On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 07:58:56PM -0600, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > On Monday 03 November 2003 06:16 pm, Toad wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:35:57AM -0600, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > > > Cancer nodes currently pose a serious threat to the network. However > > > stopping them is not simple, especially an anti-specialization attack, as > > > discussed previously. My previously proposed solution would not work, > > > because someone could find a hash that works and then start subtracting > > > values until they find XXX. Toad pointed this out as a problem with SSKs, > > > but it is a problem with CHKs too. > > > > No it isn't, because XXX depends on the hash of the content on a CHK. > > I'll look at the rest of your suggestions later... > > The node that is requesting the data does not know the content of the data > unless it gets it. One could start hashing values until one finds one that
It does however know the hash of the content. XXX is some complex function involving breaking a hash of the routing key, which for a CHK would be the hash of the content, and for an SSK would be something else. > matches the hash they want to route with. Then they start subtracting numbers > from that until they find one who's last few bit match the one they just > found. They use the second number as the the hash and the number they > subtracted as the XXX. Anyway this is a moot point, as my new proposal solves > this problem. Your new proposal looks pretty drastic, and I don't understand the problem you suggest is the main reason for it. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
