[freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-23 Thread Lars Juel Nielsen 
On 9/23/06, an ominous cow herd  wrote:
> On Saturday 23 September 2006 09:50, nobody at geonosis.homelinux.net wrote:
> > This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
> > Project Geonosis mixminion server at geonosis.winstonsmith.info. If
> > you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact pbox-
> > admin at winstonsmith.info. For information about anonymity, see
> > https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or
> > https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.
> >
> > -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
> > Message-type: plaintext
> >
> > In <20060918233820.GA27941 at amphibian.dyndns.org> toad
>  wrote:
> > >On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 02:10:57PM +0100, Volodya wrote:
> > >> Lars Juel Nielsen wrote:
> > >> > On 9/11/06, anon-bounces at deuxpi.ca  
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
> > >> >> Message-type: plaintext
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I read this on frost recently.  How is this best addressed?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - - Scruple at rJvWGdrEj1YOqt_TMc7Wyl01t2Q - 2006.08.29 -
> > >> >> 05:47:35GMT -
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Someone brought up the point in the boards board that your peers
> > >> >> (e.g. 'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are requesting and
> > >> >> inserting. I responded that this may be an avenue of attack against
> > >> >> dark-net since if something 'naughty' is being requested then your
> > >> >> peers will know it is either coming from you or one of your friend
> > >> >> nodes. In either case thats bad news if you have something
> > >> >> contraversial or 'naughty' to say - your 'friends' on the darknet
> > >> >> could ask you to sever your connection with the node that's doing the
> > >> >> naughty requesting, or demand to know which node is doing it of yours
> > >> >> and try to track it themselves.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'll be posting this attack message on the devl and tech mailing
> > >> >> lists soon. If you have any points to make then do it here, and I'll
> > >> >> incorporate it into my post (this will be like a draft then).
> > >> >
> > >> > Premix routing, planned for 0.8.
> > >>
> > >> Yep, unfortunately anything short of premix will be a hack and not solve
> > >> the problem.
> > >
> > >Maybe. There are a few hacks that would give *some* plausible
> > >deniability... Well, you have some plausible deniability *now*, but
> > >nothing that would stand up to a statistical attack...
> >
> > So essentially, if I'm looking for anonymity that can stand up to a serious
> > attacker that has access to anything 2.5 billion dollars can buy, then I'd
> > be better off using 0.5 for now insted of 0.7.
> >
> > Thank you for making that clear.  I have large (2 to 20gb) files to
> > distribute (no, they're not cp), that I must have very good plausible
> > deniability and be able to stand up to at least a statistical attack like
> > you're talking about.
> >
> > BTW- I read in a msg on Frost that 0.7 is speed limited to 10mb per day to
> > make it more difficult for people to insert large, possibly copyrighted or
> > cp binaries.  Is this for real or does that poster not know what they're
> > talking about?
> >
> > If for example only, I start an 0.7 node and begin to insert warez and cp,
> > am I anonymous enough even from my peers to be safe or will the feds come
> > knocking my door down?
> >
> > [remembering that free speech includes allowing stuff you abhor as well as
> > what you agree with.]
>
> I find it funny that all of these 0.7 users are saying that the 0.7 network is
> better and more secure than the 0.5 network.  They say this even while we see
> these warnings about critical bug fixes, peers in the 0.7 network being able
> to monitor what comes from your node, and the IRC channels where people trade
> references could have cops monitoring or actively trading these references.
> Now you mention that there is a cap on bandwidth.  WTF?

0.5 got pretty much the same security problems as 0.7 do and there is
no cap on bandwidth, toad denied it in the a reply to the mail you
replied to and I can confirm it as an user too, it may be slow but
it's faster than 0.5, retain content better and there is no cap that
I've run into yet. There is still work to be done on speeding it up
but the current speed limit(whatever it is) is not intentional.

>
> This is why I'm staying with the 0.5 network until either 0.7 becomes useful,
> or another anonymous network (ANts  http://antsp2p.sourceforge.net/)
> surpasses the 0.5 network in usability, popularity, and security.
>
> It would be sad to see Freenet become just a footnote in the computer
> chronicles while other anonymous networks become more popular and Freenet
> loses it's user base.  Maybe some Chinese Christian dissident will use it to
> speak freely, but it won't matter much if there is no one to listen.
>
> >
> > > - Anonymous - 2006.08.27 - 20:09:01GMT -
> > >
> > > The ref doesn't change if your IP changes. Or rather it does change but
> > > is still

[freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-23 Thread Isaac Karjala 


--- an ominous cow herd
 wrote:

> On Saturday 23 September 2006 09:50,
> nobody at geonosis.homelinux.net wrote:
> > This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you
> by the Winston Smith
> > Project Geonosis mixminion server at
> geonosis.winstonsmith.info. If
> > you do not want to receive anonymous messages,
> please contact pbox-
> > admin at winstonsmith.info. For information about
> anonymity, see
> > https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or
> > https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.
> >
> > -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
> > Message-type: plaintext
> >
> > In <20060918233820.GA27941 at amphibian.dyndns.org>
> toad 
>  wrote:
> > >On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 02:10:57PM +0100, Volodya
> wrote:
> > >> Lars Juel Nielsen wrote:
> > >> > On 9/11/06, anon-bounces at deuxpi.ca
>  wrote:
> > >> >> -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
> > >> >> Message-type: plaintext
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I read this on frost recently.  How is this
> best addressed?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - - Scruple at rJvWGdrEj1YOqt_TMc7Wyl01t2Q
> - 2006.08.29 -
> > >> >> 05:47:35GMT -
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Someone brought up the point in the boards
> board that your peers
> > >> >> (e.g. 'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are
> requesting and
> > >> >> inserting. I responded that this may be an
> avenue of attack against
> > >> >> dark-net since if something 'naughty' is
> being requested then your
> > >> >> peers will know it is either coming from you
> or one of your friend
> > >> >> nodes. In either case thats bad news if you
> have something
> > >> >> contraversial or 'naughty' to say - your
> 'friends' on the darknet
> > >> >> could ask you to sever your connection with
> the node that's doing the
> > >> >> naughty requesting, or demand to know which
> node is doing it of yours
> > >> >> and try to track it themselves.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'll be posting this attack message on the
> devl and tech mailing
> > >> >> lists soon. If you have any points to make
> then do it here, and I'll
> > >> >> incorporate it into my post (this will be
> like a draft then).
> > >> >
> > >> > Premix routing, planned for 0.8.
> > >>
> > >> Yep, unfortunately anything short of premix
> will be a hack and not solve
> > >> the problem.
> > >
> > >Maybe. There are a few hacks that would give
> *some* plausible
> > >deniability... Well, you have some plausible
> deniability *now*, but
> > >nothing that would stand up to a statistical
> attack...
> >
> > So essentially, if I'm looking for anonymity that
> can stand up to a serious
> > attacker that has access to anything 2.5 billion
> dollars can buy, then I'd
> > be better off using 0.5 for now insted of 0.7.
> >
> > Thank you for making that clear.  I have large (2
> to 20gb) files to
> > distribute (no, they're not cp), that I must have
> very good plausible
> > deniability and be able to stand up to at least a
> statistical attack like
> > you're talking about.
> >
> > BTW- I read in a msg on Frost that 0.7 is speed
> limited to 10mb per day to
> > make it more difficult for people to insert large,
> possibly copyrighted or
> > cp binaries.  Is this for real or does that poster
> not know what they're
> > talking about?
> >
> > If for example only, I start an 0.7 node and begin
> to insert warez and cp,
> > am I anonymous enough even from my peers to be
> safe or will the feds come
> > knocking my door down?
> >
> > [remembering that free speech includes allowing
> stuff you abhor as well as
> > what you agree with.]
> 
> I find it funny that all of these 0.7 users are
> saying that the 0.7 network is 
> better and more secure than the 0.5 network.  They
> say this even while we see 
> these warnings about critical bug fixes, peers in
> the 0.7 network being able 
> to monitor what comes from your node, and the IRC
> channels where people trade 
> references could have cops monitoring or actively
> trading these references.  
> Now you mention that there is a cap on bandwidth. 
> WTF?  
> 
> This is why I'm staying with the 0.5 network until
> either 0.7 becomes useful, 
> or another anonymous network (ANts 
> http://antsp2p.sourceforge.net/) 
> surpasses the 0.5 network in usability, popularity,
> and security.
> 
> It would be sad to see Freenet become just a
> footnote in the computer 
> chronicles while other anonymous networks become
> more popular and Freenet 
> loses it's user base.  Maybe some Chinese Christian
> dissident will use it to 
> speak freely, but it won't matter much if there is
> no one to listen.
> 

and what's the plus'es of AntsP2P over Mute-Net?...

> >
> > > - Anonymous - 2006.08.27 - 20:09:01GMT
> -
> > >
> > > The ref doesn't change if your IP changes. Or
> rather it does change but
> > > is still compatible, even toad and ian aren't
> that insane... You could
> > > also use a dyndns name or something similiar. I
> currently run 0.5 and 0.7
> > > at the same time, 0.7 doesn't use much bandwidth
> anyway. (You can't get
> > > it to use more then 10

All this nonsense against 0.7 was Re: [freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-23 Thread toad 
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 10:45:57AM -0700, an ominous cow herd wrote:
> I find it funny that all of these 0.7 users are saying that the 0.7 network 
> is 
> better and more secure than the 0.5 network.  They say this even while we see 
> these warnings about critical bug fixes, peers in the 0.7 network being able 
> to monitor what comes from your node, and the IRC channels where people trade 
> references could have cops monitoring or actively trading these references.  
> Now you mention that there is a cap on bandwidth.  WTF?  
> 
> This is why I'm staying with the 0.5 network until either 0.7 becomes useful, 
> or another anonymous network (ANts  http://antsp2p.sourceforge.net/) 
> surpasses the 0.5 network in usability, popularity, and security.
> 
> It would be sad to see Freenet become just a footnote in the computer 
> chronicles while other anonymous networks become more popular and Freenet 
> loses it's user base.  Maybe some Chinese Christian dissident will use it to 
> speak freely, but it won't matter much if there is no one to listen.

I'm half inclined to believe that there's a deliberate propaganda campaign
against Freenet 0.7...

Here's what I said on the tech list:
---
The 10MB limit is nonsense; there is no such code.

And correlation attacks are feasible on 0.5 as well as on 0.7. It's a
bit more complex on 0.5, but I'm not sure that it requires any more
effort. And on 0.7 you get to choose your peers; on 0.5 a clever peer
can choose you (possibly as part of a network-wide campaign to connect
to everyone in order to monitor everyone).

0.7 does have some security issues certainly, but overall I'm not sure
that 0.5 is any better. Anyway, read the security page on the wiki.
---

For anyone listening who can't be bothered to look up the security page
on the wiki, here it is:
http://wiki.freenetproject.org/FreenetZeroPointSevenSecurity

The short version:
- Correlation attacks are possible on both 0.5 and 0.7. They may be
  easier on 0.7 due to it having better (therefore more predictable)
  routing, but 0.5's routing is pretty predictable, as it just goes by
  load most of the time. Also due to Freenet 0.7 having smaller keys.
- Freenet 0.7 has one major, obvious weakness right now which is that
  its connection setup isn't secure against MITM or impersonation when
  the attacker knows the refs of both sides. Nextgens started to work on
  this, but STS (the solution) isn't quite ready yet.
- On 0.5, or indeed on any opennet, such as the one we will soon
  implement for 0.7, or the bogus one we have at present using
  #freenet-refs etc, a whole range of attacks are much easier. In
  particular, harvest-and-block is the best known attack. But content
  tracing is easier on opennet too, because all you have to do is
  connect to everyone and do correlation attacks on everyone (requires
  an ubernode). Or connect to one node at a time and likewise. You are
  vulnerable on darknet or on opennet - but on darknet you get to choose
  who you are vulnerable to. If you suspect a particular subnetwork,
  just connect to all the nodes on that network and do correlation
  attacks on them. Etc etc.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:

[freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-23 Thread nob...@geonosis.homelinux.net 
This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
Project Geonosis mixminion server at geonosis.winstonsmith.info. If
you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact pbox-
admin at winstonsmith.info. For information about anonymity, see
https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or
https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.

-BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
Message-type: plaintext

In <20060918233820.GA27941 at amphibian.dyndns.org> toad  wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 02:10:57PM +0100, Volodya wrote:
>> Lars Juel Nielsen wrote:
>> > On 9/11/06, anon-bounces at deuxpi.ca  wrote:
>> >> -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
>> >> Message-type: plaintext
>> >>
>> >> I read this on frost recently.  How is this best addressed?
>> >>
>> >> - - Scruple at rJvWGdrEj1YOqt_TMc7Wyl01t2Q - 2006.08.29 -
>> >> 05:47:35GMT -
>> >>
>> >> Someone brought up the point in the boards board that your peers (e.g.
>> >> 'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are requesting and inserting. I
>> >> responded that this may be an avenue of attack against dark-net since
>> >> if something 'naughty' is being requested then your peers will know it
>> >> is either coming from you or one of your friend nodes. In either case
>> >> thats bad news if you have something contraversial or 'naughty' to say
>> >> - your 'friends' on the darknet could ask you to sever your connection
>> >> with the node that's doing the naughty requesting, or demand to know
>> >> which node is doing it of yours and try to track it themselves.
>> >>
>> >> I'll be posting this attack message on the devl and tech mailing lists
>> >> soon. If you have any points to make then do it here, and I'll
>> >> incorporate it into my post (this will be like a draft then).
>> > 
>> > Premix routing, planned for 0.8.
>> 
>> Yep, unfortunately anything short of premix will be a hack and not solve the 
>> problem.
>
>Maybe. There are a few hacks that would give *some* plausible
>deniability... Well, you have some plausible deniability *now*, but
>nothing that would stand up to a statistical attack...

So essentially, if I'm looking for anonymity that can stand up to a serious 
attacker
that has access to anything 2.5 billion dollars can buy, then I'd be better off 
using
0.5 for now insted of 0.7.

Thank you for making that clear.  I have large (2 to 20gb) files to distribute 
(no, they're not cp), that I must have very good plausible deniability and be 
able to stand up to at least a statistical attack like you're talking about.

BTW- I read in a msg on Frost that 0.7 is speed limited to 10mb per day to make 
it more difficult for people to insert large, possibly copyrighted or cp 
binaries.  Is this
for real or does that poster not know what they're talking about?

If for example only, I start an 0.7 node and begin to insert warez and cp, am I
anonymous enough even from my peers to be safe or will the feds come knocking
my door down?

[remembering that free speech includes allowing stuff you abhor as well as
what you agree with.]

> 
> - Anonymous - 2006.08.27 - 20:09:01GMT -
> 
> The ref doesn't change if your IP changes. Or rather it does change but is 
> still compatible, even toad and ian aren't that insane... You could also use 
> a dyndns name or something similiar.
> I currently run 0.5 and 0.7 at the same time, 0.7 doesn't use much bandwidth 
> anyway. (You can't get it to use more then 10 - 30kb/s) Sadly its also not 
> usable for anything except freesites and textmessages up to now because of 
> the ridiculous insert speed. (like 10MB/day). I really wonder if this insert 
> speed is by purpose because it manages to keep all kind of movies, mp3s, 
> warez, porn and so on out of 0.7, which happens to be the stuff toad doesn't 
> like. 
> (btw: Porn is sin as far as he is concerned, as is sex outside of marriage. I 
> never imagined that toad is a christian nutcase... If anyone is interested I 
> could poste the discussion in the privacy and religion boards on 0.7 in which 
> toad parcipated. His believes are somewhat interesting.) 
> And he never cared about filesharing and hates the pedo stuff anyway. Which 
> leaves the small stuff like freesite, images and books... (If you want a good 
> laugh look for some guy who is posting 25MB chunks of a movie for over one 
> month. He got to 26 or something like that up to now...) Anyway, pushing for 
> opennet doesn't really make sense up to now because 0.7 isn't really usable 
> anyway.

-END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-

[freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-23 Thread toad 
The 10MB limit is nonsense; there is no such code.

And correlation attacks are feasible on 0.5 as well as on 0.7. It's a
bit more complex on 0.5, but I'm not sure that it requires any more
effort. And on 0.7 you get to choose your peers; on 0.5 a clever peer
can choose you (possibly as part of a network-wide campaign to connect
to everyone in order to monitor everyone).

0.7 does have some security issues certainly, but overall I'm not sure
that 0.5 is any better. Anyway, read the security page on the wiki.

On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 06:50:26PM +0200, nobody at geonosis.homelinux.net 
wrote:
> This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
> Project Geonosis mixminion server at geonosis.winstonsmith.info. If
> you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact pbox-
> admin at winstonsmith.info. For information about anonymity, see
> https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or
> https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.
> 
> -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
> Message-type: plaintext
> 
> In <20060918233820.GA27941 at amphibian.dyndns.org> toad  amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 02:10:57PM +0100, Volodya wrote:
> >> Lars Juel Nielsen wrote:
> >> > On 9/11/06, anon-bounces at deuxpi.ca  wrote:
> >> >> -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
> >> >> Message-type: plaintext
> >> >>
> >> >> I read this on frost recently.  How is this best addressed?
> >> >>
> >> >> - - Scruple at rJvWGdrEj1YOqt_TMc7Wyl01t2Q - 2006.08.29 -
> >> >> 05:47:35GMT -
> >> >>
> >> >> Someone brought up the point in the boards board that your peers (e.g.
> >> >> 'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are requesting and inserting. I
> >> >> responded that this may be an avenue of attack against dark-net since
> >> >> if something 'naughty' is being requested then your peers will know it
> >> >> is either coming from you or one of your friend nodes. In either case
> >> >> thats bad news if you have something contraversial or 'naughty' to say
> >> >> - your 'friends' on the darknet could ask you to sever your connection
> >> >> with the node that's doing the naughty requesting, or demand to know
> >> >> which node is doing it of yours and try to track it themselves.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll be posting this attack message on the devl and tech mailing lists
> >> >> soon. If you have any points to make then do it here, and I'll
> >> >> incorporate it into my post (this will be like a draft then).
> >> > 
> >> > Premix routing, planned for 0.8.
> >> 
> >> Yep, unfortunately anything short of premix will be a hack and not solve 
> >> the problem.
> >
> >Maybe. There are a few hacks that would give *some* plausible
> >deniability... Well, you have some plausible deniability *now*, but
> >nothing that would stand up to a statistical attack...
> 
> So essentially, if I'm looking for anonymity that can stand up to a serious 
> attacker
> that has access to anything 2.5 billion dollars can buy, then I'd be better 
> off using
> 0.5 for now insted of 0.7.
> 
> Thank you for making that clear.  I have large (2 to 20gb) files to 
> distribute (no, they're not cp), that I must have very good plausible 
> deniability and be able to stand up to at least a statistical attack like 
> you're talking about.
> 
> BTW- I read in a msg on Frost that 0.7 is speed limited to 10mb per day to 
> make it more difficult for people to insert large, possibly copyrighted or cp 
> binaries.  Is this
> for real or does that poster not know what they're talking about?
> 
> If for example only, I start an 0.7 node and begin to insert warez and cp, am 
> I
> anonymous enough even from my peers to be safe or will the feds come knocking
> my door down?
> 
> [remembering that free speech includes allowing stuff you abhor as well as
> what you agree with.]
> 
> > 
> > - Anonymous - 2006.08.27 - 20:09:01GMT -
> > 
> > The ref doesn't change if your IP changes. Or rather it does change but is 
> > still compatible, even toad and ian aren't that insane... You could also 
> > use a dyndns name or something similiar.
> > I currently run 0.5 and 0.7 at the same time, 0.7 doesn't use much 
> > bandwidth anyway. (You can't get it to use more then 10 - 30kb/s) Sadly its 
> > also not usable for anything except freesites and textmessages up to now 
> > because of the ridiculous insert speed. (like 10MB/day). I really wonder if 
> > this insert speed is by purpose because it manages to keep all kind of 
> > movies, mp3s, warez, porn and so on out of 0.7, which happens to be the 
> > stuff toad doesn't like. 
> > (btw: Porn is sin as far as he is concerned, as is sex outside of marriage. 
> > I never imagined that toad is a christian nutcase... If anyone is 
> > interested I could poste the discussion in the privacy and religion boards 
> > on 0.7 in which toad parcipated. His believes are somewhat interesting.) 
> > And he never cared about filesharing and hates the pedo stuff anyway. Which 
> > leaves the small stuff

[freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-23 Thread an ominous cow herd 
On Saturday 23 September 2006 09:50, nobody at geonosis.homelinux.net wrote:
> This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
> Project Geonosis mixminion server at geonosis.winstonsmith.info. If
> you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact pbox-
> admin at winstonsmith.info. For information about anonymity, see
> https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or
> https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.
>
> -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
> Message-type: plaintext
>
> In <20060918233820.GA27941 at amphibian.dyndns.org> toad 
 wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 02:10:57PM +0100, Volodya wrote:
> >> Lars Juel Nielsen wrote:
> >> > On 9/11/06, anon-bounces at deuxpi.ca  wrote:
> >> >> -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
> >> >> Message-type: plaintext
> >> >>
> >> >> I read this on frost recently.  How is this best addressed?
> >> >>
> >> >> - - Scruple at rJvWGdrEj1YOqt_TMc7Wyl01t2Q - 2006.08.29 -
> >> >> 05:47:35GMT -
> >> >>
> >> >> Someone brought up the point in the boards board that your peers
> >> >> (e.g. 'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are requesting and
> >> >> inserting. I responded that this may be an avenue of attack against
> >> >> dark-net since if something 'naughty' is being requested then your
> >> >> peers will know it is either coming from you or one of your friend
> >> >> nodes. In either case thats bad news if you have something
> >> >> contraversial or 'naughty' to say - your 'friends' on the darknet
> >> >> could ask you to sever your connection with the node that's doing the
> >> >> naughty requesting, or demand to know which node is doing it of yours
> >> >> and try to track it themselves.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll be posting this attack message on the devl and tech mailing
> >> >> lists soon. If you have any points to make then do it here, and I'll
> >> >> incorporate it into my post (this will be like a draft then).
> >> >
> >> > Premix routing, planned for 0.8.
> >>
> >> Yep, unfortunately anything short of premix will be a hack and not solve
> >> the problem.
> >
> >Maybe. There are a few hacks that would give *some* plausible
> >deniability... Well, you have some plausible deniability *now*, but
> >nothing that would stand up to a statistical attack...
>
> So essentially, if I'm looking for anonymity that can stand up to a serious
> attacker that has access to anything 2.5 billion dollars can buy, then I'd
> be better off using 0.5 for now insted of 0.7.
>
> Thank you for making that clear.  I have large (2 to 20gb) files to
> distribute (no, they're not cp), that I must have very good plausible
> deniability and be able to stand up to at least a statistical attack like
> you're talking about.
>
> BTW- I read in a msg on Frost that 0.7 is speed limited to 10mb per day to
> make it more difficult for people to insert large, possibly copyrighted or
> cp binaries.  Is this for real or does that poster not know what they're
> talking about?
>
> If for example only, I start an 0.7 node and begin to insert warez and cp,
> am I anonymous enough even from my peers to be safe or will the feds come
> knocking my door down?
>
> [remembering that free speech includes allowing stuff you abhor as well as
> what you agree with.]

I find it funny that all of these 0.7 users are saying that the 0.7 network is 
better and more secure than the 0.5 network.  They say this even while we see 
these warnings about critical bug fixes, peers in the 0.7 network being able 
to monitor what comes from your node, and the IRC channels where people trade 
references could have cops monitoring or actively trading these references.  
Now you mention that there is a cap on bandwidth.  WTF?  

This is why I'm staying with the 0.5 network until either 0.7 becomes useful, 
or another anonymous network (ANts  http://antsp2p.sourceforge.net/) 
surpasses the 0.5 network in usability, popularity, and security.

It would be sad to see Freenet become just a footnote in the computer 
chronicles while other anonymous networks become more popular and Freenet 
loses it's user base.  Maybe some Chinese Christian dissident will use it to 
speak freely, but it won't matter much if there is no one to listen.

>
> > - Anonymous - 2006.08.27 - 20:09:01GMT -
> >
> > The ref doesn't change if your IP changes. Or rather it does change but
> > is still compatible, even toad and ian aren't that insane... You could
> > also use a dyndns name or something similiar. I currently run 0.5 and 0.7
> > at the same time, 0.7 doesn't use much bandwidth anyway. (You can't get
> > it to use more then 10 - 30kb/s) Sadly its also not usable for anything
> > except freesites and textmessages up to now because of the ridiculous
> > insert speed. (like 10MB/day). I really wonder if this insert speed is by
> > purpose because it manages to keep all kind of movies, mp3s, warez, porn
> > and so on out of 0.7, which happens to be the stuff toad doesn't like.
> > (btw: Porn is sin as far as

Re: [freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-23 Thread nobody 
This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
Project Geonosis mixminion server at geonosis.winstonsmith.info. If
you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact pbox-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] For information about anonymity, see
https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or
https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.

-BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
Message-type: plaintext

In [EMAIL PROTECTED] toad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 02:10:57PM +0100, Volodya wrote:
 Lars Juel Nielsen wrote:
  On 9/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
  Message-type: plaintext
 
  I read this on frost recently.  How is this best addressed?
 
  - - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2006.08.29 -
  05:47:35GMT -
 
  Someone brought up the point in the boards board that your peers (e.g.
  'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are requesting and inserting. I
  responded that this may be an avenue of attack against dark-net since
  if something 'naughty' is being requested then your peers will know it
  is either coming from you or one of your friend nodes. In either case
  thats bad news if you have something contraversial or 'naughty' to say
  - your 'friends' on the darknet could ask you to sever your connection
  with the node that's doing the naughty requesting, or demand to know
  which node is doing it of yours and try to track it themselves.
 
  I'll be posting this attack message on the devl and tech mailing lists
  soon. If you have any points to make then do it here, and I'll
  incorporate it into my post (this will be like a draft then).
  
  Premix routing, planned for 0.8.
 
 Yep, unfortunately anything short of premix will be a hack and not solve the 
 problem.

Maybe. There are a few hacks that would give *some* plausible
deniability... Well, you have some plausible deniability *now*, but
nothing that would stand up to a statistical attack...

So essentially, if I'm looking for anonymity that can stand up to a serious 
attacker
that has access to anything 2.5 billion dollars can buy, then I'd be better off 
using
0.5 for now insted of 0.7.

Thank you for making that clear.  I have large (2 to 20gb) files to distribute 
(no, they're not cp), that I must have very good plausible deniability and be 
able to stand up to at least a statistical attack like you're talking about.

BTW- I read in a msg on Frost that 0.7 is speed limited to 10mb per day to make 
it more difficult for people to insert large, possibly copyrighted or cp 
binaries.  Is this
for real or does that poster not know what they're talking about?

If for example only, I start an 0.7 node and begin to insert warez and cp, am I
anonymous enough even from my peers to be safe or will the feds come knocking
my door down?

[remembering that free speech includes allowing stuff you abhor as well as
what you agree with.]

 
 - Anonymous - 2006.08.27 - 20:09:01GMT -
 
 The ref doesn't change if your IP changes. Or rather it does change but is 
 still compatible, even toad and ian aren't that insane... You could also use 
 a dyndns name or something similiar.
 I currently run 0.5 and 0.7 at the same time, 0.7 doesn't use much bandwidth 
 anyway. (You can't get it to use more then 10 - 30kb/s) Sadly its also not 
 usable for anything except freesites and textmessages up to now because of 
 the ridiculous insert speed. (like 10MB/day). I really wonder if this insert 
 speed is by purpose because it manages to keep all kind of movies, mp3s, 
 warez, porn and so on out of 0.7, which happens to be the stuff toad doesn't 
 like. 
 (btw: Porn is sin as far as he is concerned, as is sex outside of marriage. I 
 never imagined that toad is a christian nutcase... If anyone is interested I 
 could poste the discussion in the privacy and religion boards on 0.7 in which 
 toad parcipated. His believes are somewhat interesting.) 
 And he never cared about filesharing and hates the pedo stuff anyway. Which 
 leaves the small stuff like freesite, images and books... (If you want a good 
 laugh look for some guy who is posting 25MB chunks of a movie for over one 
 month. He got to 26 or something like that up to now...) Anyway, pushing for 
 opennet doesn't really make sense up to now because 0.7 isn't really usable 
 anyway.

-END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-23 Thread toad 
The 10MB limit is nonsense; there is no such code.

And correlation attacks are feasible on 0.5 as well as on 0.7. It's a
bit more complex on 0.5, but I'm not sure that it requires any more
effort. And on 0.7 you get to choose your peers; on 0.5 a clever peer
can choose you (possibly as part of a network-wide campaign to connect
to everyone in order to monitor everyone).

0.7 does have some security issues certainly, but overall I'm not sure
that 0.5 is any better. Anyway, read the security page on the wiki.

On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 06:50:26PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
 Project Geonosis mixminion server at geonosis.winstonsmith.info. If
 you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact pbox-
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For information about anonymity, see
 https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or
 https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.
 
 -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
 Message-type: plaintext
 
 In [EMAIL PROTECTED] toad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 02:10:57PM +0100, Volodya wrote:
  Lars Juel Nielsen wrote:
   On 9/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
   Message-type: plaintext
  
   I read this on frost recently.  How is this best addressed?
  
   - - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2006.08.29 -
   05:47:35GMT -
  
   Someone brought up the point in the boards board that your peers (e.g.
   'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are requesting and inserting. I
   responded that this may be an avenue of attack against dark-net since
   if something 'naughty' is being requested then your peers will know it
   is either coming from you or one of your friend nodes. In either case
   thats bad news if you have something contraversial or 'naughty' to say
   - your 'friends' on the darknet could ask you to sever your connection
   with the node that's doing the naughty requesting, or demand to know
   which node is doing it of yours and try to track it themselves.
  
   I'll be posting this attack message on the devl and tech mailing lists
   soon. If you have any points to make then do it here, and I'll
   incorporate it into my post (this will be like a draft then).
   
   Premix routing, planned for 0.8.
  
  Yep, unfortunately anything short of premix will be a hack and not solve 
  the problem.
 
 Maybe. There are a few hacks that would give *some* plausible
 deniability... Well, you have some plausible deniability *now*, but
 nothing that would stand up to a statistical attack...
 
 So essentially, if I'm looking for anonymity that can stand up to a serious 
 attacker
 that has access to anything 2.5 billion dollars can buy, then I'd be better 
 off using
 0.5 for now insted of 0.7.
 
 Thank you for making that clear.  I have large (2 to 20gb) files to 
 distribute (no, they're not cp), that I must have very good plausible 
 deniability and be able to stand up to at least a statistical attack like 
 you're talking about.
 
 BTW- I read in a msg on Frost that 0.7 is speed limited to 10mb per day to 
 make it more difficult for people to insert large, possibly copyrighted or cp 
 binaries.  Is this
 for real or does that poster not know what they're talking about?
 
 If for example only, I start an 0.7 node and begin to insert warez and cp, am 
 I
 anonymous enough even from my peers to be safe or will the feds come knocking
 my door down?
 
 [remembering that free speech includes allowing stuff you abhor as well as
 what you agree with.]
 
  
  - Anonymous - 2006.08.27 - 20:09:01GMT -
  
  The ref doesn't change if your IP changes. Or rather it does change but is 
  still compatible, even toad and ian aren't that insane... You could also 
  use a dyndns name or something similiar.
  I currently run 0.5 and 0.7 at the same time, 0.7 doesn't use much 
  bandwidth anyway. (You can't get it to use more then 10 - 30kb/s) Sadly its 
  also not usable for anything except freesites and textmessages up to now 
  because of the ridiculous insert speed. (like 10MB/day). I really wonder if 
  this insert speed is by purpose because it manages to keep all kind of 
  movies, mp3s, warez, porn and so on out of 0.7, which happens to be the 
  stuff toad doesn't like. 
  (btw: Porn is sin as far as he is concerned, as is sex outside of marriage. 
  I never imagined that toad is a christian nutcase... If anyone is 
  interested I could poste the discussion in the privacy and religion boards 
  on 0.7 in which toad parcipated. His believes are somewhat interesting.) 
  And he never cared about filesharing and hates the pedo stuff anyway. Which 
  leaves the small stuff like freesite, images and books... (If you want a 
  good laugh look for some guy who is posting 25MB chunks of a movie for over 
  one month. He got to 26 or something like that up to now...) Anyway, 
  pushing for opennet doesn't really make sense up to now because 0.7 isn't 
  really

Re: [freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-23 Thread an ominous cow herd 
On Saturday 23 September 2006 09:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
 Project Geonosis mixminion server at geonosis.winstonsmith.info. If
 you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact pbox-
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For information about anonymity, see
 https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or
 https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.

 -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
 Message-type: plaintext

 In [EMAIL PROTECTED] toad 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 02:10:57PM +0100, Volodya wrote:
  Lars Juel Nielsen wrote:
   On 9/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
   Message-type: plaintext
  
   I read this on frost recently.  How is this best addressed?
  
   - - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2006.08.29 -
   05:47:35GMT -
  
   Someone brought up the point in the boards board that your peers
   (e.g. 'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are requesting and
   inserting. I responded that this may be an avenue of attack against
   dark-net since if something 'naughty' is being requested then your
   peers will know it is either coming from you or one of your friend
   nodes. In either case thats bad news if you have something
   contraversial or 'naughty' to say - your 'friends' on the darknet
   could ask you to sever your connection with the node that's doing the
   naughty requesting, or demand to know which node is doing it of yours
   and try to track it themselves.
  
   I'll be posting this attack message on the devl and tech mailing
   lists soon. If you have any points to make then do it here, and I'll
   incorporate it into my post (this will be like a draft then).
  
   Premix routing, planned for 0.8.
 
  Yep, unfortunately anything short of premix will be a hack and not solve
  the problem.
 
 Maybe. There are a few hacks that would give *some* plausible
 deniability... Well, you have some plausible deniability *now*, but
 nothing that would stand up to a statistical attack...

 So essentially, if I'm looking for anonymity that can stand up to a serious
 attacker that has access to anything 2.5 billion dollars can buy, then I'd
 be better off using 0.5 for now insted of 0.7.

 Thank you for making that clear.  I have large (2 to 20gb) files to
 distribute (no, they're not cp), that I must have very good plausible
 deniability and be able to stand up to at least a statistical attack like
 you're talking about.

 BTW- I read in a msg on Frost that 0.7 is speed limited to 10mb per day to
 make it more difficult for people to insert large, possibly copyrighted or
 cp binaries.  Is this for real or does that poster not know what they're
 talking about?

 If for example only, I start an 0.7 node and begin to insert warez and cp,
 am I anonymous enough even from my peers to be safe or will the feds come
 knocking my door down?

 [remembering that free speech includes allowing stuff you abhor as well as
 what you agree with.]

I find it funny that all of these 0.7 users are saying that the 0.7 network is 
better and more secure than the 0.5 network.  They say this even while we see 
these warnings about critical bug fixes, peers in the 0.7 network being able 
to monitor what comes from your node, and the IRC channels where people trade 
references could have cops monitoring or actively trading these references.  
Now you mention that there is a cap on bandwidth.  WTF?  

This is why I'm staying with the 0.5 network until either 0.7 becomes useful, 
or another anonymous network (ANts  http://antsp2p.sourceforge.net/) 
surpasses the 0.5 network in usability, popularity, and security.

It would be sad to see Freenet become just a footnote in the computer 
chronicles while other anonymous networks become more popular and Freenet 
loses it's user base.  Maybe some Chinese Christian dissident will use it to 
speak freely, but it won't matter much if there is no one to listen.


  - Anonymous - 2006.08.27 - 20:09:01GMT -
 
  The ref doesn't change if your IP changes. Or rather it does change but
  is still compatible, even toad and ian aren't that insane... You could
  also use a dyndns name or something similiar. I currently run 0.5 and 0.7
  at the same time, 0.7 doesn't use much bandwidth anyway. (You can't get
  it to use more then 10 - 30kb/s) Sadly its also not usable for anything
  except freesites and textmessages up to now because of the ridiculous
  insert speed. (like 10MB/day). I really wonder if this insert speed is by
  purpose because it manages to keep all kind of movies, mp3s, warez, porn
  and so on out of 0.7, which happens to be the stuff toad doesn't like.
  (btw: Porn is sin as far as he is concerned, as is sex outside of
  marriage. I never imagined that toad is a christian nutcase... If anyone
  is interested I could poste the discussion in the privacy and religion
  boards on 0.7 in which toad parcipated. His believes are

All this nonsense against 0.7 was Re: [freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-23 Thread toad 
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 10:45:57AM -0700, an ominous cow herd wrote:
 I find it funny that all of these 0.7 users are saying that the 0.7 network 
 is 
 better and more secure than the 0.5 network.  They say this even while we see 
 these warnings about critical bug fixes, peers in the 0.7 network being able 
 to monitor what comes from your node, and the IRC channels where people trade 
 references could have cops monitoring or actively trading these references.  
 Now you mention that there is a cap on bandwidth.  WTF?  
 
 This is why I'm staying with the 0.5 network until either 0.7 becomes useful, 
 or another anonymous network (ANts  http://antsp2p.sourceforge.net/) 
 surpasses the 0.5 network in usability, popularity, and security.
 
 It would be sad to see Freenet become just a footnote in the computer 
 chronicles while other anonymous networks become more popular and Freenet 
 loses it's user base.  Maybe some Chinese Christian dissident will use it to 
 speak freely, but it won't matter much if there is no one to listen.

I'm half inclined to believe that there's a deliberate propaganda campaign
against Freenet 0.7...

Here's what I said on the tech list:
---
The 10MB limit is nonsense; there is no such code.

And correlation attacks are feasible on 0.5 as well as on 0.7. It's a
bit more complex on 0.5, but I'm not sure that it requires any more
effort. And on 0.7 you get to choose your peers; on 0.5 a clever peer
can choose you (possibly as part of a network-wide campaign to connect
to everyone in order to monitor everyone).

0.7 does have some security issues certainly, but overall I'm not sure
that 0.5 is any better. Anyway, read the security page on the wiki.
---

For anyone listening who can't be bothered to look up the security page
on the wiki, here it is:
http://wiki.freenetproject.org/FreenetZeroPointSevenSecurity

The short version:
- Correlation attacks are possible on both 0.5 and 0.7. They may be
  easier on 0.7 due to it having better (therefore more predictable)
  routing, but 0.5's routing is pretty predictable, as it just goes by
  load most of the time. Also due to Freenet 0.7 having smaller keys.
- Freenet 0.7 has one major, obvious weakness right now which is that
  its connection setup isn't secure against MITM or impersonation when
  the attacker knows the refs of both sides. Nextgens started to work on
  this, but STS (the solution) isn't quite ready yet.
- On 0.5, or indeed on any opennet, such as the one we will soon
  implement for 0.7, or the bogus one we have at present using
  #freenet-refs etc, a whole range of attacks are much easier. In
  particular, harvest-and-block is the best known attack. But content
  tracing is easier on opennet too, because all you have to do is
  connect to everyone and do correlation attacks on everyone (requires
  an ubernode). Or connect to one node at a time and likewise. You are
  vulnerable on darknet or on opennet - but on darknet you get to choose
  who you are vulnerable to. If you suspect a particular subnetwork,
  just connect to all the nodes on that network and do correlation
  attacks on them. Etc etc.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-23 Thread Lars Juel Nielsen 

On 9/23/06, an ominous cow herd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Saturday 23 September 2006 09:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
 Project Geonosis mixminion server at geonosis.winstonsmith.info. If
 you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact pbox-
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For information about anonymity, see
 https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or
 https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.

 -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
 Message-type: plaintext

 In [EMAIL PROTECTED] toad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 02:10:57PM +0100, Volodya wrote:
  Lars Juel Nielsen wrote:
   On 9/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
   Message-type: plaintext
  
   I read this on frost recently.  How is this best addressed?
  
   - - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2006.08.29 -
   05:47:35GMT -
  
   Someone brought up the point in the boards board that your peers
   (e.g. 'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are requesting and
   inserting. I responded that this may be an avenue of attack against
   dark-net since if something 'naughty' is being requested then your
   peers will know it is either coming from you or one of your friend
   nodes. In either case thats bad news if you have something
   contraversial or 'naughty' to say - your 'friends' on the darknet
   could ask you to sever your connection with the node that's doing the
   naughty requesting, or demand to know which node is doing it of yours
   and try to track it themselves.
  
   I'll be posting this attack message on the devl and tech mailing
   lists soon. If you have any points to make then do it here, and I'll
   incorporate it into my post (this will be like a draft then).
  
   Premix routing, planned for 0.8.
 
  Yep, unfortunately anything short of premix will be a hack and not solve
  the problem.
 
 Maybe. There are a few hacks that would give *some* plausible
 deniability... Well, you have some plausible deniability *now*, but
 nothing that would stand up to a statistical attack...

 So essentially, if I'm looking for anonymity that can stand up to a serious
 attacker that has access to anything 2.5 billion dollars can buy, then I'd
 be better off using 0.5 for now insted of 0.7.

 Thank you for making that clear.  I have large (2 to 20gb) files to
 distribute (no, they're not cp), that I must have very good plausible
 deniability and be able to stand up to at least a statistical attack like
 you're talking about.

 BTW- I read in a msg on Frost that 0.7 is speed limited to 10mb per day to
 make it more difficult for people to insert large, possibly copyrighted or
 cp binaries.  Is this for real or does that poster not know what they're
 talking about?

 If for example only, I start an 0.7 node and begin to insert warez and cp,
 am I anonymous enough even from my peers to be safe or will the feds come
 knocking my door down?

 [remembering that free speech includes allowing stuff you abhor as well as
 what you agree with.]

I find it funny that all of these 0.7 users are saying that the 0.7 network is
better and more secure than the 0.5 network.  They say this even while we see
these warnings about critical bug fixes, peers in the 0.7 network being able
to monitor what comes from your node, and the IRC channels where people trade
references could have cops monitoring or actively trading these references.
Now you mention that there is a cap on bandwidth.  WTF?


0.5 got pretty much the same security problems as 0.7 do and there is
no cap on bandwidth, toad denied it in the a reply to the mail you
replied to and I can confirm it as an user too, it may be slow but
it's faster than 0.5, retain content better and there is no cap that
I've run into yet. There is still work to be done on speeding it up
but the current speed limit(whatever it is) is not intentional.



This is why I'm staying with the 0.5 network until either 0.7 becomes useful,
or another anonymous network (ANts  http://antsp2p.sourceforge.net/)
surpasses the 0.5 network in usability, popularity, and security.

It would be sad to see Freenet become just a footnote in the computer
chronicles while other anonymous networks become more popular and Freenet
loses it's user base.  Maybe some Chinese Christian dissident will use it to
speak freely, but it won't matter much if there is no one to listen.


  - Anonymous - 2006.08.27 - 20:09:01GMT -
 
  The ref doesn't change if your IP changes. Or rather it does change but
  is still compatible, even toad and ian aren't that insane... You could
  also use a dyndns name or something similiar. I currently run 0.5 and 0.7
  at the same time, 0.7 doesn't use much bandwidth anyway. (You can't get
  it to use more then 10 - 30kb/s) Sadly its also not usable for anything
  except freesites and textmessages up to now because of the ridiculous
  insert speed. (like 10MB/day). I really wonder if

Re: [freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-23 Thread Isaac Karjala 


--- an ominous cow herd
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Saturday 23 September 2006 09:50,
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you
 by the Winston Smith
  Project Geonosis mixminion server at
 geonosis.winstonsmith.info. If
  you do not want to receive anonymous messages,
 please contact pbox-
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] For information about
 anonymity, see
  https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or
  https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.
 
  -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
  Message-type: plaintext
 
  In [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 toad 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 02:10:57PM +0100, Volodya
 wrote:
   Lars Juel Nielsen wrote:
On 9/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
Message-type: plaintext
   
I read this on frost recently.  How is this
 best addressed?
   
- - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 - 2006.08.29 -
05:47:35GMT -
   
Someone brought up the point in the boards
 board that your peers
(e.g. 'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are
 requesting and
inserting. I responded that this may be an
 avenue of attack against
dark-net since if something 'naughty' is
 being requested then your
peers will know it is either coming from you
 or one of your friend
nodes. In either case thats bad news if you
 have something
contraversial or 'naughty' to say - your
 'friends' on the darknet
could ask you to sever your connection with
 the node that's doing the
naughty requesting, or demand to know which
 node is doing it of yours
and try to track it themselves.
   
I'll be posting this attack message on the
 devl and tech mailing
lists soon. If you have any points to make
 then do it here, and I'll
incorporate it into my post (this will be
 like a draft then).
   
Premix routing, planned for 0.8.
  
   Yep, unfortunately anything short of premix
 will be a hack and not solve
   the problem.
  
  Maybe. There are a few hacks that would give
 *some* plausible
  deniability... Well, you have some plausible
 deniability *now*, but
  nothing that would stand up to a statistical
 attack...
 
  So essentially, if I'm looking for anonymity that
 can stand up to a serious
  attacker that has access to anything 2.5 billion
 dollars can buy, then I'd
  be better off using 0.5 for now insted of 0.7.
 
  Thank you for making that clear.  I have large (2
 to 20gb) files to
  distribute (no, they're not cp), that I must have
 very good plausible
  deniability and be able to stand up to at least a
 statistical attack like
  you're talking about.
 
  BTW- I read in a msg on Frost that 0.7 is speed
 limited to 10mb per day to
  make it more difficult for people to insert large,
 possibly copyrighted or
  cp binaries.  Is this for real or does that poster
 not know what they're
  talking about?
 
  If for example only, I start an 0.7 node and begin
 to insert warez and cp,
  am I anonymous enough even from my peers to be
 safe or will the feds come
  knocking my door down?
 
  [remembering that free speech includes allowing
 stuff you abhor as well as
  what you agree with.]
 
 I find it funny that all of these 0.7 users are
 saying that the 0.7 network is 
 better and more secure than the 0.5 network.  They
 say this even while we see 
 these warnings about critical bug fixes, peers in
 the 0.7 network being able 
 to monitor what comes from your node, and the IRC
 channels where people trade 
 references could have cops monitoring or actively
 trading these references.  
 Now you mention that there is a cap on bandwidth. 
 WTF?  
 
 This is why I'm staying with the 0.5 network until
 either 0.7 becomes useful, 
 or another anonymous network (ANts 
 http://antsp2p.sourceforge.net/) 
 surpasses the 0.5 network in usability, popularity,
 and security.
 
 It would be sad to see Freenet become just a
 footnote in the computer 
 chronicles while other anonymous networks become
 more popular and Freenet 
 loses it's user base.  Maybe some Chinese Christian
 dissident will use it to 
 speak freely, but it won't matter much if there is
 no one to listen.
 

and what's the plus'es of AntsP2P over Mute-Net?...

 
   - Anonymous - 2006.08.27 - 20:09:01GMT
 -
  
   The ref doesn't change if your IP changes. Or
 rather it does change but
   is still compatible, even toad and ian aren't
 that insane... You could
   also use a dyndns name or something similiar. I
 currently run 0.5 and 0.7
   at the same time, 0.7 doesn't use much bandwidth
 anyway. (You can't get
   it to use more then 10 - 30kb/s) Sadly its also
 not usable for anything
   except freesites and textmessages up to now
 because of the ridiculous
   insert speed. (like 10MB/day). I really wonder
 if this insert speed is by
   purpose because it manages to keep all kind of
 movies, mp3s, warez, porn
   and so on out of 0.7, which happens to be the
 stuff toad doesn't like.
   (btw: Porn is

[freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-19 Thread toad 
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 02:10:57PM +0100, Volodya wrote:
> Lars Juel Nielsen wrote:
> > On 9/11/06, anon-bounces at deuxpi.ca  wrote:
> >> -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
> >> Message-type: plaintext
> >>
> >> I read this on frost recently.  How is this best addressed?
> >>
> >> - - Scruple at rJvWGdrEj1YOqt_TMc7Wyl01t2Q - 2006.08.29 -
> >> 05:47:35GMT -
> >>
> >> Someone brought up the point in the boards board that your peers (e.g.
> >> 'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are requesting and inserting. I
> >> responded that this may be an avenue of attack against dark-net since
> >> if something 'naughty' is being requested then your peers will know it
> >> is either coming from you or one of your friend nodes. In either case
> >> thats bad news if you have something contraversial or 'naughty' to say
> >> - your 'friends' on the darknet could ask you to sever your connection
> >> with the node that's doing the naughty requesting, or demand to know
> >> which node is doing it of yours and try to track it themselves.
> >>
> >> I'll be posting this attack message on the devl and tech mailing lists
> >> soon. If you have any points to make then do it here, and I'll
> >> incorporate it into my post (this will be like a draft then).
> > 
> > Premix routing, planned for 0.8.
> 
> Yep, unfortunately anything short of premix will be a hack and not solve the 
> problem.

Maybe. There are a few hacks that would give *some* plausible
deniability... Well, you have some plausible deniability *now*, but
nothing that would stand up to a statistical attack...
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:

[freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-18 Thread Lars Juel Nielsen 
On 9/11/06, anon-bounces at deuxpi.ca  wrote:
> This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion
> server at deuxpi.ca.  If you do not want to receive anonymous
> messages, please contact deuxpi-admin at deuxpi.ca.  For more information
> about anonymity, see http://mixminion.net.
>
> -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
> Message-type: plaintext
>
> I read this on frost recently.  How is this best addressed?
>
> - - Scruple at rJvWGdrEj1YOqt_TMc7Wyl01t2Q - 2006.08.29 - 05:47:35GMT 
> -
>
> Someone brought up the point in the boards board that your peers (e.g. 
> 'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are requesting and inserting. I responded 
> that this may be an avenue of attack against dark-net since if something 
> 'naughty' is being requested then your peers will know it is either coming 
> from you or one of your friend nodes. In either case thats bad news if you 
> have something contraversial or 'naughty' to say - your 'friends' on the 
> darknet could ask you to sever your connection with the node that's doing the 
> naughty requesting, or demand to know which node is doing it of yours and try 
> to track it themselves.
>
> I'll be posting this attack message on the devl and tech mailing lists soon. 
> If you have any points to make then do it here, and I'll incorporate it into 
> my post (this will be like a draft then).

Premix routing, planned for 0.8.

>
> Scruple
>
>
> -END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
> ___
> Support mailing list
> Support at freenetproject.org
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
> Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
> Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
>

[freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-18 Thread Volodya 
Lars Juel Nielsen wrote:
> On 9/11/06, anon-bounces at deuxpi.ca  wrote:
>> This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion
>> server at deuxpi.ca.  If you do not want to receive anonymous
>> messages, please contact deuxpi-admin at deuxpi.ca.  For more information
>> about anonymity, see http://mixminion.net.
>>
>> -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
>> Message-type: plaintext
>>
>> I read this on frost recently.  How is this best addressed?
>>
>> - - Scruple at rJvWGdrEj1YOqt_TMc7Wyl01t2Q - 2006.08.29 -
>> 05:47:35GMT -
>>
>> Someone brought up the point in the boards board that your peers (e.g.
>> 'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are requesting and inserting. I
>> responded that this may be an avenue of attack against dark-net since
>> if something 'naughty' is being requested then your peers will know it
>> is either coming from you or one of your friend nodes. In either case
>> thats bad news if you have something contraversial or 'naughty' to say
>> - your 'friends' on the darknet could ask you to sever your connection
>> with the node that's doing the naughty requesting, or demand to know
>> which node is doing it of yours and try to track it themselves.
>>
>> I'll be posting this attack message on the devl and tech mailing lists
>> soon. If you have any points to make then do it here, and I'll
>> incorporate it into my post (this will be like a draft then).
> 
> Premix routing, planned for 0.8.

Yep, unfortunately anything short of premix will be a hack and not solve the 
problem.

-- 
http://freedom.libsyn.com/   Voice of Freedom, Radical Podcast
http://freeselfdefence.info/ Self-defence wiki

"None of us are free until all of us are free."
 ~ Mihail Bakunin

[freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-18 Thread anon-bounces 
This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion
server at deuxpi.ca.  If you do not want to receive anonymous
messages, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]  For more information
about anonymity, see http://mixminion.net.

-BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
Message-type: plaintext

I read this on frost recently.  How is this best addressed?

- - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2006.08.29 - 05:47:35GMT -

Someone brought up the point in the boards board that your peers (e.g. 
'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are requesting and inserting. I responded 
that this may be an avenue of attack against dark-net since if something 
'naughty' is being requested then your peers will know it is either coming from 
you or one of your friend nodes. In either case thats bad news if you have 
something contraversial or 'naughty' to say - your 'friends' on the darknet 
could ask you to sever your connection with the node that's doing the naughty 
requesting, or demand to know which node is doing it of yours and try to track 
it themselves.

I'll be posting this attack message on the devl and tech mailing lists soon. If 
you have any points to make then do it here, and I'll incorporate it into my 
post (this will be like a draft then).

Scruple


-END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-18 Thread Lars Juel Nielsen 

On 9/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion
server at deuxpi.ca.  If you do not want to receive anonymous
messages, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]  For more information
about anonymity, see http://mixminion.net.

-BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
Message-type: plaintext

I read this on frost recently.  How is this best addressed?

- - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2006.08.29 - 05:47:35GMT -

Someone brought up the point in the boards board that your peers (e.g. 
'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are requesting and inserting. I responded 
that this may be an avenue of attack against dark-net since if something 
'naughty' is being requested then your peers will know it is either coming from 
you or one of your friend nodes. In either case thats bad news if you have 
something contraversial or 'naughty' to say - your 'friends' on the darknet 
could ask you to sever your connection with the node that's doing the naughty 
requesting, or demand to know which node is doing it of yours and try to track 
it themselves.

I'll be posting this attack message on the devl and tech mailing lists soon. If 
you have any points to make then do it here, and I'll incorporate it into my 
post (this will be like a draft then).


Premix routing, planned for 0.8.



Scruple


-END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-18 Thread Volodya 
Lars Juel Nielsen wrote:
 On 9/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion
 server at deuxpi.ca.  If you do not want to receive anonymous
 messages, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]  For more information
 about anonymity, see http://mixminion.net.

 -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
 Message-type: plaintext

 I read this on frost recently.  How is this best addressed?

 - - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2006.08.29 -
 05:47:35GMT -

 Someone brought up the point in the boards board that your peers (e.g.
 'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are requesting and inserting. I
 responded that this may be an avenue of attack against dark-net since
 if something 'naughty' is being requested then your peers will know it
 is either coming from you or one of your friend nodes. In either case
 thats bad news if you have something contraversial or 'naughty' to say
 - your 'friends' on the darknet could ask you to sever your connection
 with the node that's doing the naughty requesting, or demand to know
 which node is doing it of yours and try to track it themselves.

 I'll be posting this attack message on the devl and tech mailing lists
 soon. If you have any points to make then do it here, and I'll
 incorporate it into my post (this will be like a draft then).
 
 Premix routing, planned for 0.8.

Yep, unfortunately anything short of premix will be a hack and not solve the 
problem.

-- 
http://freedom.libsyn.com/   Voice of Freedom, Radical Podcast
http://freeselfdefence.info/ Self-defence wiki

None of us are free until all of us are free.
 ~ Mihail Bakunin
___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-18 Thread toad 
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 02:10:57PM +0100, Volodya wrote:
 Lars Juel Nielsen wrote:
  On 9/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  -BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
  Message-type: plaintext
 
  I read this on frost recently.  How is this best addressed?
 
  - - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2006.08.29 -
  05:47:35GMT -
 
  Someone brought up the point in the boards board that your peers (e.g.
  'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are requesting and inserting. I
  responded that this may be an avenue of attack against dark-net since
  if something 'naughty' is being requested then your peers will know it
  is either coming from you or one of your friend nodes. In either case
  thats bad news if you have something contraversial or 'naughty' to say
  - your 'friends' on the darknet could ask you to sever your connection
  with the node that's doing the naughty requesting, or demand to know
  which node is doing it of yours and try to track it themselves.
 
  I'll be posting this attack message on the devl and tech mailing lists
  soon. If you have any points to make then do it here, and I'll
  incorporate it into my post (this will be like a draft then).
  
  Premix routing, planned for 0.8.
 
 Yep, unfortunately anything short of premix will be a hack and not solve the 
 problem.

Maybe. There are a few hacks that would give *some* plausible
deniability... Well, you have some plausible deniability *now*, but
nothing that would stand up to a statistical attack...


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[freenet-support] 0.7 Censorship attack

2006-09-11 Thread anon-boun...@deuxpi.ca 
This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion
server at deuxpi.ca.  If you do not want to receive anonymous
messages, please contact deuxpi-admin at deuxpi.ca.  For more information
about anonymity, see http://mixminion.net.

-BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
Message-type: plaintext

I read this on frost recently.  How is this best addressed?

- - Scruple at rJvWGdrEj1YOqt_TMc7Wyl01t2Q - 2006.08.29 - 05:47:35GMT 
-

Someone brought up the point in the boards board that your peers (e.g. 
'friends' on 0.7) can see what you are requesting and inserting. I responded 
that this may be an avenue of attack against dark-net since if something 
'naughty' is being requested then your peers will know it is either coming from 
you or one of your friend nodes. In either case thats bad news if you have 
something contraversial or 'naughty' to say - your 'friends' on the darknet 
could ask you to sever your connection with the node that's doing the naughty 
requesting, or demand to know which node is doing it of yours and try to track 
it themselves.

I'll be posting this attack message on the devl and tech mailing lists soon. If 
you have any points to make then do it here, and I'll incorporate it into my 
post (this will be like a draft then).

Scruple


-END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-