On 02/08/2013 08:52 AM, Mel wrote: > Hello, > > The newer versions of Freenet are giving errors that I am not sure are > safe. I have checked some of the archives but could not find the exact > answer. A portion of my wrapper log is below. This is on a Vista 32bit > machine with all updates as far as I can tell. The main questions are > the warning about the wrapper jar and JVM being different, and having > only some level of anonymity. > > Thanks for your help. > > MW > > [snip] > INFO | jvm 1 | 2013/02/05 13:01:42 | WrapperManager: WARNING - The > Wrapper jar file currently in use is version "3.3.1" > INFO | jvm 1 | 2013/02/05 13:01:42 | WrapperManager: while the > version of the Wrapper which launched this JVM is > INFO | jvm 1 | 2013/02/05 13:01:42 | WrapperManager: "3.3.5". > INFO | jvm 1 | 2013/02/05 13:01:42 | WrapperManager: The Wrapper > may appear to work correctly but some features may > INFO | jvm 1 | 2013/02/05 13:01:42 | WrapperManager: not function > correctly. This configuration has not been tested > INFO | jvm 1 | 2013/02/05 13:01:42 | WrapperManager: and is not > supported.
This is a known problem with Freenet's usage of the wrapper. I've lost track of what's holding up an upgrade at this point. > INFO | jvm 1 | 2013/02/05 13:01:49 | Testnet mode DISABLED. You may > have some level of anonymity. :) > INFO | jvm 1 | 2013/02/05 13:01:49 | Note that this version of > Freenet is still a very early alpha, and may well have numerous bugs and > design flaws. > INFO | jvm 1 | 2013/02/05 13:01:49 | In particular: YOU ARE WIDE > OPEN TO YOUR IMMEDIATE PEERS! They can eavesdrop on your requests with > relatively little difficulty at present (correlation attacks etc). This is the part you mention as "only some level of anonymity?" It's an inherent property of the network that if someone malicious is able to directly connect to your node they can get more information than you'd like by virtue of routing a large portion of one's requests. This is why darknet is better than opennet: if you know someone personally they're much less likely to be malicious than some arbitrary person your node automatically connects to as part of opennet. Does that answer your questions? Please let me know if that raises anything unclear or surprising. Steve
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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]?subject=unsubscribe
