On 11 Oct 2005, at 16:28, 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?
I am not sure I would say it is "easy", but it is definitely possible - remember Freenet was never designed to prevent third-parties from discovering that you are running a Freenet node (very few anonymity protecting systems have this requirement). We have added this as a requirement in 0.7 hence the move to a darknet approach. Ian.
