Send Freenet-dev mailing list submissions to
freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the web, visit
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
freenet-dev-request at lists.sourceforge.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
freenet-dev-admin at lists.sourceforge.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Freenet-dev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: KHK Metadata Proposal (Brandon)
2. Re: KHK Metadata Proposal (Brandon)
3. Re: Re: KHK Metadata Proposal (Brandon)
4. Re: Meaningless hits on metadata (Brandon)
5. Re: Masada interview? (Brandon)
6. Re: Self Censorship (Brandon)
7. Re: Re: KHK Metadata Proposal (Brandon)
8. Re: KHK Metadata Proposal (Brandon)
9. Re: Re: KHK Metadata Proposal (Brandon)
10. Re: KHK Metadata Proposal (Brandon)
11. compiling or running recent snapshots with recent debian Kaffe?
(jigglypuff2 at freewwweb.com)
12. Re: Re: KHK Metadata Proposal (Brandon)
13. Re: KHK Metadata Proposal (Brandon)
14. Re: Meaningless hits on metadata (Daniel Phillips)
15. Re: KHK Metadata Proposal (hal at finney.org)
16. Re: Meaningless hits on metadata (Brandon)
17. Re: Re: KHK Metadata Proposal (Scott G. Miller)
18. Re: Masada interview? (Scott G. Miller)
19. Re: compiling or running recent snapshots with recent debian Kaffe?
(Scott G. Miller)
20. Re: Hello all, here is my (minor) contribution.. :) (Oskar Sandberg)
21. Re: Key-chaining Conventions (Muzzle)
22. Re: Key-chaining Conventions (Muzzle)
--__--__--
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:16:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brandon <bl...@uts.cc.utexas.edu>
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] KHK Metadata Proposal
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
> No need to keep them in seperate documents. If the entire thing is
> encrypted, both metadata sections can be together. I don't mind the idea
> of marking searchable and unsearchable metadata, either.
Yes, I like the idea of marking fields as searchable or not.
--__--__--
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:19:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brandon <bl...@uts.cc.utexas.edu>
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] KHK Metadata Proposal
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
> Sure create as good a search system as you can. But there simply is no AI
> and no moderator to determine what should rightfully go in
> /truth/awful/microsoft. And that's fine. Relax and learn enjoy a bit of
> chaos.
That's why I propose filtering of results by signature. Then you can
decide who you think has got it right, and so can everyone else.
--__--__--
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:34:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brandon <bl...@uts.cc.utexas.edu>
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] Re: KHK Metadata Proposal
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
> Someone concerned about being discovered can choose to further
> protect himself by creating multiple signature-identities, or
> changing them often, changing his writing style, and keeping better
> physical control of private keys.
Or leave no trace at all and not sign it. I think a lot of information
doesn't need to be signed because it's not important (MP3s) and a few bits
of information are so dangerous that they shouldn't be signed. Just
getting them to the public is hard enough.
--__--__--
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:34:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brandon <bl...@uts.cc.utexas.edu>
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] Meaningless hits on metadata
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
> Why not ignore all hits directly on metadata and just propagate hits on the
> underlying data back to the metadata. This be pretty simple and hard to
> exploit.
But then how do you determine which metadata entries to expire and which
to keep? You can't keep them all because you'd run out of room.
--__--__--
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:37:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brandon <bl...@uts.cc.utexas.edu>
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] Masada interview?
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
> Thats the guy. Want to try to get him/her on IRC at the same time so we
> can tag-team him?
Sure. Scheduling is really complicated, though. I told her to call me back
tomorrow between 2:00 and 6:00. I'll suggest we get together on IRC. I
don't know if she has IRC because I've found that even some college
students haven't heard of it. I guess it's because those that have no
longer talk to non-IRC-using college students.
So anyway I'll see when/if she wants to IRC and let you know. E-mail me
your approximate schedule for tomorrow so I can schedule things.
--__--__--
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:38:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brandon <bl...@uts.cc.utexas.edu>
To: "freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net" <freenet-dev at
lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] Self Censorship
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
I'm agreed on all counts.
> Splitting up data is a good idea. Probably we should use serveral
> part sizes, maybe 32,64,256,1024, and 4096 kbytes (most web pages
> fit in 32, but you don't want a movie to be in 16,000 parts).
>
> Note that each part should not link to the next, but rather that an
> index of the parts should come first. Freenet's model means rather
> bad performance for each download, but the ability to request as many
> parts as one pleases in parrallel, hindered only by ones own
> connection.
>
> Also note that even if all things were padded/split to a uniform part
> size, this does not defeat traffic analysis, which looks at other
> factors like timing as well. It certainly makes things more difficult
> though.
>
>
> Oskar Sandberg
> md98-osa at nada.kth.se
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Muzzle wrote:
>
> > What if we span the files in 64Kb encrypted data blocks each one
> > pointing to the next one? (and only the first one have the metadata)
> >
> > -Nearly impossible traffic analysis
> > -You don't have illegal material, you have just a piece of it (how does
> > law deal with it?)
> > -You cant decrypt a file and see its content without having it whole.
> >
> > Who is expected to collect each piece of each first block of file he
> > has?
> > The firs block could be in a secure node and the other ones elsewhere
> > around even in us or china nodes.
> > I think its time to split file. It has lots of advantages, many more
> > than those I wrote here, and little or none side effects.
> > see ya
> >
> > Michele
> >
> >
> > --
> > Muzzle, Flatline, Zero on IRC; ICQ# 36124438
> > Key fingerprint: 5881 356B DDA7 115B 6FAF C529 34ED 70A8 7E52 D805
> > www.internations.net/it/muzzle
> > "We are, we can, we will"
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Freenet-dev mailing list
> > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freenet-dev mailing list
> Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
>
--__--__--
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:44:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brandon <bl...@uts.cc.utexas.edu>
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] Re: KHK Metadata Proposal
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
> You can sign it with an anonymous key. If you're way paranoid and are
> afraid of that, then just don't post metadata. Unsigned metadata will
> get lost in the spam and be useless anyway.
Unsigned metadata will be exactly as useful as randomly signed metadata.
> Oh yeah: Generating a one-time key, signing the metadata, and throwing
> away the key is still better than unsigned metadata, because then other
> people who happen across your metadata can publicize their trust for it
> (the one-use key) and it will have a chance to spread through people that
> trust them. Making this work for unsigned metadata would require a whole
> new layer of complexity (trusting individual metadata instead of signers)
But if you only sign a single piece of data when telling people to trust
this key is exactly equal to telling them to trust the piece of
metadata. So you might as well just send them the key for the metadata
instead of the public key of the signer. The only thing you gain from
signing anything is that it gets grouped together with other things you
sign. Like a directory.
--__--__--
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:49:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brandon <bl...@uts.cc.utexas.edu>
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] KHK Metadata Proposal
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
> There's no point in having automatic serverside authentication of Metadata, it
> would harm efficiency.
It would increase CPU usage and decrease bandwidth. Whether it's worth it
is based on how the tradeoff is weighted and what's more important.
> 2. I envisage a web-of-trust Metadata search, where the client software
> will sort search results based upon not only how well the Metadata matches
> the request in fuzzy-string/substring/whatever terms, but also how much
> trust the user has in the authors of the Metadata.
Ah, okay, so like my system except it's a fuzzy search instead of a
boolean search. Cool. I like that. Then you could give people trust
ratings rather than just trusting them or not trusting them. Sounds more
complicated though. I think we should implement the boolean version and
then expand it to the fuzzy version. I think most things will be the same
so it shouldn't be too hard of a transition.
--__--__--
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:51:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brandon <bl...@uts.cc.utexas.edu>
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] Re: KHK Metadata Proposal
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
> We dont need updatable-metadata, right? I can't think of any reason why
> someone would want to change metadata, unless perhaps they mis-typed
> something, or thought of a new keyword to include afterwards. In these
> cases they can just create new Metadata, but that leaves us with unwanted
> metadata floating round the system..
I don't remember if I responded to this or not. I guess that's the problem
with responding out of order over the period of a whole day.
We can deal with messed up Metadata just like with spam. If you insert
messed up metadata, people will see it, see that it doesn't point to the
right thing, and trust you less. Or if you mess it up another way, it will
point to the right thing but have fields that never get hits because
they're mispelled and so it will fall out because it never gets hits
So I don't think that we need updates.
--__--__--
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:52:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brandon <bl...@uts.cc.utexas.edu>
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] KHK Metadata Proposal
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
> Neither do I. But returning a list of KHKs is bad too, because that means
> the server had to have been storing those as plain text. Or the search
> mechanism has to allow for a secret known only by the searcher that
> encrypts all the metadata. And I can't think of a manner in which this
> would work. Unless your using Alex's same-cardinality search method, in
> which case they could be encrypted by the plaintext search terms (in
> sorted order).
Ah, this is indeed tricky. I will think very hard about it when I am not
so tired.
--__--__--
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:57:47 +0000 (UTC)
From: <jigglyp...@jigglypuff.sourceforge.net>
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Freenet-dev] compiling or running recent snapshots with recent debian
Kaffe?
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Ok I think I have found a fairly serious problem (at least for me pardon
my lack of Java programming experience)
I have tried to run, and compile freenet from the binary compiled
snapshots and also from source and this is what I get:
jigglypuff:~/freenet# ./freenet_server
Starting Freenet server
java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: Freenet/crypt/ciphers/Rijndael
at java.lang.Class.forName(Class.java:33)
at Freenet.crypt.Util.getCipherByName(Util.java:209)
at Freenet.crypt.Yarrow.generator_init(Yarrow.java:98)
at Freenet.crypt.Yarrow.<init>(Yarrow.java:61)
at Freenet.Core.<clinit>(Core.java:57)
java.lang.ExceptionInInitializerError: [exception was
java.lang.NullPointerException]
at java.lang.Throwable.<init>(Throwable.java:38)
at java.lang.Error.<init>(Error.java:21)
at java.lang.LinkageError.<init>(LinkageError.java:21)
at
java.lang.ExceptionInInitializerError.<init>(ExceptionInInitializerError.java:25)
Unregistering server from devinform.php...
failed
Please unregister yourself manually by visiting this address in a web
browser:
http://freenet.sourceforge.net/inform.php?remove=1
jigglypuff:~/Freenet# make KAFFE=1 node cli
make: Nothing to be done for `node'.
kaffe at.dms.kjc.Main -d ./ crypt/RandStream.java
java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: at/dms/kjc/Main
at java.lang.Throwable.<init>(Throwable.java:38)
at java.lang.Error.<init>(Error.java:21)
at java.lang.LinkageError.<init>(LinkageError.java:21)
at
java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError.<init>(NoClassDefFoundError.java:21)
jigglypuff:~/Freenet/scripts# ./kbuild.sh
Building Freenet server... java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: at/dms/kjc/Main
at java.lang.Throwable.<init>(Throwable.java:38)
at java.lang.Error.<init>(Error.java:21)
at java.lang.LinkageError.<init>(LinkageError.java:21)
at
java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError.<init>(NoClassDefFoundError.java:21)
Done
Building Freenet command-line
client... java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: at/dms/kjc/Main
at java.lang.Throwable.<init>(Throwable.java:38)
at java.lang.Error.<init>(Error.java:21)
at java.lang.LinkageError.<init>(LinkageError.java:21)
at
java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError.<init>(NoClassDefFoundError.java:21)
Done
This is being done with
freenet-bin-20000622.tgz
and
freenet-20000622.tgz
respectfully.
Can I fix this?
Is anyone fixing this?
I am running this with the newest unstable debian Kaffe
ii kaffe 1.0.5e-0.5 A JVM to run
Java bytecode
--__--__--
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:45:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brandon <bl...@uts.cc.utexas.edu>
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] Re: KHK Metadata Proposal
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
> I suppose that makes sense. I'm just concerned that unsigned metadata
> will be mostly spam.
I think a lot of data will be unsigned. People don't totally understand
all of the technical issues involved and when asked if they want to sign
something will probably say no until they've read the
documentation. That's another project, by the way, copious documentation
on how to use Freenet safely, preferably embedded in the clients so that
we can educate the masses as we deliver to them their contraban content!
> I was thinking more along the lines of having a standard metadata entry
> like "metadata-signer"=<public key or fingerprint>. The server would
> just assume that the signature was valid, so it doesn't have to spend CPU
> time checking it. The client would do the actual work of confirming that
> the signature was what it claimed to be.
Yep, you could do it client or server side. CPU vs. bandwidth tradeoff.
> On a related note, should anyone be allowed to post metadata, or just the
> inserter of the document in question? Could one document have multiple
> metadata? If the answers are "just the inserter" and/or "no", does the
> proposal address how we enforce this?
I say anyone and yes, but it's all very debatable. My proposal doesn't
address the issue since my stance is the easier to implement. :-)
--__--__--
Message: 13
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:49:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brandon <bl...@uts.cc.utexas.edu>
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] KHK Metadata Proposal
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
> I'm a big proponent of a web-of-trust backed search system. (Though I
> hate that name, we've gotta get that "web" out of there)
Yay!
> I don't like unrequests. They seem like trouble waiting to happen.
I don't really like them either, but it's either unrequests or come up
with an alternative. Even though they seem problematic, they do definitely
solve the problem. I think that signature filtering doesn't solve the
problem (you don't always have a signature to filter with) but it makes it
considerably less bad (spam won't live forever).
> "trusted" from some sort of general viewpoint. Likewise, If a group of
> Hubologists got together and marked everything not written by the great
> Elron '-1.0', it should have no effect at all on anyone else.
This would even be good because you could filter out things that they
sign. :-)
--__--__--
Message: 14
From: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] Meaningless hits on metadata
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:57:00 +0200
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Brandon wrote:
> > Why not ignore all hits directly on metadata and just propagate hits on the
> > underlying data back to the metadata. This be pretty simple and hard to
> > exploit.
>
> But then how do you determine which metadata entries to expire and which
> to keep? You can't keep them all because you'd run out of room.
That implies no fixed association between data and metadata, fair enough. You
could raise a 'recently searched' flag on the metadata, then raise the
metadata in the stack only when the underlying data is actually retrieved.
--
Daniel
--__--__--
Message: 15
From: h...@finney.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:04:34 -0700
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] KHK Metadata Proposal
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
> I'm a big proponent of a web-of-trust backed search system. (Though I
> hate that name, we've gotta get that "web" out of there)
As most people probably know, that phrase was originated by Phil
Zimmermann, author of PGP, back in around 1992, well before the World
Wide Web. It refers to the PGP system whereby end users sign each other's
keys to vouch for them, so that when you graph the keys and signatures
what you get looks like a web.
It's a similar metaphor as that which motivated the name of the WWW:
nodes with links look like a web. But it came out of a completely
different application.
Hal
--__--__--
Message: 16
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:14:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brandon <bl...@uts.cc.utexas.edu>
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] Meaningless hits on metadata
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
> > > Why not ignore all hits directly on metadata and just propagate hits on
> > > the
> > > underlying data back to the metadata. This be pretty simple and hard to
> > > exploit.
> >
> > But then how do you determine which metadata entries to expire and which
> > to keep? You can't keep them all because you'd run out of room.
>
> That implies no fixed association between data and metadata, fair enough. You
> could raise a 'recently searched' flag on the metadata, then raise the
> metadata in the stack only when the underlying data is actually retrieved.
There is no way to associate data with metadata because the routing to get
to the metadata is different than the routing to get to the data. Which is
what we want because then you can't tell what a data item is. The metadata
may or may not be encrypted (we're not sure yet). If it's not then you
certainly don't want it to be associated with the data.
Of course the way it's looking now, we're going to be able to actually
encrypt the metadata, too. Even so, they'll be routed differently so nodes
storing metadata won't be able to know when the associated data (even if
they know what the associated data is) is requested since the message will
be routed through a different node.
--__--__--
Message: 17
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:35:19 -0500
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] Re: KHK Metadata Proposal
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dc+cDN39EJAMEtIO"
From: "Scott G. Miller" <scgmi...@indiana.edu>
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
--dc+cDN39EJAMEtIO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > I was thinking more along the lines of having a standard metadata entry
> > like "metadata-signer"=3D<public key or fingerprint>. The server would
> > just assume that the signature was valid, so it doesn't have to spend C=
PU
> > time checking it. The client would do the actual work of confirming th=
at
> > the signature was what it claimed to be.
>=20
> Yep, you could do it client or server side. CPU vs. bandwidth tradeoff.
Client side. The lighter the node is, the more likely people will ignore
it and leave it running on their systems. The verification cost is noise
on the client, who is expecting fairly length delays anyway. =20
> > On a related note, should anyone be allowed to post metadata, or just t=
he
> > inserter of the document in question? Could one document have multiple
> > metadata? If the answers are "just the inserter" and/or "no", does the
> > proposal address how we enforce this?
>=20
> I say anyone and yes, but it's all very debatable. My proposal doesn't
> address the issue since my stance is the easier to implement. :-)
Since there is a one way link, Metadata->Document (not vice versa), I vote
for an anyone/yes. No one is going to try and spam to get *more* hits on
a document they don't want people reading.=20
--dc+cDN39EJAMEtIO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE5UxM3pXyM95IyRhURArkwAKDTZ+GM+g7K2HTze/TN26LWBOYFTQCeP5m1
ybodrfBSJQxcCEBsJxd/8X4=
=eIAv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--dc+cDN39EJAMEtIO--
--__--__--
Message: 18
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:36:10 -0500
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] Masada interview?
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="1ccMZA6j1vT5UqiK"
From: "Scott G. Miller" <scgmi...@indiana.edu>
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
--1ccMZA6j1vT5UqiK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=20
> > Thats the guy. Want to try to get him/her on IRC at the same time so we
> > can tag-team him?
>=20
> Sure. Scheduling is really complicated, though. I told her to call me back
> tomorrow between 2:00 and 6:00. I'll suggest we get together on IRC. I
> don't know if she has IRC because I've found that even some college
> students haven't heard of it. I guess it's because those that have no
> longer talk to non-IRC-using college students.
>=20
> So anyway I'll see when/if she wants to IRC and let you know. E-mail me
> your approximate schedule for tomorrow so I can schedule things.
I'm okay after 2, though towards 4:00 would be better.
--1ccMZA6j1vT5UqiK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE5UxNqpXyM95IyRhURAgzMAKCeNzaymRMIgkTNblABKa3dFYxgdQCg2xmx
tEREwQYaVC9fXUq3NkBBfhQ=
=BY5j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--1ccMZA6j1vT5UqiK--
--__--__--
Message: 19
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:38:11 -0500
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] compiling or running recent snapshots with recent
debian Kaffe?
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0/kgSOzhNoDC5T3a"
From: "Scott G. Miller" <scgmi...@indiana.edu>
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
--0/kgSOzhNoDC5T3a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Done
>=20
> This is being done with
> freenet-bin-20000622.tgz
> and
> freenet-20000622.tgz
> respectfully.
> Can I fix this?
> Is anyone fixing this?
> I am running this with the newest unstable debian Kaffe
> ii kaffe 1.0.5e-0.5 A JVM to run
> Java bytecode
Sounds like Kaffe is boffing on something. I can't be sure exactly what
that weird kjc/Main not found is. The other error is in the build script
not compiling Rijndael.java in crypt/ciphers. Just manually compiling
that is a workaround. I'm still not sure why the build script is missing
it.
--0/kgSOzhNoDC5T3a
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE5UxPjpXyM95IyRhURAkCfAJ90ZGKXWUmCUeyxYWR/RNMPiI1tWgCgvvx1
dE45w9fThiYcM2NWvTPAzXo=
=XGvQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--0/kgSOzhNoDC5T3a--
--__--__--
Message: 20
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:07:32 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Oskar Sandberg <md98-...@nada.kth.se>
To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] Hello all, here is my (minor) contribution.. :)
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Scott G. Miller wrote:
> Being done. CHKs (the actual data documents) will be inherently
> verifyable with a hashing scheme. Ask oskar for more (oh Oskar!)
Go, away, I'm on vacation.
:-)
--__--__--
Message: 21
From: "Muzzle" <muz...@freemail.it>
To: "freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net" <freenet-dev at
lists.sourceforge.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:05:59 +0200
Reply-To: "Muzzle" <muzzle at freemail.it>
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] Key-chaining Conventions
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
hmm just thinking...
we could let people append comment to a file
e.g. "It's just the complete book I was looking for"
"Pure garbage inserted here"
no wait... an attacker could just add lots of fake comments.
[It could still be a good idea for other purposes]
We can avoid spamming telling people how many downloads of a file have
been made, authentic file are going to get more download, yes an
attacker could still request the file he entered ab hundred of times or
more but we would add, at the same time, an nice feature and made an
attack mor difficult.
Regards
Michele
--
Muzzle, Flatline, Zero on IRC; ICQ# 36124438
Key fingerprint: 5881 356B DDA7 115B 6FAF C529 34ED 70A8 7E52 D805
www.internations.net/it/muzzle
"We are, we can, we will"
--__--__--
Message: 22
From: "Muzzle" <muz...@freemail.it>
To: "freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net" <freenet-dev at
lists.sourceforge.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:40:31 +0200
Reply-To: "Muzzle" <muzzle at freemail.it>
Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] Key-chaining Conventions
Reply-To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:21:25 -0500, Scott G. Miller wrote:
>
>Sure, but putting multiple documents under a single KHK really ruins what
>KHK's are good for. And public key filtering requires an out-of-band
>source to get the public key. QED. =20
>
What about metadata filtering?
well well need a way to avoid bogus metadata but I could look for a
text only file created the last week on a mac machine
or for an mp3, 128Kbps, registered live, and at least 12 min long
It could be very usefull
BTW. Internet is full of bogus data an spam and people use it anyway.
Michelangelo
--
Muzzle, Flatline, Zero on IRC; ICQ# 36124438
Key fingerprint: 5881 356B DDA7 115B 6FAF C529 34ED 70A8 7E52 D805
www.internations.net/it/muzzle
"We are, we can, we will"
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
End of Freenet-dev Digest
