On 8/24/06, urza9814 at gmail.com <urza9814 at gmail.com> wrote: > opennets are only bad in certain circumstances. The USA is not yet one > of them. 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. 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. 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. 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. >
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. -- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. - Voltaire
