On Friday 14 December 2007 21:02, Julien Cornuwel wrote: > Matthew Toseland a ?crit : > > >> I'm not sure using the words "Insecure" and "Please get some > >> connections" are a good thing. Opennet is not that insecure. > > > > Yes it is. It is very easy to find all nodes. It is relatively easy to surveil > > those nodes that you are connected to and determine what (of big files) is > > local and what is remote. And it is relatively easy to search the entire > > network for the originator of specific content by starting off far from them, > > and using what you know from the locations of those requests that reach you, > > to gradually narrow down the possible authors. > > Maybe my opinion about opennet was a bit too high : I thought it was as > secure as Freenet 0.5. Which, while not being perfect, was quite good.
No it wasn't. Its routing didn't work, so the global searches we've been talking about would be harder, but otoh its routing breakage happened in predictable ways so presumably other attacks would be possible. > > > What about: > > > > Freenet is running in insecure mode: It is (relatively) easy for an attacker > > to find out that you are running a node, connect to it, or even trace your > > requests. You can dramatically improve your security by adding connections to > > people you trust through the Friends page. When you have at least 10 Friends, > > please turn off insecure mode and your node will become invisible to the > > outside world. > > OK for me. -------------- 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/20071215/89e839f4/attachment.pgp>
