Depends on your threat model. Freenet traffic clearly doesn't look like these without proper stego transport plugins, and the connections between nodes definitely don't look like them, unless what you are imitating is purely peer to peer, in which case you need to look at the other nodes' connections as well and/or the timing. Also, we can't use TCP at the moment.
On Saturday 16 May 2009 23:52:15 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Hi, > > It would be nice, if I could tell freenet to use standard ports for > communication - especially for connections inside a LAN (where the possibility > that an admin is watching all used ports might be a bit higher than on the > internet). > > I'd think it would be useful to just test a list of ports normally used for > communication (ideally encrypted), so that encrypted data wouldn't draw > suspicions (and so we don't need to implement full steganography at once, but > can move towards it). > > Maybe the option could include a list with the note "Only select services you > DON'T want to run!" > > Some ideas, not all encrypted: > > - 2190/UDP TiVoConnect Beacon > - 2593/TCP,UDP RunUO—Ultima Online server > - 3723/TCP,UDP Used by many Battle.net Blizzard games (Diablo II, Warcraft > II, Warcraft III, StarCraft) > - 3724/TCP,UDP World of Warcraft Online gaming MMORPG > - 4000/TCP,UDP Diablo II game > - 6619/TCP,UDP odette-ftps, Odette File Transfer Protocol (OFTP) over TLS/SSL > - 6891–6900/TCP,UDP Windows Live Messenger (File transfer) > - 6901/TCP,UDP Windows Live Messenger (Voice) > - 28910 Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection > > (all information from > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TCP_and_UDP_port_numbers > I'm sure there are more...) > > Is tehre any danger in using known ports? > > Best wishes, > Arne
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
