On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 01:23:25PM +0200, Some Guy wrote: > > Succeed? I'm assuming that means we have the key in our DS? Wouldn't that > > make it possible to probe a node's DS if we force it to overload? > No the idea but it will let another node learn its specialization, which isn't the > same thing. > You'll learn of broad areas of hash space not single keys. If a single request gets answered even though an overload is happening (detectable remotely), that answers something about the presence of that specific key, not about broad areas.
> To probe someone's datastore for a particular key, the attack will be to just send > him a request > with HTL 1. I think you can defend against this some, if you probabalistically > extend the HTL. We currently propagate FNP HTL 1 requests with a small probability. It's not as good as a purely probabilistic HTL implementation*, but more efficient and it will do for the time being. * I still hope one day the network will become healthy enough to allow requests to be terminated only by loops occuring, which would be a wonderful thing. > Genenerally though what's in your datastore isn't supposed to be 100% encriminating, > though with > some statistics it might be. It's never 100% incriminating, but especially with keys associated to eachother (in the most extreme case, splitfile parts), it gets damn close. As far as I'm aware one of the intentions has always been to not allow remote datastore probing anyway. -- Frank v Waveren Fingerprint: 21A7 C7F3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]|stack.nl|dse.nl] ICQ#10074100 1FF3 47FF 545C CB53 Public key: hkp://wwwkeys.pgp.net/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 7BD9 09C0 3AC1 6DF2 _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
