> tor.eff.org claims Tor is golden for any TCP traffic Well, try and run ed2k over it.
> > A runtime analysis probably could be promising, > > What do you mean? traffic analysis? *That* is precisely what Tor > was designed to thwart. Depends on what you mean by "traffic". I don't mean the package content itself but seeing how long certain packages take to get from A to B and building a scheme from that. > > Freenet has more issues than Win95, both technically and in how the > > project is run. The old version performs shoddy, the new version performs > > barely better and has serious usability issues plus its easy to breach > > anonymity there by social engineering. See "opennet" vs "darknet" in the > > ongoing 0.7 discussion. Freenet is to perish, my 2 cents. > > I agree. Thanks to Ian C. for coming up with the idea. Looks like others > will carry it across the finish line. Haven't seen too many try lately. > > > The next big thing is so you got your totally superanonymous network but > > your neighbour spied on you and bears a grudge against you. > > So beyond anon p2p you need strong crypto covered by plausible > > deniability. > > Tor has strong crypto already. Why don't you think it gives plausible > deniability? What does that mean anyway? anonymity? That is what Tor > gives you!? TOR gives you anonymous *IP traffic*, but it doesn't encrypt files on your drive. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a- C++++ UL++ P+>++ L+++>++++ E-- W++ N o? K- w--(---) !O M+ V- PS+ PE Y++ PGP t++(---)@ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--(+)@ b++(+++) DI+++ D- G++ e* h>++ r* y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ http://www.stop1984.com http://www.againsttcpa.com -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
