knowledge abcdef for tor and other proxies abcdef on my bro's machine in the uk Bludapoto abcdef, TOR is distributed. You can run your node as an accessor, or as a router abcdef hmmm abcdef thanks for info Bludapoto Bludapoto welcome - but definitely check in #tor Bludapoto They've also got a TON of docs online, very helpful overall. Tor's kind of .. small, anyway. abcdef I'm jest a little frustrated by this fuckin' taliban censorship FuriousRage abcdef: cant you just use an anonymous http proxy? Bludapoto By which I mean the Tor community/userbase. Hidden Services are usually slower than freenet, and it's pretty much just a bunch of people celebrating the fact that they're circumventing. It got kind of boring after a few days. Caco_Patane put you eforts on freenet in order to transform that frustration into happiness, proud and joy =D abcdef like cgi-proxy? abcdef I cannot use any proxy set on the user agent abcdef no matter socks,SSL, regular anything FuriousRage you should be able to set an http proxy in your browser abcdef I know they used to work up until 2004 FuriousRage Bludapoto: i got fed up with tor over irc, keep d/c me, now i got hold of an oper here to set me an cloak Caco_Patane what about a SSH tunnel, do you have any server outside? abcdef but the ministry of IT which is the exclusive ICP, found a way to prevent browsers from using proxies Bludapoto Furious: nice FuriousRage abcdef: they can tprevent your browser to use proxy on your computer unless you install some software they provide to fuck you your box abcdef nah, they have blocked proxy access on their fuckin' servers FuriousRage abcdef: althought, if you got a friend outside iran, and he got an 24/7 computer using linux(most likly) you could ask him to give you an anonymous proxy acces of somesort, like http tunneling, or over vpn or something abcdef my bro's IP was not blocked, I could view his webpages (he uses apache) , but couldn't abcdef use his proxy abcdef VPN works FuriousRage abcdef: there's many ways to tunnel http traffic afaik, just cant get many to mind atm ; sich then you need to connect with vpn outside iran, and then use some proxy inside the vpn Bludapoto Furious: Thanks for the help. sich but you need to find someone who give you access on is proxy FuriousRage np FuriousRage sich: there is tons of free working 100%(?) anonymous proxies, i have used many sometimes ; abcdef well, I want all those stupid fuckin' muslims be able to abcdef bypass censorship abcdef not everybody has a friend/family overseas sich FuriousRage: yes, but apparently he can't connect to any proxy abcdef and proxy and tor work neither abcdef that's why I say the idea behind tor was stupid FuriousRage sich: not directly, but thru someones other box he should be since vpn works.. abcdef coz it's based on socks sich yes, exact, but the problem is not to be anonymous, but to bypass control sich then there is no need to use anonymous proxy abcdef the anonimity is not an issue here abcdef (Iran) FuriousRage could tunnel the http traffic over ssh afaik too abcdef the only accessible websites are piles upon piles of islamic shit abcdef all free hosts are blocked abcdef most blogspot blogs are blocked abcdef geocities got blocked in 2004 sich they block http traffic but not irc ? abcdef not yet abcdef the other side of the problem is that there are thousands of free american hosts out there FuriousRage tunnel http traffic over ssh on port 80 or 8080, should work perhaps sich on my opinion the only real way to bypass all this problems, is to find some friends sich and use vpn + proxy abcdef but one can't register and upload phProxy coz they block IPs from Iran and North Korea due to stupid US sanctions sich hum, yes
[freenet-chat] DADVSI passes
http://www.eucd.info/index.php?2006/06/30/333-french-parliament-approves-the-worst-copyright-law-in-europe There might be one last chance in the Constitutional Court. But it looks like we won't be taking any French SoC students next summer! (The DADVSI as passed includes the Vivendi amendments which make authors of filesharing tools criminals punishable by jail and large fines). -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] IWF Cleanfeed ISP-level censoring legitimate sites from UK users
At the time at which I visited the site it appeared at first glance to be as I described. On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 01:35:35AM +0100, Bob wrote: --- Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm, I would dispute your assessment actually, having visited the site. It's all porn, and a lot of it is hentai - drawn pictures of nude girls. all porn? It is rare for /b/ to have more than a couple of porn threads. 4chan does have dedicated porn and hentai boards, /s/ /d/ and /h/, but these have not been blocked. Also 4chan hosts numerous forums definetely non-porn in nature like /g/, /co/, /k/, /po/, /v/, all the world4ch text boards etc. Many of these are quite heavilly moderated and 'safe for work' even. /b/ is frequently compared to the somethingawful.com FYAD forum (http://forums.somethingawful.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=115), it's more anarchic due to the lack of accounts but otherwise fairly similar, i.e. stupid discussions / invasions / trolling and meme floods. Not exactly the cream of internet discourse, but often amusing just the same. /b/ is easily 4chan's most popular board, and 4chan itself is *very* popular - the 2,320th most visited site on the internet no less. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan . It's not exactly a shadowy underground legally dubious site. While it is not entirely clear what their age is, *simulated* child porn is illegal in most countries. Including the US where 4chan has been hosted for years, and accordingly anything meeting such criteria is deleted/permabanned. If the ban were so broad as to ban all hentai just in case then logically /h/ and /d/ would be blocked, amongst many many other sites, but they aren't. I would *speculate* therefore that this block *may* be the result of a malicious report timed to coincide with a deliberate scripted flood of actual cp. No-account imageboards like 4chan are particularly vulnerable to such an attack, and it is not especially difficult to gather enough anonymous proxies and/or compromised PCs to conduct one with little risk. If this is the case any forum which allows image posting (most of them) is theoretically now at risk from being secretly censored from (at least) UK citizens, with questionable comeback at best, by similar snap judgements of people not familiar with the site or how it works. I maintain that this is a serious problem. Just for the record, I don't like hentai of any description or even care about anime in general. 4chan /b/ is just somewhere I like(d?) to waste time participating in idiocy. Too much time actually, so it being censored does have an upside, but that's not the point. On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:19:13AM +0100, Bob wrote: However, it appears they have now blocked 4chan.org's /b/ - Random imageboard : http://img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html -- snip -- Bob ___ Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. The New Version is radically easier to use ? The Wall Street Journal http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] End of days was [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [ffii] EU Commission proposes to criminalise European software industry]
Anyone in Europe, please write to your MEPs, or I'll have to move to the USA when this gets implemented! Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, are treated as criminal offences. It then goes on to outline a range of penalties from imprisonment to winding up of businesses, bans on commercial activity, denial of future state aid etc. Given that commercial scale is not defined, it can be assumed to mean depriving someone of potential income. And intentional does not necessarily mean that the person is aware of the software patents he is infringing (for example); it could be interpreted to mean that they are simply writing software intentionally. It goes on to require that rightsholders can be involved in criminal investigations, and that the police are required to investigate even if they don't receive a complaint from the rightsholder. This would criminalize filesharing by the back door. It would also criminalize software development in general by forcing every software developer (apart from the really large companies who have patent thickets) to on demand fight all the trivial software patents their software infringes on. The effect of this would be the 'judicial winding up' of the European software industry. Worse even than that, the task of eliminating all software SMEs would be given to the police, who generally speaking don't care about such matters. They would have to set up dedicated agencies for this, whose task is largely to eliminate honest businessmen trying to make an honest living, drive down employment, and generally undermine a large part of the economy. This would discredit criminal law and the police, and make major IP owners effectively a part of the criminal process. The Commission's justifications for the legislation have very little to do with its actual effect: copyright infringement (piracy) and trademark infringement (counterfeiting) are already criminal matters. Selling unlicensed drugs/toys/tools are also criminal matters. The 'health and safety' angle is simply a smokescreen. Finally, yes it would criminalize my work on Freenet. Freenet is an anonymous filesharing system designed to resist censorship. It is intended to provide freedom of speech in despotic regimes where the internet is filtered and monitored. It is however developed in the West for obvious reasons. Since it is designed to resist censorship, it will inevitably be used for violating intellectual property rights. This is aiding and abetting, and possibly inciting, certainly on a commercial scale, and probably 'intentional' by the reasoning above. Given this nonsense, and given the recent moves towards internet censorship at a national level [1], it seems that Freenet will be needed, and will be illegal, in the west in the next few years! I am happy to pass on the torch when this occurs, to those who will have to develop and use it without the benefit of operating in the light - being able to employ developers, have public beta tests etc. And I will have to go find a new career. Because I'm not going to work for the parasites who were behind the whole software patents mess, who will be the only IT players to survive the latest round! [1] Italy requires ISPs to block access to a proscribed list of gambling websites. The situation in the UK is more subversive: The government has a target that all UK ISPs will block Cleanfeed's list of child porn sites by the end of 2007. This means they are no longer common carriers, since this is not a legally binding obligation and since the IWF is a private company. This further means that ISPs will be liable to block any and all illegal websites - including those which are illegal because of libel, copyright infringement, and so on. Sites such as xenu.org, which while they are in the clear public interest are visited by few of the ISP's customers and therefore will not be defended in an expensive legal battle by the ISP - and which have been the subject of threatening letters and sometimes litigation on many occasions in the past. I have written to my MP about this and expect a reply from the junior minister at some point. - Forwarded message from Jonas Maebe [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Jonas Maebe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ffii] EU Commission proposes to criminalise European software industry PRESS RELEASE -- [ Europe / Economy / ICT ] = EU Commission proposes to criminalise European software industry = Brussels, 12 May 2005. The Commission's recently relaunched Enforcement Directive (IPRED2, 2005/0127 (COD)) proposal aims to criminalise all intentional and commercial IP infringements in order to combat organised crime and to protect national
[freenet-chat] Betting websites blocked in Italy
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.12/italybetting Italian ISPs are now required to block access to a number of betting websites (the measures used are very primitive at present). One interesting thing about this is that the list of blocked sites is public. I told you so, etc etc. It seems increasingly likely that all illegal websites will be blocked by ISPs in many countries in the near future. Of course they won't be able to get all illegal websites, but if the process is mediated by such unaccountable but state backed private companies as the Internet Watch Foundation, then it won't even take a court order - it will probably only take a threatening letter once we have a judgement to the effect that the IWF is liable for not blocking copyrighted material on demand. Material copyrighted by such as the Church of Scientology. Or the state. Or for which there is any other obvious public interest. Or which is libellous. Or which violates IPRED2 (aids, abets, incites infringement of copyrights/patents/trademarks on a commercial scale; anonymous censorship resistant filesharing may fall into this broad bucket)! The best that can be hoped for is that legal or political supervision is required for a block to be put in place... -- Following a fierce battle between an authority of the Italian State and private european online betting companies over their activity in Italy, a big number of betting websites are officialy blocked for Italian Internet users. Everything began with the 2006 financial law (Law 266/2005) voted by the Parliament under the outgoing Berlusconi government. The law included four provisions - namely paragraph 535-58 of art.1 - which gave the Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS or Autonomous Administration of State Monopolies, a part of the Ministry of Economy and Finances) the power to bring to the attention of: (a) providers of Internet services, or (b) providers of other data or telecommunication networks, or (c) entities that offer networks or telecommunication services in relationship to (a) or (b), all those instances in which someone offers games or bets where money can be lost or won without having the proper authorization that is usually granted by AAMS itself. Upon receiving such communication from the AAMS, the subjects from (a) to (c) have the legal obligation to inhibit usage of the networks that they manage or for which they provide betting and gaming services by adopting appropriate technical measures to this end. The AAMS proceeded on 13 February 2006 to compile and publish a first list of websites that should not be accessed from Italian networks. Compliant ISPs generally implemented the restriction by hijacking DNS communication and redirecting it to the DNS server of the AAMS. The end result is that users trying to access such websites are instead getting a notice saying that pursuant to the decree of the AAMS of 7 February 2006 the requested website is not accessible because it does not have the necessary authorizations for collecting bets in Italy. Of course, reactions flocked in by all sides. Several betting companies, including UK-based William Hill (which is included on the list of blocked websites) announced they would recur to the European Court of Justice for what they claim is blatant violation of the basic principles of the European internal market. The Remote Gambling Association immediately started to negotiate a compromise with the Italian government, but until now no agreement seems to have been reached. Moreover, several Italian commentators noticed how poor the employed system is from a technical point of view. It is in fact sufficient in most cases to remove the leading www prefix to access the blocked websites. Other strategies, including the usage of web proxies, are also possible. The Italian chapter of ISOC (Internet Society) took a firm technical position, considering that the proposed measures were ineffective and in any case were far away from the best practices in the sector - while at the same time noticing that the outcries of censorship seemed misplaced because of the subject matter under discussion. While ISOC explicitly chose to avoid the censorship argument, other commentators argued that by blocking entire websites the proposed solution ment in fact severely limiting the right of all Italian citizens to access information, as granted by the Italian Constitution and several international instruments. If the goal was to impede the act of gambling then any measure should have been proportionate to this specific goal. Impeding Italian citizens to access a website and the information contained therein arguably is not. One company, Malta-based Astrabet Bookmaker Ltd., went further and requested the Second Section of the Civil Tribunal of Rome to declare the measure illegitimate, insofar as it cut off Astrabet's website from the Italian network. On
Re: [freenet-chat] IWF Cleanfeed ISP-level censoring legitimate sites from UK users
Hmmm, I would dispute your assessment actually, having visited the site. It's all porn, and a lot of it is hentai - drawn pictures of nude girls. While it is not entirely clear what their age is, *simulated* child porn is illegal in most countries. On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:19:13AM +0100, Bob wrote: However, it appears they have now blocked 4chan.org's /b/ - Random imageboard : http://img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html It must be admitted that /b/ is psuedononymous, anarchic and populated mostly by stupid memes, trolling and deliberately tasteless / offensive content. In many ways /b/ is a giant deliberately stupid in-joke not meant to be taken seriously, aside from an occassional thread where people use /b/'s anonymity to ask questions about private matters they feel they cannot discuss elsewhere. In any case, /b/ is most definetely a legitimate and legal forum which has been running for years, is moderated, and is in full compliance with United States law since that's where it's hosted. (4chan itself is essentially a western clone of the Japanese 2ch.net / 2chan.net, amongst the most popular sites in Japan. 4chan is therefore very well known by anime fans etc.) It seems that the IWF have blocked /b/ on the basis that it is a child porn site. This is clearly not the case. Yes, *very occasionally* some moron posts CP on /b/ ... which typically lasts about 30 seconds before it's deleted and they're permabanned. 4chan is no different from any other public forum which allows image posting in this regard, it does not condone such activity and obviously if there was any evidence that it did the US authorities would shut it down instantly. At present the blocking, which is being done by URL, is not very well implemented and there are ways around it. Furthermore not all UK ISPs use Cleanfeed ... yet. However, I hope you will agree that it is very worrying that legitimate internet forums appear to be being censored in the UK secretly and pretty much unaccountably *right now*. I have to wonder how long it will be before our authoritarian government decides we should standardise on this industry best-practice for its own ends. Further references : http://dis.4chan.org/read.php/newpol/1150560346/1-40 http://dis.4chan.org/read.php/img/1149953763/1-40 http://www.4chan.org/banned.php -- some BT users redirected here I suppose all this at least serves as inspiration to continue work on freenet :( Bob ___ Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. The New Version is radically easier to use ? The Wall Street Journal http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] freenode compromized
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/25/1440236from=rss The world's largest FOSS IRC network, FreeNode, was hijacked (for lack of a better term) by someone who somehow got a hold of the privileges of Robert Levin, AKA lilo, the head honcho of FreeNode and its parent organization, PDPC. To make matters worse, the passwords of many users may have been compromised by someone posing as NickServ, the service that most clients are configured to send a password to upon connecting, while they reconnected to the servers that hadn't been killed. Of course, if someone was able to nab lilo's password, every user password may have been ripe for the taking. The details are still unknown, but these events raise scary questions about the actual security of FreeNode and other organizations like it. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] How to circumvent China's firewall
Very cool. So they don't actually run enormous transparent proxies? If so, how come mention of the blacklisted word 'freenet' on IRC is permitted? Obviously the firewall will be improved in the future, and the TTL fix will not permanently fix the problem, as the TTL can be stolen from the packet containing the forbidden term. (It would help with more general DoSs of course). On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 09:51:57PM +0200, David 'Bombe' Roden wrote: Bruce Schneier recently posted this: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/06/ignoring_the_gr.html Richard Clayton is presenting a paper (blog post here) that discusses how to defeat China's national firewall: ...the keyword detection is not actually being done in large routers on the borders of the Chinese networks, but in nearby subsidiary machines. When these machines detect the keyword, they do not actually prevent the packet containing the keyword from passing through the main router (this would be horribly complicated to achieve and still allow the router to run at the necessary speed). Instead, these subsiduary machines generate a series of TCP reset packets, which are sent to each end of the connection. When the resets arrive, the end-points assume they are genuine requests from the other end to close the connection -- and obey. Hence the censorship occurs. However, because the original packets are passed through the firewall unscathed, if both of the endpoints were to completely ignore the firewall's reset packets, then the connection will proceed unhindered! We've done some real experiments on this -- and it works just fine!! Think of it as the Harry Potter approach to the Great Firewall -- just shut your eyes and walk onto Platform 9??. Ignoring resets is trivial to achieve by applying simple firewall rules??? and has no significant effect on ordinary working. If you want to be a little more clever you can examine the hop count (TTL) in the reset packets and determine whether the values are consistent with them arriving from the far end, or if the value indicates they have come from the intervening censorship device. We would argue that there is much to commend examining TTL values when considering defences against denial-of-service attacks using reset packets. Having operating system vendors provide this new functionality as standard would also be of practical use because Chinese citizens would not need to run special firewall-busting code (which the authorities might attempt to outlaw) but just off-the-shelf software (which they would necessarily tolerate). --- Interesting. David ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Arguments against the Darknet
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 10:22:31AM -0400, Colin Davis wrote: I'd like to use this opportunity to disagree with the current .7 strategy of the darknet- I've done it before, but this is the Chat list, so It's not Off-topic to have a discussion about it. I'd like to start of by admitting that I probably know the least about the subject, compared with anyone else in the room. This isn't a pissing match, I just want freenet to be the best it can be. We all do. That's why we're here. The darknet model should be supplemented with an opennet SOON- I personally know 4 friends of mine who I have spoken with in person, who have not wanted to use freenet in it's current state. I'll attempt to discuss some concerns below. in its current state We've been getting these stories ever since freenet began. There isn't enough warez, there isn't enough straight/gay/whatever porn, there just isn't any original content, there's too much child porn, it's too slow... What exactly were his reasons? I've tried to intend my thoughts below, for ease of reading. The first is the idea of trust in Freenet .7 is complete- You argue that you should only join with your real life friends, That your peers are people that you trust, but this breaks down for a few reasons. 1) The first is that it doesn't fit the Social networking model that we're looking to model after. In Milgrim's experiments (which, btw, were seldom as successful as his first attempt), he found that the best results came from the occasional long distance link. Best results come from many short links and the **occasional** long link. If it was all long links then it wouldn't work. We know this because it has been simulated, and mathematically modelled. a) In real life we often have these- For example, I am 4 steps from Bill Gates- My Pastor knows a friend of a friend, etc. Right. I have a shortish path to the president of any country in the world. :) But this is not necessarily a high capacity path! So yes, some traffic might be routed through your pastor - but most of it would be routed around him rather than through him. Freenet does NOT rely on hubs. Watch oskar and ian's presentation again. If you cut the hubs out of the orkut data, the network is still navigable - in fact the probability of success increases, although the path length increases slightly too. Freenet can use hubs - but because of load issues, we may have to ensure that it doesn't in general use hubs more than absolutely necessary. The problem is, these long distance links, such as My Pastor, aren't necessarily people I trust on a deep level. Well, I do trust my pastor, though I disagree with him on many things. If I go through some of my other church friends to him then there is a high trust path. b) These weak links are often Largely grouped- Again, My Pastor- There are several hundred people in his congregation. If each of these people linked to him, we'd get ubernodes, which you disagree with (See my other e-mail). Well, he probably doesn't have the sort of internet connection he'd need to sustain that sort of ubernode, and he'd become a Big Fat Target by attempting to do so. This is the problem with scale free networks - networks which are navigable precisely because they have a power law distribution of node degrees - they are extremely vulnerable. Whereas small world networks (with triangle property/kleinberg clustering) are very resilient. 2) Trust isn't universal a) The freenet .7 model gives them complete trust- I At present. We will improve on the current rather low level of security against treachery, but you will always be far more vulnerable to your direct peers than to somebody you're not connected to. trust my flatmate not to download CP, but I don't trust him not to download an illegial MP3 file. Do I link with him? Do I need to find people with whom I agree about everything? Not necessarily; you have to make your own judgement, just as you would if you were offering to share your internet connection with him over wifi. b) People are desperate- Think about our chinese dissident- He wants to learn more about the Western world, and to write and publish about democracy. So he links with other people who are writing about democracy.. He wants the information. But he knows that a number of them are otherwise untrustworthy people. Even though they all share a love of democracy,
Re: [freenet-chat] Arguments against the Darknet
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 05:50:34PM +0100, Roger Hayter wrote: FWIW, I agree with all your points. And I would add that no-one is more than 2 steps away from a police spy - I find random connection *adds* plausible deniability: although not (and this is a valid point that has been made by the developers) if running Freenet is itself a crime. But if every friend has at least one friend who is a police spy, they are going to know you are running Freenet anyway. The only defence is to have so many people running Freenet that they don't bother to prosecute unless they already suspect you of something, in which case they will always find something to prosecute you for if they want to anyway. Having a network of informers is several orders of magnitude more expensive than harvesting, or than compromizing the network with cancer nodes, which would pretend to be thousands of nodes, and get connected to everyone without having to lay out for a network of informants. This is how security works: you make it expensive, not impossible, to get in. The more expensive it is the less likely it is that they will try or succeed. But is not the routing model for Freenet 0.7 dependent on some sort of affinity network rather than the old open/random connection model? No, opennet is technically feasible, but it is technically difficult. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Arguments against the Darknet
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 06:15:04PM -0400, Colin Davis wrote: If/when we do opennet people will use that instead till it gets blocked(it will happen eventually), then we're back to trying to get the darknet working for everyone again. If most people will use the opennet till it's impossible to do anymore there will be very few and probably small seperate darknets, a lot of data will be lost and time will need to be spent building up the net again as a darknet. I disagree- For one, Freenet .5 isn't blocked- Freenet 0.5 *is* blocked _today_ in China. It has been since August last year. The firewalls being erected by people such as BT and initiatives such as Cleanfeed will make enforcement easy, and legislation such as the DADVSI and quite possibly IPRED2 will make it illegal to build or distribute filesharing tools which don't provide a central blacklist. For another, If they're blocking freenet, they can block a darknet almost as easily. Absolutely not true. Freenet 0.5 was blocked in China because it has predictable connection setup bytes. Freenet 0.7 doesn't, and darknet makes steganographic transports much easier and more useful. Opennet can be blocked regardless of steganography by simple harvesting and then blocking on the firewall. Keep in mind, you do NOT need to expose network topography for a darknet. -Colin -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Arguments against not utilizing Ubernodes
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 10:34:41AM -0400, Colin Davis wrote: 1) Users tend to prefer Speed to Anonymity- Then they can use bittorrent. For the most popular files, bittorrent will always be faster than Freenet. For medium popularit files it is possible that they will be findable, and downloadable, considerably faster than on bittorrent, because of its being a distributed datastore. a) Look at the Success of networks like Bittorrent- All the peers downloading a file are completely exposed, but people enjoy using it because they can get a file quickly. Until the RIAA busts the tracker. b) While the focus of Freenet is different, we can still let USERS make that tradeoff. We do ! We can't stop people from connecting to ubernodes. And whatever measures we impose for the user's and the network's protection can be overridden by the user, as he has the source code. However, it is entirely legitimate for us to advise against users using ubernodes, and even to design the load balancing system in such a way as to not accept more requests than we can actually *route*, as opposed to dumbly forward to our one and only ubernode. I) There are a lot of tweaks that could be made, to make things faster. * Increasing the check for new editions exponentially, for instance * Or fully utilizing ubernodes II) As it is, there are people, such as SinnerG, Apophis, and myself, who are BEGGING to make freenet faster! 2) Freenet is about giving the users control. a) The project should give users control whenever possible, assuming it doesn't remove significant security from others I) If a user wants to route their data through a fast server, shouldn't we give them that option? We do. There is nothing stopping you from connecting to an ubernode as of now. b) Trust levels, as mentioned by Toad on the Devl mailing list are a good start, but there are more trusts that can be done. I) Lets say I trust my friend quite a bit, and set him to a high trust level.. Why not fully utilize his connection to me, if it's otherwise empty? What do you mean by fully utilize ? The amount of traffic going through the link is limited by several factors: - The capacity of the link (when you factor in all the other users of that path). - The capacity of downstream nodes. - The number of requests which are answered locally by the node. - The current routing situation. II) If I've set him to a high trust level, I'm presumably OK routing more requests through his node. * As it is, requests are more or less random among non-backed off peers. This is absolutely not true. Requests are forwarded to the node closest to the target (which isn't backed off), period. We have seen what happens when performance is the primary criterion for routing in 0.5. It sucks. It is vital that the network has real routing. That is the only way it can scale beyond the capacity of a single ubernode (a few terabytes at most, and on a big network it won't have enough bandwidth either), and into more interesting realms. * If I trust my friend, I'd be OK preferring to send through him Routing your requests to him, even though they are supposed to go somewhere else, would be misrouting. This would cause the request to either not find the data it was looking for (or on inserts to send it completely the wrong place so it isn't findable later), or at the very least to travel more hops than it has to. The result is that the whole network has to handle more load. The result of that is that the whole network becomes overloaded. c) Implementing a NG-style, stochastic modeling system ensures that users are properly utilizing resources. See above. Performance isn't everything. You also have to distribute load, and especially storage, and the way to do that is through routing. 3) The current strategy is fighting a symptom, not the problem. a) We can already achieve Ubernode-like results using bands of smaller nodes. I) If I set up 10 mini-nodes, all inner linked, and each connected to 10-15 peers, I could harvest just as much data on net network II) The network would see these as different nodes, and fully utilize them. III ) Multiple IP addresses to run on are cheap ;) Sure, you can exploit #freenet-refs just as you can exploit any other harvestable channel. So what? b) The problems with Ubernodes are mitigated if the data is stored other places as well. I) If freenet used proper NG-style modeling, it would always draw from the fastest source,
Re: [freenet-chat] Arguments against the Darknet
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 04:06:50PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in its current state Sure- I can only look at the present. I'm usre that hte project has plans for fixing things, but I'm just trying to express the way I see it. What exactly were his reasons? I talked to two physical friends of mine- I tried to outline their answers below- One said that he didn't want to make manual connections, because he didn't like the inconvienience, and the potential security risk of linking with someone bad. The other said that he didn't want to use it because even thought it was anonymous, he'd rather stick to faster connections. In the latter case, those people won't join until we either have really compelling content, all the alternatives are shut down, or freenet is really really fast. This is a problem even with opennet, although opennet may be a bit faster in terms of large file transfer rates due to more connections (or it may not). Best results come from many short links and the **occasional** long link. If it was all long links then it wouldn't work. We know this because it has been simulated, and mathematically modelled. Sure- I'm not advocating all long links! I think that's the difference in the way we're looking at this. I think it's possible to create an opennet ON TOP of the darknet infrastructure. Essentially, have nodes connect to one another in small groups, with the Occasional long link, rather than a .5 style free for all. How would that work? As far as I know the only proposals for opennet are to build one into the node based on LRU and destination sampling, or to hack something up based on rendezvous sites (and IRC channels!). Not necessarily; you have to make your own judgement, just as you would if you were offering to share your internet connection with him over wifi. The problem is, There's a lot fewer people I'm willing to share my internet connection with, than I'm willing to peer with. If everyone was held to the share-the-internet connection standard, there would be very few links. Legally you are not held responsible for content downloaded over your internet link if you can show that somebody else downloaded it without your knowledge or encouragement. You can be asked to do a wiretap of course. In practice this may not always be the case on the ground, but that's more a matter of the court of public opinion than the law. And here we are talking about encrypted connections, with much less possibility of finding out what your neighbours are looking at, and therefore much less liability for it - and also fewer opportunities for monitoring by outsiders such as the police. Well, what's the alternative? There isn't one in a hostile regime. Either you connect to people you trust, or you don't connect to anyone. Because an opennet is harvestable, and with a national firewall (coming soon to a seemingly democratic country near you), it is very easy to take sanctions against known opennet nodes - blocking foreign ones completely, and suspending the internet access of domestic ones (or worse). I think a split model is the right way to go- We keep the existing darknet, and we still use it as the basis for routing, but we set up ways to create clustered groups without user interaction. So a darknet group would still be able to talk to an opennet group- They're still part of the same network, it's just a matter of establishing relationships individually or automatically. Ummm, I don't see what you are proposing here. Either there is free exchange of references or there isn't... are you talking about connecting to nodes a few darknet hops away? That might be a possibility, without opening up the network to global harvesting; it's been discussed before... Anyway you'd need some darknet refs first... The beniefit of doing it this way, is that it adds some level of plausible deniablity WRT establishing connections- If connections in the darknet can be established automatically, then you can say No, Mr. Evil bad guy, I didn't connect to him intentionally, I turned Opennet=on, and so did he, and we connected to eachother automatically. Alternatively, Mallory can just pretend to be 10,000 nodes (with 10,000 cheap IP addresses), and not only harvest but actually connect to every node. Then he can do all sorts of fun things. No Mr Evil Bad Guy, I only knew him through the local church / golf club. I had no idea he was a chicken lover / dissident / whatever. If they want to villify you they'll find some way to do it. Read Kevin Mitnick's story sometime. There are very good reasons to expect freenet to be banned and/or blocked in more countries in future, and there are not unreasonable grounds to expect some first world countries to be amongst the list. In truth, you could have both connected manually, or connected manually WHILE Opennet=on. Darknet peers are added manually and will not be removed by opennet. Also
Re: [freenet-chat] Scientology strikes again
It used to be a takedown notice. Somebody probably has a copy of before (from google) and after saved somewhere. On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 10:29:28AM -0700, Josh Steiner wrote: what was this? it just redirects to http://www.scientology.org/ Matthew Toseland wrote: http://codebot.org/notice.html Thanks to ian for finding this. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Scientology strikes again
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 11:34:55AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: On 24 Jun 2006, at 10:29, Josh Steiner wrote: what was this? it just redirects to http://www.scientology.org/ Taking a website critical of you, and redirecting it to your own website these guys have no sense of shame at their blatant censorship effort, but I guess believing in intergalactic aliens does weird things to your sense of right and wrong. I don't think their beliefs have that much to do with it actually. :| I wonder if advocating mirroring xenu.org, or the fishman papers, to freenet is a violation of IPRED2... :) Ian. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] IWF Cleanfeed ISP-level censoring legitimate sites from UK users
Ugh. I'm going to have to write to my MP about that... On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 04:05:31PM +0100, Bob wrote: --- Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wait till they start getting court orders from the Church of Scientology! You can block this illegal content; you block this other illegal content, therefore you must block all illegal content and in particular you must block copyright infringing, libellous, state secret (look at the d-notices site that had to move outside the UK), and so on sites. Slippery slope: the road to hell is paved with good (and uninformed) intentions. Indeed, they don't seem too concerned about retaining their 'common carrier' status for some reason do they? Although the IWF is nominally an industry group, its existence and policy appear to be very much driven by the Home Office - i.e. filter yourselves or we'll legislate it. Consider the implications of this Commons answer from last Monday (19th June 2006) : http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060619/debtext/60619-0540.htm#column_1052 I have recently set the UK internet industry a target to ensure that by the end of 2007, all internet service providers offering broadband internet connectivity to the UK public prevent their customers from accessing those websites (...) We expect 90 per cent. of internet service providers to have blocked access to sites abroad by the end of 2006. The target is that by the end of 2007 that will be 100 per cent. We believe that working with the industry offers us the best way forward, but we will keep that under review if it looks likely that the targets will not be met. In other words, it would appear that secret, known-to-be-fallible and largely unaccountable internet censorship is going to become *compulsory* for all UK 'broadband' access, either psudeo-voluntarily or via legislation as formal state internet censorship. In either case the end result is much the same of course, and the potential for slippery-slope extension very real, particularly given this government's poor track record on civil liberties. On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:19:13AM +0100, Bob wrote: You may have heard of the UK's Internet Watch Foundation, a jolly UK ISP industry group that operates Cleanfeed. This is a UK internet censorship system that blocks arbitrary sites at ISP level by returning fake errors (404 etc), much like China's great firewall. Their blocking database is secret; it's unobtainable unless you're an ISP and pay to subscribe to them, which requires signing a legally binding NDA. Major UK ISPs such as BT and NTL use Cleanfeed. As a private industry group they are essentially unaccountable. They claim that their database is for blocking child abuse websites only : http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.archive-2004.39.htm However, it appears they have now blocked 4chan.org's /b/ - Random imageboard : http://img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html It must be admitted that /b/ is psuedononymous, anarchic and populated mostly by stupid memes, trolling and deliberately tasteless / offensive content. In many ways /b/ is a giant deliberately stupid in-joke not meant to be taken seriously, aside from an occassional thread where people use /b/'s anonymity to ask questions about private matters they feel they cannot discuss elsewhere. In any case, /b/ is most definetely a legitimate and legal forum which has been running for years, is moderated, and is in full compliance with United States law since that's where it's hosted. (4chan itself is essentially a western clone of the Japanese 2ch.net / 2chan.net, amongst the most popular sites in Japan. 4chan is therefore very well known by anime fans etc.) It seems that the IWF have blocked /b/ on the basis that it is a child porn site. This is clearly not the case. Yes, *very occasionally* some moron posts CP on /b/ ... which typically lasts about 30 seconds before it's deleted and they're permabanned. 4chan is no different from any other public forum which allows image posting in this regard, it does not condone such activity and obviously if there was any evidence that it did the US authorities would shut it down instantly. At present the blocking, which is being done by URL, is not very well implemented and there are ways around it. Furthermore not all UK ISPs use Cleanfeed ... yet. However, I hope you will agree that it is very worrying that legitimate internet forums appear to be being censored in the UK secretly and pretty much unaccountably *right now*. I have to wonder how long it will be before our authoritarian government decides we should standardise on this industry best-practice for its own ends. Further references : http://dis.4chan.org/read.php/newpol/1150560346/1-40 http://dis
[freenet-chat] New mailing list: darknet-tools
We have created a new mailing list, the darknet-tools list. This is for discussion of tools for reference exchange. Primarily by this I mean: - Plugins for IRC clients, IM clients, etc to make it easy to exchange node references - generally with people you already know. - Functionality needed by the node to support such plugins. - Standards for such plugins (e.g. there may be 10 different IRC plugins). - Anything else related to expanding the darknet. I have two volunteers to write IRC plugins. What would be really nice would be some plugins for instant messaging systems, as these are a close match to what we are trying to do; AIM, GAIM, etc, have plugin APIs, we just need people to write them. Anyone interested in getting involved - you don't have to know java! - subscribe to the list and explain your interest. People who have prior experience of writing plugins for these things are especially welcome, but if you are interested in the topic then please subscribe to darknet-tools. http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darknet-tools/ -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Scientology strikes again
http://codebot.org/notice.html Thanks to ian for finding this. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Scientology strikes again
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 11:36:29AM +1200, David McNab wrote: Matthew Toseland wrote: http://codebot.org/notice.html Thanks to ian for finding this. Time for an updated scientology freesite in 0.7, including the 'South Park' episode Trapped In The Closet. I wonder if that comes under fair use...? Let the thetan-bots try to take *that* down! :) -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] New Scientist article on harvesting social network sites (analysis)
by knowing about a darknet link. On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 01:40:40PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: Page 30-31, New Scientist issue 2555, 10 June 2006. Keep out of MySpace: Social networking websites could be the latest target of the US National Security Agency New Scientist has discovered that the Pentagon's National Security Agency, which specializes in eavesdropping and code-breaking, is funding research into the mass harvesting of the information that people post about themselves on social networks. And it could harness advances in internet technology - specifically the forthcoming semantic web championed by the web standards organization W3C - to combine data from social networking websites with details such as banking, retail and property records, allowing the NSA to build extensive, all-embracing personal profiles of individuals. ... Meanwhile, the NSA is pursuing its plans to tap the web, since phone logs have limited scope. They can only be used to build a very basic picture of someone's contact network, a process sometimes called connecting the dots. Clusters of people in highly connected groups become apparent, as do people with few connections who appear to be intermediaries between such groups. The idea is to see by how many links of degrees separate people from, say, a member of a blacklisted organization. By adding the online social networking data to its phone analyses, the NSA could connect people at deeper levels, such as taking flying lessons. Typically online social networking sites ask members to enter details of their immediate and extended circles of friends, whose blogs they might follow. People often list other facets of their personality, including political, sexual, entertainment, media and sporting preferences too. Some go much further, and a few have lost their jobs by publicly descibing drinking and drug-taking exploits... You should always assume anything you write online is stapled to your resume. People don't realise you get Googled just to get a job interview these days,, says [ PGP chief security officer ] Callas. Other data the NSA could combine with social networking details includes information on purchases, where we go (available from cellphone records...) and what major financial transactions we make, such as buying a house. Right now this is difficult to do, because today's web is stuffed with data in incompatible formats. Enter the semantic web, which aims to iron out these incompatibilities over the next few years via a common data structure called the Resource Definition Framework... RDF turns the web into a kind of universal spreadsheet that is readable by computers as well as people, says David de Roure at the University of Southampton, UK, who is an adviser to the W3C. It means you will be able to ask a website questions you couldn't ask before, or perform calculations on the data it contains [the NSA]'s interest in [harvesting the semantic web] is evident in a funding footnote to a research paper delivered at the W3C's WWW2006 conference in Edinburgh, UK, in late May. That paper, entitled Semantic Analytics on Social Networks, by a research team lead by Amrit Sheth of the University of Georgia in Athens and Anupam Joshi of the University of Maryland in Baltimore reveals how data from online social networks and other databases can be combined to uncover facts about people. The footnote said the work was part-funded by an organization called ARDA. ... Chief among ARDA's aims is to make sense of the massive amounts of data the NSA collects - some of its sources grow by around 4 million gigabytes a month. ... So the team developed software that combined data from the RDF tags of online social network Friend of a Friend (www.foaf-project.org), where people simply outline who is in their circle of friends, and a semantically tagged commercial bibliographic database called DBLP, which lists the authors of computer science papers. Joshi says their system found conflicts of interest between potential reviewers and authors pitching papers for an internet conference. It certainly made relationship finding between people much easier, Joshi says. It picked up softer [ non-obvious ] conflicts we would not have seen before. The technology will work in exactly the same way for intelligence and national security services and for financial dealings, such as detecting insider trading, the authors say. Linking who knows who with purchasing or bank records could highlight groups of terrorists, money launderers of blacklisted groups, says Sheth. ... [ ARDA renamed to Disruptive Technologies Office ... ] ... [ references to the Total Information Awareness project, which was shelved, but elements continue in the September 2003 Defence Appropriations Act ] ... Privacy groups worry that automated intelligence profiling could sully people's reputations or even lead ot miscarriages
[freenet-chat] My GPG key has changed
My GPG key has changed. I apologize if you see this as spam. :) The new one, and the signature from the old one, are attached. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. keys Description: Binary data signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Towards a Freenet Filesystem
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:03:29PM -0400, Joel Salomon wrote: On 5/22/06, Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 06:12:04PM -0400, Joel Salomon wrote: I don't like the idea of the MIME type being the first line of the file; it's something that will have to be stripped when the file is moved to the rest of the system or worked on by standard programs. It can be an extended attribute, no? Doesn't FUSE support these now? If the MIME type is essential to Freenet's handling of the file, have it in a separate file so the concept is portable to OSes beyond Linux/FUSE. If it's just a frill, put it in an extended attitbute if you like, but not in the file text itself. It's essential _to fproxy_ for safe handling of files. For many other uses it's not essential. Oh and you shouldn't have to mkdir for a get! Why not? The directory is just an abstraction in memory; no disc directory is being created. (Unless FUSE has some fundamental design flaws.) Well sure but it's more intuitive if you are able to just do /freenet/[EMAIL PROTECTED] - or at least /freenet/quick/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (I accept that some files will take *ages* to fetch and so need a different API). The influence of Plan 9 (the original source of user-space filesystems) may be visible here. Of course. :) --Joel -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Moving irc.debian.org to OFTC]
This is likely relevant to many here. - Forwarded message from Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org Subject: Moving irc.debian.org to OFTC For a long time, irc.debian.org has been provided as a service by Freenode [1], the well-known Free Software friendly IRC network. However, as time has passed, more and more of our discussions have instead been taking place on OFTC, the Open and Free Technology Community [2]. In recognition of that, we have decided to move the irc.debian.org alias over to use OFTC. OFTC is also a sister organisation of Debian, as both are supported and represented by Software in the Public Interest, Inc. [3] We wish to thank Freenode for their support over the years, and wish them every success in the future. IRC clients configured to connect to irc.debian.org (as with most IRC clients packaged in Debian) should need no changes by users wishing to follow the changeover, but long-running clients may need to be reconnected or restarted. Developers will be on hand in most of the common development channels on both networks in case any help is needed. The date of this network changeover will be Sunday the 4th of June. The change may take a few hours to propagate through the DNS system on that day. [1] http://freenode.net/ [2] http://www.oftc.net/oftc/ [3] http://www.spi-inc.org/ -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast. Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html - End forwarded message - -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Towards a Freenet Filesystem
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 06:12:04PM -0400, Joel Salomon wrote: On 5/22/06, David McNab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: /keys/[EMAIL PROTECTED] - performs a GET of the given key from freenet, and allows it to be read like a file. First line is mimetype\n /privatekeys/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/name - the filename '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' is the private key corresponding to /keys/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/name - reading from this file produces a single line, the equivalent public key - writing to this file performs a freenet PUT. First line written should be mimetype\n, then the raw key data I don't like the idea of the MIME type being the first line of the file; it's something that will have to be stripped when the file is moved to the rest of the system or worked on by standard programs. It can be an extended attribute, no? Doesn't FUSE support these now? I believe there are some problems with Reiser4-style file-as-directory, otherwise that would be perfect. Oh and you shouldn't have to mkdir for a get! The influence of Plan 9 (the original source of user-space filesystems) may be visible here. --Joel -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Web-of-trust questions
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 09:36:13PM +0200, Helge Preuss wrote: One, can't everybody discover you run freenet by doing a portscan on your computer? I assume that would be a more efficient way to mass-detect freenet nodes than smuggling hostile nodes into freenet - especially if you're a government agency with broad resources. No. They can't. Two, they mentioned that a major aim is to get many people to run freenet. That is obvious. But how would you achieve this goal if people are forced to *personally know* other people connected to the network? What do I do if I'm, say, a dissident with no special knowledge of computers and no hacker friends either? You're in trouble in any case in that situation, because opennet *will be harvested and blocked*. Last year the chinese blocked freenet 0.5, not by harvesting, but by its protocol signature (that shouldn't be possible with 0.7); they will harvest and block if they have to. Do I just give up and sit on my single freenet node? Or do I turn to a centralized service, thus rendering the web of trust obsolete? The centralized service will be blocked. Maybe (probably) I misunderstood something. But I don't see how the two goals - trusted connections and wide coverage - go together. And given that you can be detected with a portscan anyway, isn't it practical just to forget about the web of trust and maximize coverage instead? No, *you cannot be detected with a portscan*. And if we were *only* interested in numbers, we'd be building Kazaa, not Freenet. Regards Helge -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] is frost killing freenet?
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:17:54AM +1200, David McNab wrote: Could it be that the intense query traffic generated by the n running frost instances is flooding freenet? I don't think so. I don't think that Frost generates that much traffic. Is freenet really suited to frost (or vice versa)? How exactly do you propose to eliminate Frost? Without eliminating 75% of the freenet users community? Just because it's not elegant doesn't mean it's not useful. Cheers David -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Re: [Tech] Tagging on mailing lists
I think this would be too disruptive at this point; likely to result in mass unsubscribes. On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 03:47:48PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: This makes a pretty persuasive argument for ditching the [freenet- devl] subject tags on mailing list emails: http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/qralston/writing/tagging-harmful/ If nobody can come up with a good argument against this, I suggest we follow its advice and remove the Subject tags. Ian. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Freenet code in Winny and Share
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 01:24:11PM -0300, Caco Patane wrote: All, Thanks to Michael Ingram, on the frontpage of http://www.slyck.com/ there is an update about the article: The original version of this article stated that Winny and Share contained code from Freenet. As pointed out to Slyck.com by Freenet developers, this is not true. It is thought that Winny and Share were inspired by the design principles of Freenet, but do not contain any actual code and are both written in different programming languages. This article has been changed accordingly. He was very polite and friendly in our mail exchange. Also, he's now on the mailing list (anounce i think) to see news about Freenet. Excellent... it will be some time before we can put alpha 2 out, but good relations with journo's are always good. Saludos, Caco_Patane ! -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Freenet code in Winny and Share
Does somebody want to write to them? Once a fallacy is in the press it will tend to get circulated ad infinitum... On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 11:27:10PM -0300, Caco Patane wrote: Andlook at it here... http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid14_gci1186169,00.html Both Winny and Share use code from the amorphous Freenet network to help obscure he link between IP addresses and shared folders, Slyck noted, offering a certain level of anonymity. Amorphous... Saludos, Caco_Patane ! On 5/1/06, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-05-01 08:48:39]: On 1 May 2006, at 06:40, Caco Patane wrote: Look at this article were Freenet is named: http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1169 Both Winny and Share use Freenet code to help obscure the link between IP addresses and shared folders, offering a certain level of anonymity. It's about leaked data to a P2P network. Cheers, Someone should correct that, to the best of my knowledge, neither of these applications reuse Freenet code. Ian. It's not even possible that they do as they are written in c++ and we use java ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_%28P2P%29 NextGen$ -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Freenet code in Winny and Share
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:23:23PM -0300, Caco Patane wrote: Does somebody want to write to them? Once a fallacy is in the press it will tend to get circulated ad infinitum... I've mailed the guy from 'slyck' telling him about the error in the articule. I let him know that if he want to ask something about Freenet, go to the IRC channel. Also, to let me know when the errata/correction is made. Probably they use freenet-like algorithms, or did once... I think I've heard that too... Saludos, Caco_Patane ! -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] ressource utilization
Check your freenet.ini. The default store size maximum is 1G, but you can increase it. With regards to bandwidth usage, load balancing is being worked on... On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 03:04:42PM +0200, Lean Fuglsang wrote: Hi, I was wondering why freenet 0.7 doesn't use my bandwidth fully all the time (or fully utilise cpu/ram/hd). Also my store does not seem to be able to grow past 1GB. Shouldn't Freenet just send arbitrary packets around when it is 'idling', e.g. when htl is reached on inserts? What is the plan for better utilizing ressources in the future? --Lean -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Will this work on a Mac powerbook G4?
Yes, it should, although there may be some complications. Please try it, and if you have problems, ask on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh and it's polite to have some text in your messages as well as your subject line. :) -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: Growing pains
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 03:31:42AM -0400, Joel Salomon wrote: If there's a security/anonymity hole in the plan I've laid out, please tell me. The alpha darknet is not too early to start thinking about realistic connection procedures. If you trust somebody on Frost, that doesn't automatically mean you want to connect to them. Firstly, they get your IP address; they need to be very trustworthy for this; far more than other connections, as they know who you are on Frost. Secondly, it's possible that the connection will be exposed by e.g. traffic analysis (although obviously this is very bad, and we want to avoid it by means of alternate transports). --Joel -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: Growing pains
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:01:35PM -0400, Joel Salomon wrote: On 4/4/06, Joel Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone see a problem with this idea? Are encrypted Frost messages secure enough even while the darknet isn't quite dark? On IRC, Terrasque responded: Horovits, im paranoid :) and have a personal interest in security. I'd rather swap with random people over irc than with trusted people over freenet For those who have done the math and security calculations: Whose risk is greater here? Ought we to move to floppy disc and hidden drop exchange of refs? The problem is people on Frost know what you've been doing on the network, and can connect all your illegal libellous remarks with your IP address. --Joel -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Re: Questions
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:27:52AM +0100, Martin Ottehall wrote: Thanks. Do you have to have alot of knowledge in Codes and such to be able to use Freenet? I get the feeling that its a rather complicated system wich you have to (partly) setup yourself. No, 0.5 is reasonably easy to use. Even 0.7 doesn't have too steep a learning curve, though some key apps are missing. Which are you attempting to use? Re bandwidth, and fairness.. the main constraint is that if your node is really slow, e.g. because you have a low bandwidth limit, then nodes connected to your node will disconnect it in favour of better nodes. So if no nodes are connected to my node, i will not be able to Download? Right. I havent installed it yet, so i have alot of quiestions since I dont know much about it then. But Ill try it out soon. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] P2Pedia
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 09:30:02AM +0100, Gilbert R. R?hrbein wrote: Hi all. Look at this... http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/P2P What do you think of that? Torrent is fast for big files, it's not designed for webby stuff. Freenet should be a good match, and would allow read-only access in regimes which might block or filter wikipedia. Hopefully it will be a bit faster in 0.7 than it is now. OTOH it's unreliable. :) It may be useful to bundle files together... There would not be a links problem with Freenet, at least not for the latest version of the articles themselves. IMHO it will eventually be possible to provide something like a Wiki which has write support over Freenet... either with some sort of central server maintaining the absolute latest up to date version (only really needed for modifications), or with some more complex merging system a la distributed RCS. Volunteers are appreciated, and should contact the authors of the page. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Questions
Hi! We cannot enforce a limit, since people can always edit the source code, but Freenet 0.5 requires at least 101MB of disk space, and defaults to 256MB. The limit may be a bit lower in 0.7 because of smaller keys, or it may be quite a bit bigger (the test nodes had a hard-coded datastore size of 1GB for a while; now it is configurable). Re bandwidth, and fairness.. the main constraint is that if your node is really slow, e.g. because you have a low bandwidth limit, then nodes connected to your node will disconnect it in favour of better nodes. On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 02:28:46PM +0100, Martin Ottehall wrote: Hi! Im doing a school thing about freenet and have some quiestions. Is there a minimum req. on how much space and bandwith you have to share? Whats the connection between share and recive? (I share X and can then only recive X, or what?) More questions are to come. Thanks in Forehand! -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] frenet-fr.info is looking for a non-french owner
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 11:13:21PM +0100, Julien Cornuwel wrote: Hi there, http://www.freenet-fr.info is a french site that gives a lot of documentation an help about Freenet. As you maybe know, French government is changing the copyright laws in a quite drastic way : - DRMs are now protected by the law. This is the case in the US and across the EU. It is not really a big deal. - Avoiding them or giving a way to avoid them leads to 3 years of prison and 300,000?. - P2P softwares could be considerated as forbidden by a conservative judge because they permit the copy of copyrighted materials. The problem is not that DRM is protected. It is that it is MANDATORY. This may very well prohibit Freenet - but it could also prohibit Apache! Because of that, I'm looking for someone that doesn't live in France and who would accept to become the official owner of the site. Of course, I'd keep working on it and he would have nothing to do about it. Maybe Ian could accept to own freenet-fr.info as he already owns freenetproject.org ? Anyway, I need help about that, I don't that site to disapear because the majors achieved the corruption of a few law-bastards (I don't know if it is correct english, but it is my feeling...). Regards -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Talking in Berlin tomorrow about Freenet 0.7
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 01:11:23AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: Oskar and I are giving a talk at 2pm tomorrow in Berlin at the Berliner Conference Center, as part of the 22nd Chaos Communication Congress. Unfortunately its a bit pricey, a day pass costs ?25, or ?10 for students, but there are plenty of interesting talks going on. That's pretty cheap for a conference. Actually, because of certain complications relating to eurostar tickets, it would have been considerably cheaper for me to go to CCC than to go to FOSDEM. That is, assuming I'd known a couple of months in advance. We spent today putting together quite a nice visual demo of the new Darknet stuff in Freenet 0.7 so hopefully it should be interesting and fun. If anyone from these lists can make it, it would be good to see you so if you can attend, definitely find us and say hi afterwards ;) I look forward to the slides/video. :) Ian. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] France attempts to ban free software and non-DRM p2p
Rough outline: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/02/france_about_to_get_.html FSF Europe, more detail: http://www.fsffrance.org/news/article2005-11-25.en.html Petition, if you are a french citizen: http://eucd.info/petitions/index.php?petition=2 Send an open letter to the PM and President, if you are not: http://www.eucd.info/index.php?2005/12/15/218-sending-an-open-letter-to-the-president-and-prime-minister-of-the-french-republic (This may need some work) -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Useful utility I just found
NTP for windows: http://www.arachnoid.com/abouttime/ -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] what you did as
WTF? On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 03:09:58PM +, sun moon wrote: ~ what you did as they throw bombs in london paris burns internet gets a dentist we made you ( :-) i think on that ) ~ sk [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] deniable p2p
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 03:24:12PM +, Henry Gomersall wrote: I have been thinking for a while now about a method of creating a deniable p2p network, that is still (of the order of) the same speed as conventional open p2p networks. What follows is the result of this thought process. Most things have been suggested before... but lets have a look. Apologies if this is obviously trivial and pointless ;) This network would allow a user to upload a file. The file is converted to pieces and these pieces are what reside on peers' machines. Any given piece on a users machine can be a component in ANY file in the network. That is, it can be a component in an arbitrary number of files. Okay, so if I upload a 660MB file, I FEC it into a 1GB file, then I find 1GB of pre-existing content, put that in the manifest, then XOR the real data with it and put that in as well, and insert that. That's what you are talking about here, correct? Lets ignore the issues with finding random content to XOR with, for now (this might be a problem). This is where the deniability comes in. If a data chunk can be a component in hundreds of entirely different files, then how can the uploader be liable. Not only that, but the data is random. It has no meaning by itself. Only when combined as part of a chain can it be rendered into the original file. The only draw back of the whole system is that the user is required to download twice the total data. This is possibly offset by the potential gains in total file availability, allowing users to host pieces that can be part of many files. I'm not convinced. The reason: Half the files you use will be already extant on the network. BUT the other half, the half which you actually insert, will be the XOR of the data to be inserted and the preexisting data. Now, given enough time, these will themselves be reused. It does give some robustness, in that you can't attack a single key without it causing collateral damage, but that is not going to be a very strong effect as the files are distributed randomly. You can make arguments on deniability... but basically as far as I can see there are three options: 1. You are liable by running Freenet, which can be and is used to distribute illegal content. Solution: darknet. 2. You are liable by caching illegal content, despite the fact that it would be very difficult for you to determine this; impossible in many cases. Solution: darknet, or better defence lawyers! Generally posession requires knowledge; if there's a bag of drugs in my car, which I just bought from a shady second hand dealer, left by the previous owner, it's not legally my fault - unless I discover it and do nothing about it. 3. You are liable because you fetched illegal content, and it is cached in your datastore because you fetched it. Solution: Don't cache locally fetched content. This is an option in 0.7. The problem is that if a node sees you fetch illegal content, and then probes your store and sees you didn't catch it, it knows it was a local request. This may not be an immediate problem on darknets though. Ultimately the solution is premix routing (freenet 0.8/0.9), but there are some stop-gaps (e.g. random, fixed routing paths with no caching for the first N hops) which offer relatively small anonymity sets. The operation of this network is described as follows: 1) Alice wishes to place a file on the network (file A). This is the first file to be added to the network: a) Firstly she splits the file into many equisized pieces. b) She then generates random blocks of data, the same size as the pieces of the original file, these are called r1, r2, ..., rn I thought she was going to re-use random already-inserted blocks from the network? c) She then logically places alternately a random piece and a file piece in order as follows: r1|A1|r2|A2|...|rn|An d) Using a random start piece (C), a chain is built up by performing a one time pad on the next data chunk and the result of the previous one time pad as follows (there appears to be no ascii xor symbol, so I used a + instead): C - + - S1 - + - Q1 - + - S2 - + - Q2 - + ... + - Qn ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ r1 A1 r2 A2 r3An Hmmm, I see: For the first block, you need r1 ^ A1. For the second block, you need r1 ^ A1 ^ r2 ^ A2. Okay, this is a nice addition to what I was thinking of, but you still need a manifest file. e) r and Q are now the data chunks that are shared on the network f) Each data chunk points to the next but one data chunk in the chain resulting in the inability of a holder of any arbitrary chunk to reconstruct the whole chain. C points to the first 2 chunks resulting in both offset chains being available (perhaps 2 random start pieces are required - C1 and C2 - so that they look
Re: [freenet-chat] questions about freenet/i2p/entropy
Historically Freenet has focussed on document storage and retrieval, whereas I2P has focussed on real time connections between nodes. That's the obvious difference. I2P implements a form of onion routing to protect these connections; in I2P, you construct a 3 hop tunnel from your node to somewhere, using nodes from all over the network. Whereas freenet's routing is more heuristic, often taking 7 or more hops, and exclusively uses the routing table, pre-established connections, although it is important for new connections to be established from time to time. Both approaches have advantages, in both security and performance; they are complementary, for the time being. In terms of security, I2P and Freenet are completely different; I2P is a scalable mixnet, which is inherently harvestable, meaning that an attacker can quickly find all nodes, but in which it should be very hard to find the originator of a connection (this is however a topic of some dispute!). For Freenet to have really good anonymity, we will have to add a layer of premix routing, meaning onion routing, a la I2P, but probably over our existing connections; this does not mean that Freenet's anonymity right now is rubbish, but various attacks are possible which we would like to prevent. It has been suggested to use I2P to do this, but there are some major problems with that for example harvestability. Freenet's anonymity as-is is probably worse than I2P's, but Freenet is known to scale in practice to at least 10,000 nodes, whereas I2P has maybe 300. Freenet 0.7 will have a scalable darknet F2F option, where each node only connects to those which are explicitly added as belonging to friends of the node operator; this can scale, because although I only connect to my friends, they connect to theirs, and you can span the globe pretty fast. The upshot of this is that it is not harvestable any more, and a whole variety of attacks become much harder and much less useful. This is intended for use in hostile environments, such as China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, where the internet is heavily filtered. China does not yet do harvesting of Freenet or I2P nodes, but it does block Freenet by other means (which rely on a misfeature which will also be eliminated in 0.7). Entropy, as far as I know, was a rip-off of Freenet. It even used FCP. :) It had more or less the same goals, but used home-grown crypto algorithms (which is *ALWAYS* a bad thing), and had a primitive routing algorithm which suggests it probably wouldn't have scaled. On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 08:20:41PM -0800, none none wrote: Function-wise is I2P different from Freenet and Entropy? If so how is it different? What are the pros and cons of using either Freenet and entropy? (any difference speed-wise?) Can I2P be used in conjuction with Freenet or Entropy? If so how do I set it up? I have done a little readingbut it was information over-load. And please put it in layman terms.Is entropy still in development? Because according to this link: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anonymous_p2p1.htm Entropy is no longer in development. thank you to all that replies to this. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
