Author: toad Date: 2007-12-11 15:31:32 +0000 (Tue, 11 Dec 2007) New Revision: 16482
Modified: trunk/website/pages/en/faq.php Log: formatting Modified: trunk/website/pages/en/faq.php =================================================================== --- trunk/website/pages/en/faq.php 2007-12-11 15:29:36 UTC (rev 16481) +++ trunk/website/pages/en/faq.php 2007-12-11 15:31:32 UTC (rev 16482) @@ -409,7 +409,6 @@ Short answer: Probably yes.</p> <p>Long answer:</p> <p>Freenet does not offer true anonymity in the way that the <i>Mixmaster</i> - and cypherpunk remailers do. Most of the non-trivial attacks (advanced traffic analysis, compromising any given majority of the nodes, etc.) that these were designed to counter would probably be successful in @@ -425,15 +424,14 @@ <p>The problem is that the only way that you can offer true anonymity is if the client can directly control the routing of data, and thus encrypt it with a series of keys of the nodes it will pass -through (a la Mixmaster). Freenet's +through (a la Mixmaster). Freenet's dynamic routing cannot offer that, +so to attain true anonymity you have to send the message through an +external network of anonymous remailers first (a future SMTP->Freenet +bridge would make this possible). There are also plans for doing +mixmaster-style injection of requests over the "standard" protocol, +however this probably won't be implemented before version 1.0, which +is still some way off.</p> -dynamic routing cannot offer that, so to attain true anonymity you have -to send the message through an external network of anonymous remailers -first (a future SMTP->Freenet bridge would make this possible). -There are also plans for doing mixmaster-style injection of requests -over the "standard" protocol, however this probably won't be implemented -before version 1.0, which is still some way off.</p> - <p><b id="flooding">Is Freenet vulnerable to flooding attacks?</b><br> Short answer: no.</p>
