--- Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:18:14PM +0100, Some Guy wrote: > > --- Martin Stone Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In any case, I think this thread is complete... Toad's premix routing > > > solution (when he's able to get to it) will solve the anonymity problems > > > I raised. > > > > Don't want to reil anyone up but...... > > > > Long term if we implement something like premix routing, we could change the > > underlieing > network > > to some more efficient DHT as long as it was secure against DSA and other > > censorship attacks > > dirrected at the data. > > Yeah, right. It would be as vulnerable to attack as are all DHT based > systems. It would not adapt to changing usage patterns or losing nodes, > it would reduce anonymity and it would generally be a bad thing. And it > is going in over my, and ian's, afaict, dead bodies.
I thought I made it clear in my reply to Ian that I don't mean the academic DHTs. I just mean we can do things to improve resistance to DoS and cancer nodes and performance, without having to worry about objections of "wait that screws up anonymity!!!". > > In the end we'd probably wind up with a two layer network dividing and conquering > > the problem. > > > One layer would take care of requestor/poster annonymity, and the other would take > > care of > safe > > storage. > > > > I see two nice ways they could interact: > > 1) If I build several annoymous tunnels I can send data to the most appropriate > > end node to > > improve routing costs some. > > 2) The DHT's traffic and topology should provide great cover against several > > atacks on the > > anonoymizing layer. > > > > I know this is all very long term, but if we've resigned ourselves to implement > > some premix > > solution, it seems logical to keep this idea in the back of our heads. > > No. Premix routing would be used exclusively on client requests. Not for > other requests. Because we don't want to slow down the system even more. Right, I was never suggesting the DHT-like network use the premix routing. I am suggesting they use the same topology/connections because that will create tons of cover traffic. > And if you want to implement a general purpose TCP anonymization system, > go right ahead. But it'll be very difficult. However, you could > certainly run a DHT on top of it. That link I have you a while back: http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/tarzan/overview.html If you read thier latest paper, it's interesting how related the two problems are. They have too have to create a topology that keeps cancer nodes from encircling a target, so they have to make sure nodes are randomly distributed throughout their net. Sound familiar? If they find nice ways to create random graphs for premix routing, we can use those channels for freenet routing, and the two would both benifit. __________________________________________________________________ Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de Logos und Klingelt�ne f�rs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
