Author: toad
Date: 2007-06-28 13:42:14 +0000 (Thu, 28 Jun 2007)
New Revision: 13800
Modified:
trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/FailureTable.java
Log:
Fix comments
Modified: trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/FailureTable.java
===================================================================
--- trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/FailureTable.java 2007-06-28 13:37:22 UTC
(rev 13799)
+++ trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/FailureTable.java 2007-06-28 13:42:14 UTC
(rev 13800)
@@ -206,9 +206,13 @@
*
* Attacks:
* - Frost spamming etc: Is it easier to offer data to
our peers rather than inserting it? Will
- * it result in it being propagated further? Probably
not. Propagation to nodes that have asked is
- * worthwhile in general partly because reduced polling
cost enables more secure messaging systems
- * e.g. outbox polling... Not relevant with CHKs.
+ * it result in it being propagated further? The peer
node would then do the request, rather than
+ * this node doing an insert. Is that beneficial?
+ *
+ * Not relevant with CHKs anyway.
+ *
+ * On the plus side, propagation to nodes that have
asked is worthwhile because reduced polling
+ * cost enables more secure messaging systems e.g.
outbox polling...
* - Social engineering: If a key is unpopular, you can
put a different copy of it on different
* nodes. You can then use this to trace the requestor
- identify that he is or isn't on the target.
* You can't do this with a regular insert because it
will often go several nodes even at htl 0.
