On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 03:13:13PM -0400, jrandom at i2p.net wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Quite simply, my argument is that most ISPs don't take even the most > > basic cybersecurity precautions (spoofing protection) at the user end. > > Therefore it is reasonable to assume that for them to install > > significant traffic analysis on every user would be quite expensive. > > This assumes that the traffic analysis required is significant. My colo > provider disagrees. > > > My french isn't really good enough to get to grips with that paper; what > > exactly DID they say about traffic flow analysis? It *looks* like they > > said it wasn't feasible except on a very localised level with current > > technology... right? > > Identifying whether the content transmitted is illicit is much harder than > telling whether there is content being transmitted. > > I'll leave it to a geek fluent in french to clarify the paper, though there > were several sections discussing a wide variety of commercially available > tools for various aspects of traffic analysis.
Indeed, and all but one were either signature analysis or content analysis tools. > Monitoring for abnormal > traffic doesn't need to be global - it is sufficient to work at a very > localised level. > > =jr -- 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/20051012/1684420c/attachment.pgp>
