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 <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: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060919/06a74ef0/attachment.pgp>
