----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Hawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [Tech] freenet not suited for sharing large data
>>Hmm.. what I was trying to say was that if they don't know the IP of >>the central point it can't be attacked. And the protocol should be >>desiged so that they DON'T know the IP. Thus it is not vulnerable >>for attack. >>And as I said earlier in the PDF I linked to, I have sketched how >>this could be achieved. >Someone, eventually, has to know the IP. If that is compromised, your >entire network can be shutdown. Being less paranoid, what happens if >the machine crashes, or needs to be upgraded? Again, down goes the >entire network. Yes, the admin will be connect to two nodes, but those nodes have no way to tell that that specific node is the admin.. So making the mapping between admin-IP is very hard. Also, you can have several admins that stand ready to take over. >>Well.. I don't know the details of how freeNet works. I just read a >>paper on it some time ago, and then it struck me that it was not >>suited for large data transfers, much like many other protocols I've >>seen. So I've started this thread so that people who want to defend >>freeNet can tell me why I am wrong, OR that I am NOT wrong. >>Besides, YOU seems to agree with me, but apparanlty others don't.. >>:P >I'm not saying Freenet can't handle large files satisfactorily, just >that /isn't what it is designed for/. Therefore, it will make >sacrifices that may slow down file transfer, to ensure it's true goal >is achieved. Naturally, within those limits, Freenet endeavours to be >as fast as possible. Ok.. I see. >>So in what way is freeNet optimised accoring to you? And is it not >>wrong to optimise for other things that large data transfer? >>Won't users get pissed off if their BW is consumed for no good >>reason? >I think this debate comes down to how paranoid you are :P For sure :) >You seem to be arguing, effectively, that Freenet could reduce the >hoops it jumps through to achieve anonymous transfers and still be >secure. Maybe. I'd rather be safe than sorry, however. From what I've >seen of your suggested network, there appears rather too many holes >for me to feel safe. Well, all things are not descibed there.. it's just a sketch. Some things are obvious to ME, like that the admin will kick ppl in certain situations, so I haven't written everything down. But I agree it's not 100% secure. BUT the thing is, that a specific network with my protocol, would only have a small risk of being vulnerable to a specific set of IP-adresses. SO, if the IPs that an attacker can control are not "compatible" with a certain network, there is probably nothing he can do about it, except try with other IP adresses. So if the attacker really wants to attack a specific net and doesn't have the required IPs, he can't do shit. He can't change his position in the networks. Also, he will only be able to break anonymity for ONE user, not many. So I guess this small risk is the price I pay for optimising BW usage. >Naturally, that is a personal decision, however, and no discussion >about network design can change the level of security you or I >require. true. >>>If you want to transfer large files fast, find an FTP server. >>First of all, I'm not looking for anything on a practical level, >>only on a theoretical level. I'm want a protocol with certain >>properties. Why? >>Because I find this stuff very interesting. >I know - I was simply trying to illustrate the point that there are >different protocols for /different purposes/. Freenet can never equal >any file-sharing client for speed of transfer. p2p is designed to >find and transfer files as fast as possible. Freenet is designed to >transfer information as anonymously as possible. >The only question is, is it fast /enough/ ? For me, yes, for you, >apparently, no. :D Well, I haven't tried freeNet for real, only read about it.. so maybe it IS fast enough, I'm not sure. /Gabriel _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
