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!
>
