On 6/27/06, Marcel Pierer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... Today's telcos face the thread that anyday P2P networks come up which will take over most of the customers by offering the same services but much cheaper.
indeed; sucks to be a telco selling rapidly depreciating transport services. see: http://enum.nic.at/documents/AETP/Presentations/Austria/0068-2006-03_Spring_VON_Standards_Update_RStastny_v1.ppt
... the future may be P2P networks where the network owns only some intelligence.
my money is on "transport this blackened traffic from point A to point B" sort of intelligence.
... But Skype is only secure while it isn't open source, the code and everything else is secret (question how long until someone hacks it, soon I think). That's the reason that Skype seems to be secure.
don't worry, you'll have lots of alternatives - some subset just needs to become popular first. :)
But an open P2P network, where the architecture, its protocols are open and available for everyone you still face a lot of security problems.
i think this applies to computing and communication systems in general. why should p2p be any different? security is hard; that's what makes it interesting.
... I need solutions that are 100% secure, not 80% or 79% as many trust or reputation systems computed its values. The customer wants to make the call or use other services with a guaranty of 99,9999%.
define your threat model and build to spec. just be aware of the trade offs and costs involved... (most people don't need that level of assurance, thus most networks don't provide it.) _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
