On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:13:25PM +0000, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote:
> > * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2007-02-11 00:50:31]:
> >> http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1843/3
> 
> Nasty - see also
> http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~tkarag/papers/BLINC.pdf
> 
> > We are safe from that when using darknet ;)
> 
> Right, we just look like someone holding ten simultaneous 72-hour Skype 
> conversations. ;-)
> 
> > According to the end of the article, they plan to use size of packets to
> > identify the p2p traffic as well ... We are immune to that too as we do
> > use random size padding, aren't we ?
> 
> Only if everyone else uses random padding with the same statistical 
> distribution...

Well, that sort of stats put the cost up significantly, no? What's easy
is what can be done with basic protocol, time started, time ended, data
transferred, source, destination info, right?
> 
> There seems to be two approaches we could take:
> 1) Standardising approach: try to persuade a wide range of P2P and VoIP 
> projects to use the same encrypted UDP protocol. Lots of effort and 
> unlikely to succeed, but if it works we can hide among a large amount of 
> traffic, some of which will be politically awkward to block.

Which is precisely why it's not likely to succeed. Most VOIP isn't even
encrypted.

> 2) Guerrilla approach: keep writing new transport plugins and try to 
> stay ahead of the filters. The problem is that you know when you've been 
> filtered, but you don't know when you've been logged.

Yeah, not knowing your enemy is a problem. A bigger problem is that
wrapping our data in stego transports is irrelevant if they can easily
identify "either this is a freenet node or it's 10 simultaneous
permanent skype conversations".
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: 
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20070214/be80e667/attachment.pgp>

Reply via email to