Within the capabilities of a talented 13 year old with a spare afternoon, in fact.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 11:28:55AM -0400, jrandom at i2p.net wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > However, before going on to build a more clear analysis of the costs > > > necessary to detect such communication, humor me - assuming that cost > > > to attack (2) is less than the cost of (1), do you agree that further > > > improvements upon (1) is immaterial to the practical anonymity of those > > > who require Freenet/dark? > > > Well of course, if it is easy to find all nodes, then there is little > > point in building in heavy anonymity once you're on the network. That > > was the whole motive behind the 0.7 darknet! > > Agreed. > > Just to clarify, "easy" there means both less expensive than attacking > the anonymity techniques of Freenet/dark (aka (1)) and within the > capabilities of an intent attacker. > > Ian - do you concur? > > =jr > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFDS9h3WYfZ3rPnHH0RAiblAKCJcf5ihTNiAKBXBxw2+HaaXzW4GACeNkqL > JuquWAGDSedunoKLOzhHaHY= > =CbSK > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- 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/tech/attachments/20051011/691f0083/attachment.pgp>
