On Monday 30 July 2007 22:57, Michael Rogers wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > If we are to include UIDs for our > > peers then we must know them. > > Are peers we've never connected to included in the list of peers used > for swapping? > > Actually, come to think of it, why do swap requests need to include a > long-term node identifier at all? Why not just the node's location and > its peers' locations? (Sorry if I'm missing something obvious.)
They don't, but it makes analysing the network *much* easier e.g. if we cross-reference with probe requests. Having said that, we haven't actually used this data much (unlike probe reqs), so maybe it can go..? > > > What can you do with that? Probably some fun things - but details > > would be nice. > > To be honest I can't think of any specific attacks, but a map of the > network still seems like a useful thing for an attacker to have. Of course. It's also a useful thing for us to have. I believe we discussed this. :) > Removing the routing location from the noderef and making swap > identifiers random would make it harder to map the network - it is worth > making those changes just in case, or is that just my usual paranoia > talking? ;-) Obviously this shouldn't be in the final freenet, but this is useful debugging info. > > Cheers, > Michael -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20070801/229625d6/attachment.pgp>
