Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Monday 24 March 2008 18:06, Michael Rogers wrote: > >> Matthew Toseland wrote: >> > [snip] >>> all space savings from CHK-based splitfiles. This proposal is feasible >>> immediately. >>> >> Two questions: >> 1) How important is saving space compared to anonymity? >> > > A very good question. > If this new method of insertion us optional and the existing "by normal insertion" method is still available to the user, then you could let the network/it's users decide what they need. >> 2) How much space is actually saved by convergent encryption? >> > > As the paper argues, the space savings may not be very large. However there > are special benefits for Freenet e.g. a user may be waiting for a specific > file, regularly rerequesting it; if another user happens to have it, it would > be good if the first user would find it immediately and not have to pick up > the announcement from the second user. Similarly, if a user is able to get > most of a file, but not the last 20%, he may ask for it to be reinserted; it > would be best if the reinsert doesn't result in a completely new key, but > reuses the existing blocks. Obviously a few unusual applications would > benefit greatly from convergent encryption (e.g. daily system snapshotting). > > >> To put it >> another way, how often are large, identical files independently inserted >> by more than one person? I would guess that this is rare, and will >> remain rare as long as it's easy for people to find content - nobody >> will bother inserting a large file if they know it's already available >> on the network. >> > > Hopefully. > >> But using a random key wouldn't defeat the logging attack, so maybe it's >> a moot point. >> > > No. IMHO making an adaptive search as hard as possible is important. > >> Cheers, >> Michael >> >> * Please don't just say "opennet sucks, use darknet" - everyone is using >> opennet and will continue to do so until Freenet reaches critical mass >> (if it ever does), so we need to make opennet secure. >> > > The above attacks are relevant even on darknet, they're just a lot slower and > more expensive. But a sufficiently powerful and motivated attacker might use > them against a darknet. An adaptive search is much much cheaper in both the > case of a large opennet and the case of a small but hard to penetrate > darknet. Connecting to everyone is tempting but expensive even in the latter > case, think East Germany! >
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
