On Thursday 14 February 2008 23:43, Michael Rogers wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> "Ultra-lightweight" could actually be a disadvantage here, because if > >> the peers can easily handle that number of requests they won't throttle > >> the attacker. > > > > No, he has to do a real request to get a ULPR subscription. Therefore it is > > subject to all the normal throttling mechanisms. > > But a real request can be, what, 100 bytes? 200? And the attacker only > needs to send 3 per second to each peer.
Hmm, so what you're saying is that if we reject a request because of overload we should NOT remember that peer and offer them the data. Fair point. Fixed in trunk 17940. > > Cheers, > Michael
pgp3bUJ7cEz1L.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
