Re: [freenet-support] How can a system administrator detect active freenodes?

2009-08-21 Thread Jim Cook
At 09:15 AM 8/21/2009, Evan Daniel wrote:

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Victor Denisovvdeni...@redline.ru wrote:
  -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
  Hash: SHA1
 
  Luke771 wrote:
  What you're doing here is catching Opennet users. Pure Darknet users
  wont be that easy to catch.
 
  No, they'll be extremely easy to catch, along with their friends' IP
  addresses. Detect local darknet nodes via generic traffic analysis (how
  many people skype or play online games for 20+ hours a day with constant
  80+ KB/sec traffic?) - Check local port used for conversations - find
  local nodes' darknet port - detect its darknet peers. Trivial.
 
  On the other hand, moving just one hop further in the darknet chain
  requires cooperation with the remote ISP, which is something everyone
  considers to be relatively difficult to achieve.

Right now, the best defense for darknet nodes is that this sort of
analysis is computationally expensive on a large network.  For a small
lan, it probably isn't, making even darknet relatively easy to catch.

Freenet (or whatever) users could just route all of their traffic 
through a proxy via securely-encrypted VPN, such as XeroBank with 
OpenVPN.  Although you'd still know that they were hogging bandwidth, 
you wouldn't have a clue what they were doing with it.

=
Jim Cook jimc...@panix.com 

___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe


[freenet-support] Firefox (Ubuntu) - Freenet is now default profile

2008-08-19 Thread Jim Cook
Although I only know a tiny bit about Ubuntu, you can probably create 
Firefox shortcuts that specify which profile to use.  In Windows, the 
command in the shortcut is "" -P  
-no-remote.  You don't want to use the freenet profile for web 
browsing, because it opens far too many connections per site.  P is 
Windows' nickname for ProfileManager.

At 06:12 AM 8/19/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:

>On Tuesday 19 August 2008 10:56, Dalek Invasion wrote:
> > When I click on Firefox from any menu option in Ubuntu - it fires up the
> > FreeNet profile.  Any idea how this could have occurred or how to to fix
> > it so I have a FreeNet and a 'normal' profile?  Or how to create
> > shortcuts to access each profile?
>
>When we launch the browser, we open a tab explaining that you **must 
>not close
>the normal browser before the freenet browser**. If you do, this happens.
>Sorry, but a better solution will be a significant amount of work. Anyway,
>you need to invoke "firefox -ProfileManager" to get the profile manager and
>select the default profile.
>
>
>___
>Support mailing list
>Support at freenetproject.org
>http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
>Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
>Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe

=
Jim Cook  




Re: [freenet-support] Firefox (Ubuntu) - Freenet is now default profile

2008-08-19 Thread Jim Cook
Although I only know a tiny bit about Ubuntu, you can probably create 
Firefox shortcuts that specify which profile to use.  In Windows, the 
command in the shortcut is path to firefox.exe -P profile name 
-no-remote.  You don't want to use the freenet profile for web 
browsing, because it opens far too many connections per site.  P is 
Windows' nickname for ProfileManager.

At 06:12 AM 8/19/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:

On Tuesday 19 August 2008 10:56, Dalek Invasion wrote:
  When I click on Firefox from any menu option in Ubuntu - it fires up the
  FreeNet profile.  Any idea how this could have occurred or how to to fix
  it so I have a FreeNet and a 'normal' profile?  Or how to create
  shortcuts to access each profile?

When we launch the browser, we open a tab explaining that you **must 
not close
the normal browser before the freenet browser**. If you do, this happens.
Sorry, but a better solution will be a significant amount of work. Anyway,
you need to invoke firefox -ProfileManager to get the profile manager and
select the default profile.


___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

=
Jim Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


[freenet-support] how to uninstall freenet?

2008-05-23 Thread Jim Cook
Run "firefox -ProfileManager" and unclick "Don't ask at 
startup".  Thereafter, when you open Firefox, you'll have the choice 
of which profile to use.

At 01:22 PM 5/22/2008, you wrote:

>I've setup Freenet on my machine, but it caused some serious problems,
>it created some different user for the firefox, where I cannot find
>any of my bookmarks, cookies or cache, I'm also unable to use my
>regular user I used before installing, other problem that Im unable to
>browse any sites with AJAX interface correctly!
>
>Now how to undo all this?
>
>Im using Ubuntu 8.04, firefox 3 Beta 5.
>Ive tried to reinstall firefox but it didn't work.
>
>Thanks alot.
>___
>Support mailing list
>Support at freenetproject.org
>http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
>Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
>Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe

=
Jim Cook  




Re: [freenet-support] how to uninstall freenet?

2008-05-22 Thread Jim Cook
Run firefox -ProfileManager and unclick Don't ask at 
startup.  Thereafter, when you open Firefox, you'll have the choice 
of which profile to use.

At 01:22 PM 5/22/2008, you wrote:

I've setup Freenet on my machine, but it caused some serious problems,
it created some different user for the firefox, where I cannot find
any of my bookmarks, cookies or cache, I'm also unable to use my
regular user I used before installing, other problem that Im unable to
browse any sites with AJAX interface correctly!

Now how to undo all this?

Im using Ubuntu 8.04, firefox 3 Beta 5.
Ive tried to reinstall firefox but it didn't work.

Thanks alot.
___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

=
Jim Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


[freenet-support] freenet wont connect to any other nodes

2008-05-14 Thread Jim Cook
Can you access websites via Firefox in Ubuntu?  Use the default 
profile, BTW, not the Freenet profile.

If not, can you ping 4.2.2.2 (using System / Administratio / Network Tools)?

Are you running Ubuntu in a VM?

At 11:00 AM 5/11/2008, you wrote:

>I'm running freenet on Ubuntu 8.04 with Sun Java 1.6 and freenet doesn't
>connect to other nodes, I manually forwarded the ports and I'm using
>opennet but I still have zero connections
>___
>Support mailing list
>Support at freenetproject.org
>http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
>Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
>Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe

=
Jim Cook  




Re: [freenet-support] freenet wont connect to any other nodes

2008-05-14 Thread Jim Cook
Can you access websites via Firefox in Ubuntu?  Use the default 
profile, BTW, not the Freenet profile.

If not, can you ping 4.2.2.2 (using System / Administratio / Network Tools)?

Are you running Ubuntu in a VM?

At 11:00 AM 5/11/2008, you wrote:

I'm running freenet on Ubuntu 8.04 with Sun Java 1.6 and freenet doesn't
connect to other nodes, I manually forwarded the ports and I'm using
opennet but I still have zero connections
___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

=
Jim Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


[freenet-support] update and more questions

2008-05-07 Thread Jim Cook
At 09:19 PM 5/6/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:



> > ... And I've realized that setting Freenet's priority to
> > NORMAL in Process Explorer didn't persist, so I need to figure our
> > how to make it so.
>
>In wrapper.conf.

Doh.  Thanks.

> > > > > > Although Freenet reports that it's trying to connect, I 
> find that it
> > > > > > hasn't after more than 2 hr.  But once I stop and restart in Win XP
> > > > > > services manager, it connects immediately.
> > > > >
> > > > >That's bad. It ought to recover. Does it try to reseed?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it keeps trying, but reports "java.net.SocketException: Protocol
> > > > not allowed".
> > >
> > >Because of IPv6? That's not related. Are you sure it tries to 
> reseed? Does
>it
> > >show the announcing alert on the homepage? What does it say in the
> > >wrapper.log?
> >
> > On the homepage, it said that it was trying to connect, and that it
> > would be slow for a while.  I've e-mailed you the relevant part of
> > the wrapper.log.
>
>What if you click on the alert? Show me the details.

OK, the next time it happens, I'll reply again with the details.



=
Jim Cook  





[freenet-support] update and more questions

2008-05-06 Thread Jim Cook
At 09:17 AM 5/6/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:

>* PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
>On Tuesday 06 May 2008 01:41, Jim Cook wrote:
> > At 01:50 PM 5/5/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> > > > After checking the logs, it's clear what's going on.  Freenet runs
> > > > just fine after I log off; indeed, it seems to be happier.  However,
> > > > when I log on, various Freenet processes start timing out, and the
> > > > node drops all connections after ca. 10 min.  This is a fairly old
> > > > machine with a 2.8 GHz Pentium D and 2 Gb RAM, and it's pretty maxed
> > > > out during logon.  It loads three apps (Firefox, Eudora and
> > > > UltraEdit) and runs a few system and malware scans, and Freenet drops
> > > > connections before the system frees up.
> > >
> > >Eeek. We should seriously consider increasing Freenet's base priority from
> > >BELOW_NORMAL to NORMAL. We use thread priorities everywhere, only threads
> > >which are critical and don't use much CPU are high priority, so 95% of the
> > >time this shouldn't impact on system performance...
> > >
> > >See https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2337
> >
> > I've increased its base priority to NORMAL.
>
>The above happened before this change?

Yes, it did.  And I've realized that setting Freenet's priority to 
NORMAL in Process Explorer didn't persist, so I need to figure our 
how to make it so.

> > > > Although Freenet reports that it's trying to connect, I find that it
> > > > hasn't after more than 2 hr.  But once I stop and restart in Win XP
> > > > services manager, it connects immediately.
> > >
> > >That's bad. It ought to recover. Does it try to reseed?
> >
> > Yes, it keeps trying, but reports "java.net.SocketException: Protocol
> > not allowed".
>
>Because of IPv6? That's not related. Are you sure it tries to reseed? Does it
>show the announcing alert on the homepage? What does it say in the
>wrapper.log?

On the homepage, it said that it was trying to connect, and that it 
would be slow for a while.  I've e-mailed you the relevant part of 
the wrapper.log.



=
Jim Cook  





[freenet-support] Freenet and Tor

2008-05-06 Thread Jim Cook
At 09:18 AM 5/6/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:

>* PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
>On Tuesday 06 May 2008 02:49, Jim Cook wrote:
> > Tor's FAQ notes ...
> >
> > "Tor and Freenet work on different levels: Tor is about transport,
> > and Freenet is about storage/retrieval. So it would make perfect
> > sense (assuming we become happy with the scalability and
> > decentralization properties) to use Tor to get anonymous transport
> > between Freenet nodes."
> >
> > That sounds cool.  But is it feasible, given that Freenet uses UDP
> > and Tor uses TCP?  I've read on Freenet's website the possible ways
> > to anonymize internode connections, and saw no mention of Tor.
>
>It would be hideously expensive. ...

Do you mean that it'd overtax Tor servers or Freenet nodes, or both?

>... Also I was under the impression that Tor
>doesn't recommend you use p2p apps over Tor (e.g. bittorrent), in fact that
>they regard it as a denial of service attack? Has this policy changed?

No, it hasn't (notwithstanding the comment re Freenet that I quoted).

>* Unknown Key
>* 0xE43DA450
>
>___
>Support mailing list
>Support at freenetproject.org
>http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
>Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
>Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
>
>
>* PGP Signed by an unknown key
>* text/plain body
>* Unknown Key
>* 0xE43DA450

=
Jim Cook  





Re: [freenet-support] Freenet and Tor

2008-05-06 Thread Jim Cook
At 09:18 AM 5/6/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:

* PGP Signed by an unknown key

On Tuesday 06 May 2008 02:49, Jim Cook wrote:
  Tor's FAQ notes ...
 
  Tor and Freenet work on different levels: Tor is about transport,
  and Freenet is about storage/retrieval. So it would make perfect
  sense (assuming we become happy with the scalability and
  decentralization properties) to use Tor to get anonymous transport
  between Freenet nodes.
 
  That sounds cool.  But is it feasible, given that Freenet uses UDP
  and Tor uses TCP?  I've read on Freenet's website the possible ways
  to anonymize internode connections, and saw no mention of Tor.

It would be hideously expensive. ...

Do you mean that it'd overtax Tor servers or Freenet nodes, or both?

... Also I was under the impression that Tor
doesn't recommend you use p2p apps over Tor (e.g. bittorrent), in fact that
they regard it as a denial of service attack? Has this policy changed?

No, it hasn't (notwithstanding the comment re Freenet that I quoted).

* Unknown Key
* 0xE43DA450

___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


* PGP Signed by an unknown key
* text/plain body
* Unknown Key
* 0xE43DA450

=
Jim Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [freenet-support] update and more questions

2008-05-06 Thread Jim Cook
At 09:17 AM 5/6/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:

* PGP Signed by an unknown key

On Tuesday 06 May 2008 01:41, Jim Cook wrote:
  At 01:50 PM 5/5/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
 
  snip
 
After checking the logs, it's clear what's going on.  Freenet runs
just fine after I log off; indeed, it seems to be happier.  However,
when I log on, various Freenet processes start timing out, and the
node drops all connections after ca. 10 min.  This is a fairly old
machine with a 2.8 GHz Pentium D and 2 Gb RAM, and it's pretty maxed
out during logon.  It loads three apps (Firefox, Eudora and
UltraEdit) and runs a few system and malware scans, and Freenet drops
connections before the system frees up.
  
  Eeek. We should seriously consider increasing Freenet's base priority from
  BELOW_NORMAL to NORMAL. We use thread priorities everywhere, only threads
  which are critical and don't use much CPU are high priority, so 95% of the
  time this shouldn't impact on system performance...
  
  See https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2337
 
  I've increased its base priority to NORMAL.

The above happened before this change?

Yes, it did.  And I've realized that setting Freenet's priority to 
NORMAL in Process Explorer didn't persist, so I need to figure our 
how to make it so.

Although Freenet reports that it's trying to connect, I find that it
hasn't after more than 2 hr.  But once I stop and restart in Win XP
services manager, it connects immediately.
  
  That's bad. It ought to recover. Does it try to reseed?
 
  Yes, it keeps trying, but reports java.net.SocketException: Protocol
  not allowed.

Because of IPv6? That's not related. Are you sure it tries to reseed? Does it
show the announcing alert on the homepage? What does it say in the
wrapper.log?

On the homepage, it said that it was trying to connect, and that it 
would be slow for a while.  I've e-mailed you the relevant part of 
the wrapper.log.

snip

=
Jim Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


[freenet-support] Freenet and Tor

2008-05-05 Thread Jim Cook
Tor's FAQ notes ...

"Tor and Freenet work on different levels: Tor is about transport, 
and Freenet is about storage/retrieval. So it would make perfect 
sense (assuming we become happy with the scalability and 
decentralization properties) to use Tor to get anonymous transport 
between Freenet nodes."

That sounds cool.  But is it feasible, given that Freenet uses UDP 
and Tor uses TCP?  I've read on Freenet's website the possible ways 
to anonymize internode connections, and saw no mention of Tor.

=
Jim Cook   





[freenet-support] update and more questions

2008-05-05 Thread Jim Cook
At 01:50 PM 5/5/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:



> > After checking the logs, it's clear what's going on.  Freenet runs
> > just fine after I log off; indeed, it seems to be happier.  However,
> > when I log on, various Freenet processes start timing out, and the
> > node drops all connections after ca. 10 min.  This is a fairly old
> > machine with a 2.8 GHz Pentium D and 2 Gb RAM, and it's pretty maxed
> > out during logon.  It loads three apps (Firefox, Eudora and
> > UltraEdit) and runs a few system and malware scans, and Freenet drops
> > connections before the system frees up.
>
>Eeek. We should seriously consider increasing Freenet's base priority from
>BELOW_NORMAL to NORMAL. We use thread priorities everywhere, only threads
>which are critical and don't use much CPU are high priority, so 95% of the
>time this shouldn't impact on system performance...
>
>See https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2337

I've increased its base priority to NORMAL.

> > Although Freenet reports that it's trying to connect, I find that it
> > hasn't after more than 2 hr.  But once I stop and restart in Win XP
> > services manager, it connects immediately.
>
>That's bad. It ought to recover. Does it try to reseed?

Yes, it keeps trying, but reports "java.net.SocketException: Protocol 
not allowed".

After stopping the node and restarting, it adds its first peer within 
two minutes, has five by four minutes, and rapidly connects to ca. 20.

> > Is that behavior normal?
>
>No, it may be a bug.

I wasn't keeping enough logs to span the last logoff/logon, but I saw 
the same behavior after the update to Build #1145.  Within a few 
hours after the update, the node dropped all connections, and 
wouldn't reconnect until I stopped and restarted.  I'll e-mail log 
excerpts off list.



=
Jim Cook  





Re: [freenet-support] update and more questions

2008-05-05 Thread Jim Cook
At 01:50 PM 5/5/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:

snip

  After checking the logs, it's clear what's going on.  Freenet runs
  just fine after I log off; indeed, it seems to be happier.  However,
  when I log on, various Freenet processes start timing out, and the
  node drops all connections after ca. 10 min.  This is a fairly old
  machine with a 2.8 GHz Pentium D and 2 Gb RAM, and it's pretty maxed
  out during logon.  It loads three apps (Firefox, Eudora and
  UltraEdit) and runs a few system and malware scans, and Freenet drops
  connections before the system frees up.

Eeek. We should seriously consider increasing Freenet's base priority from
BELOW_NORMAL to NORMAL. We use thread priorities everywhere, only threads
which are critical and don't use much CPU are high priority, so 95% of the
time this shouldn't impact on system performance...

See https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2337

I've increased its base priority to NORMAL.

  Although Freenet reports that it's trying to connect, I find that it
  hasn't after more than 2 hr.  But once I stop and restart in Win XP
  services manager, it connects immediately.

That's bad. It ought to recover. Does it try to reseed?

Yes, it keeps trying, but reports java.net.SocketException: Protocol 
not allowed.

After stopping the node and restarting, it adds its first peer within 
two minutes, has five by four minutes, and rapidly connects to ca. 20.

  Is that behavior normal?

No, it may be a bug.

I wasn't keeping enough logs to span the last logoff/logon, but I saw 
the same behavior after the update to Build #1145.  Within a few 
hours after the update, the node dropped all connections, and 
wouldn't reconnect until I stopped and restarted.  I'll e-mail log 
excerpts off list.

snip

=
Jim Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


[freenet-support] Freenet and Tor

2008-05-05 Thread Jim Cook
Tor's FAQ notes ...

Tor and Freenet work on different levels: Tor is about transport, 
and Freenet is about storage/retrieval. So it would make perfect 
sense (assuming we become happy with the scalability and 
decentralization properties) to use Tor to get anonymous transport 
between Freenet nodes.

That sounds cool.  But is it feasible, given that Freenet uses UDP 
and Tor uses TCP?  I've read on Freenet's website the possible ways 
to anonymize internode connections, and saw no mention of Tor.

=
Jim Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED]  


___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


[freenet-support] update and more questions

2008-05-04 Thread Jim Cook
At 12:43 PM 5/3/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:



> > My node's been up continuously now for about three days, with ca. 20
> > peers, 25.1 KiB/sec average input rate, 27.1 KiB/sec average output
> > rate (of 50.0 KiB/sec) and 13.9 KiB/sec average payload output rate
> > (51%).  Is that reasonable?
>
>With 20 connected/backed off peers? It's a bit low, mine's been a bit low
>lately too though...

I've only provided the default 128M wrapper memory.  Could that be a 
factor?  Are there other config settings that might be limiting throughput?

> > However, in order to achieve that, I've had to stay logged on Win
> > NT.  If I log off while sleeping or away, which has been my practice,
> > Freenet appears to keep running (based on network activity) for a
> > while.  However, when I log on the next day, I find that the node
> > isn't connected to any peers, and also that it won't connect until I
> > stop and restart it.
>
>That is really bizarre. File a bug on https://bugs.freenetproject.org/ .
>Include wrapper.log and any ERRORs in logs/ ...

After checking the logs, it's clear what's going on.  Freenet runs 
just fine after I log off; indeed, it seems to be happier.  However, 
when I log on, various Freenet processes start timing out, and the 
node drops all connections after ca. 10 min.  This is a fairly old 
machine with a 2.8 GHz Pentium D and 2 Gb RAM, and it's pretty maxed 
out during logon.  It loads three apps (Firefox, Eudora and 
UltraEdit) and runs a few system and malware scans, and Freenet drops 
connections before the system frees up.

Although Freenet reports that it's trying to connect, I find that it 
hasn't after more than 2 hr.  But once I stop and restart in Win XP 
services manager, it connects immediately.

Is that behavior normal?

> > Freenet runs as user ".\freenet", and I get that y'all switched from
> > running as LocalSystem to improve security
><https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=1231>.
>
>Yes.
>
> > Am I correct in
> > guessing that ".\freenet" is linked to my user account, and so the
> > Freenet service hangs after I log off?
>
>No, it's a separate user.
>
> > Could Freenet run safely as
> > LocalService or NetworkService?
>
>No idea. Probably. Would it be better?

I have no clue.  On my Win XP system now, Freenet is the only service 
running as a non-standard user.  Most services are running as 
LocalSystem, and the rest are running as LocalService or 
NetworkService.  I gather that LocalService and NetworkService have 
restricted permissions, apparently more-or-less comparable to default 
non-admin users.  But I've never needed to mess with that stuff, so I 
don't know it.  And it seems to be OK as is, so I won't mess with it.



> > >Why not just restart [the node] each time? The only reason to recreate it
> > >on each startup is in case the datastore contains something 
> incriminating...
> >
> > Although I have no interest in seeing for myself, I gather that
> > Freenet contains truly awful stuff.  If that's so, it's quite likely
> > that "the datastore contains something incriminating".  Right?
>
>Yes, but it's encrypted, and you don't have the key. To find the key 
>you would
>have to go looking for such filth. This provides a reasonable degree of
>plausible deniability.
>
> > But
> > given that I'm running Freenet, I've obviously accepted that as a
> > necessary cost of freedom.  Also, I get that the datastore is
> > encrypted, and that I cannot be expected to know what's
> > there.  Conversely, the contents of my download folder are not
> > encrypted, but arguably I must have put them there intentionally.
>
>Right, that's the difference.
> >
> > Even so, I'm nervous.  Perhaps there are flogs with driveby
> > downloads.  I was thinking of running in nonpersistent mode as an
> > additional safeguard.  But I do appreciate how doing that would
> > partially defeat Freenet's data routing and retention logic.  Anyway,
> > I'm now thinking that running an encrypted virtual machine may be an
> > acceptable alternative.
>
>Possibly. If it's transient it would be recreated on startup; if it isn't, it
>would obviously be possible to investigate it if the computer was taken away.

For now, I've just created an AES-encrypted virtual disk to store downloads.



>* PGP Signed by an unknown key
>* text/plain body
>* Unknown Key
>* 0xE43DA450

=
Jim Cook  





[freenet-support] update and more questions

2008-05-02 Thread Jim Cook
At 01:11 PM 4/30/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:

>* PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
>On Wednesday 30 April 2008 00:27, Jim Cook wrote:
> > At 06:18 AM 4/29/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >
> > >> Old Signed by an unknown key
> > >
> > >On Tuesday 29 April 2008 03:44, Jim Cook wrote:
> > > > Thank you again, Matthew (and Volodya) for your patience with my
> > > > naive questions.  Regarding the Firefox issue, I've found a Win BAT
> > > > file <http://www.mouserunner.com/FF_Tips_Multiple_Fx.html> that
> > > > facilitates running multiple instances with different profiles.
> > >
> > >Running multiple instances with different profiles is trivial, 
> the problem
>is
> > >that if you don't want unpleasant surprises you have to change 
> the link the
> > >user normally launches FF from to include -no-remote. Which is not
>something
> > >we really want to do...
> >
> > In retrospect, it's trivial.  And I get why you've included a freenet
> > Firefox profile and made it difficult to edit.
>
>You mean in that we disable the config related menu items?

Yes.  As I understand it, there are two key issues: (1) users need to 
know which browser is accessing Freenet, and which is accessing the 
net; and (2) users need to avoid opening 200 connections to public 
webservers.  Right?

> > However, given the
> > default "Don't ask at startup" setting in Firefox's profile manager,
> > and the fact that I'd never run multiple profiles, I was blindsided,
> > and thought that Freenet had trashed my Firefox setup.
>
>Yeah, Firefox is a problem. Not using it is a worse problem. Hopefully we can
>find a better solution...
>
> > Now I know to
> > create Firefox shortcuts for my normal and freenet profiles with
> > targets of the form "" -P 
> > -no-remote.  What's the downside of doing that during Freenet
> > installation?  Or, if that's hard to implement, it'd be great to
> > include an explanation of how to do that in the readme or FAQ.
>
>It is difficult to implement. It is also unnecessary if you do what you're
>told! We open a browser window with a page explaining that it's a really bad
>idea to close this page before closing the browser running Freenet ... if you
>close it anyway, Bad Things happen - namely your firefox profile default gets
>reset.

Yeah, I got that.  And I'm not very good at doing what I'm told ;-)

> > > > I've had a node up on a Win NT box for ca. 24 hours in promiscuous
> > > > mode.  It's connected to ca. 20 nodes, and is slow but
> > > > acceptably-responsive.  When I'm not browsing, input and output rates
> > > > are 16.1 KiB/sec and 18.6 KiB/sec respectively.  Although output
> > > > tends to mirror input, there are frequent output spikes that seem to
> > > > originate from my node.  In other words, my node seems to be working.



My node's been up continuously now for about three days, with ca. 20 
peers, 25.1 KiB/sec average input rate, 27.1 KiB/sec average output 
rate (of 50.0 KiB/sec) and 13.9 KiB/sec average payload output rate 
(51%).  Is that reasonable?

However, in order to achieve that, I've had to stay logged on Win 
NT.  If I log off while sleeping or away, which has been my practice, 
Freenet appears to keep running (based on network activity) for a 
while.  However, when I log on the next day, I find that the node 
isn't connected to any peers, and also that it won't connect until I 
stop and restart it.

Freenet runs as user ".\freenet", and I get that y'all switched from 
running as LocalSystem to improve security 
<https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=1231>.  Am I correct in 
guessing that ".\freenet" is linked to my user account, and so the 
Freenet service hangs after I log off?  Could Freenet run safely as 
LocalService or NetworkService?

> > > > I have a relatively underutilized Win SBS 2003 server, and I'm
> > > > thinking of setting up a node in Ubuntu/VMware via a dedicated
> > > > physical NIC.  And I'm thinking of running in nonpersistent mode, so
> > > > that the node and all traces of its activity are lost when I shut it
> > > > down.  Would that be problematic for Freenet, if the node were up for
> > > > at least a few weeks per instance?
> > >
> > >Not if it was online for a reasonable time, although obviously it would be
> > >better for the network if it was just up.
> >
> > Would it be better for the network if I paused it as a snapshot
> > whenever I needed to reboot?  I don't reboot often, just as part of
> > installing updates or when messing with har

[freenet-support] update and more questions

2008-04-29 Thread Jim Cook
At 06:18 AM 4/29/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:

>* PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
>On Tuesday 29 April 2008 03:44, Jim Cook wrote:
> > Thank you again, Matthew (and Volodya) for your patience with my
> > naive questions.  Regarding the Firefox issue, I've found a Win BAT
> > file <http://www.mouserunner.com/FF_Tips_Multiple_Fx.html> that
> > facilitates running multiple instances with different profiles.
>
>Running multiple instances with different profiles is trivial, the problem is
>that if you don't want unpleasant surprises you have to change the link the
>user normally launches FF from to include -no-remote. Which is not something
>we really want to do...

In retrospect, it's trivial.  And I get why you've included a freenet 
Firefox profile and made it difficult to edit.  However, given the 
default "Don't ask at startup" setting in Firefox's profile manager, 
and the fact that I'd never run multiple profiles, I was blindsided, 
and thought that Freenet had trashed my Firefox setup.  Now I know to 
create Firefox shortcuts for my normal and freenet profiles with 
targets of the form "" -P  
-no-remote.  What's the downside of doing that during Freenet 
installation?  Or, if that's hard to implement, it'd be great to 
include an explanation of how to do that in the readme or FAQ.

> > I've had a node up on a Win NT box for ca. 24 hours in promiscuous
> > mode.  It's connected to ca. 20 nodes, and is slow but
> > acceptably-responsive.  When I'm not browsing, input and output rates
> > are 16.1 KiB/sec and 18.6 KiB/sec respectively.  Although output
> > tends to mirror input, there are frequent output spikes that seem to
> > originate from my node.  In other words, my node seems to be working.
> >
> > I haven't seen anything (in the security links that you've posted, or
> > elsewhere) about gaining admin access to other nodes via Freenet.  I
> > can't imagine that y'all haven't considered this in coding
> > Freenet.  So I'm being unreasonably paranoid, right?  Of course,
> > there's always the risk of downloading malware (or getting it from my ISP
>=-O).
>
>We may have exploitable bugs, but on that level, I doubt it. Java isn't
>subject to buffer overflows or heap corruption.

That's very good to know.  Even so, I'm still nervous about running 
Freenet on a machine that I use for work.  And that's why I'm 
planning to run it in a virtual machine in nonpersistent mode.

> > Yesterday, I also had a node up for ca. 12 hours on Ubuntu 7.10 in
> > VMware Player.  Before I trashed it and went to sleep, it was
> > connected to ca. 15 nodes, and seemed happy.  However, although I
> > added this node and my Win NT node to each other as trusted peers,
> > they never connected.  Is that a consequence of running in
> > promiscuous mode?  How do I tell them to connect?
>
>They're on the same LAN. There are options you need to set to make that work.

OK, I get that (and from Volodya's reply).  It was just an experiment 
to learn adding friends.  I'm about ready to start enrolling real friends.

> > I have a relatively underutilized Win SBS 2003 server, and I'm
> > thinking of setting up a node in Ubuntu/VMware via a dedicated
> > physical NIC.  And I'm thinking of running in nonpersistent mode, so
> > that the node and all traces of its activity are lost when I shut it
> > down.  Would that be problematic for Freenet, if the node were up for
> > at least a few weeks per instance?
>
>Not if it was online for a reasonable time, although obviously it would be
>better for the network if it was just up.

Would it be better for the network if I paused it as a snapshot 
whenever I needed to reboot?  I don't reboot often, just as part of 
installing updates or when messing with hardware.

> > Also, I'd appreciate guidance re optimal CPU, memory, storage and
> > bandwidth settings.  The server has two 3.6 GHz Xeons and 4 Gb RAM,
> > and I could spare 100 Gb RAID 10 storage and maybe 50 KiB/sec output
>bandwidth.
>
>Sounds nice.

It's my SQL slave :-)

>* Unknown Key
>* 0xE43DA450

=
Jim Cook   





[freenet-support] update and more questions

2008-04-28 Thread Jim Cook
Thank you again, Matthew (and Volodya) for your patience with my 
naive questions.  Regarding the Firefox issue, I've found a Win BAT 
file <http://www.mouserunner.com/FF_Tips_Multiple_Fx.html> that 
facilitates running multiple instances with different profiles.

I've had a node up on a Win NT box for ca. 24 hours in promiscuous 
mode.  It's connected to ca. 20 nodes, and is slow but 
acceptably-responsive.  When I'm not browsing, input and output rates 
are 16.1 KiB/sec and 18.6 KiB/sec respectively.  Although output 
tends to mirror input, there are frequent output spikes that seem to 
originate from my node.  In other words, my node seems to be working.

I haven't seen anything (in the security links that you've posted, or 
elsewhere) about gaining admin access to other nodes via Freenet.  I 
can't imagine that y'all haven't considered this in coding 
Freenet.  So I'm being unreasonably paranoid, right?  Of course, 
there's always the risk of downloading malware (or getting it from my ISP =-O).

Yesterday, I also had a node up for ca. 12 hours on Ubuntu 7.10 in 
VMware Player.  Before I trashed it and went to sleep, it was 
connected to ca. 15 nodes, and seemed happy.  However, although I 
added this node and my Win NT node to each other as trusted peers, 
they never connected.  Is that a consequence of running in 
promiscuous mode?  How do I tell them to connect?

I have a relatively underutilized Win SBS 2003 server, and I'm 
thinking of setting up a node in Ubuntu/VMware via a dedicated 
physical NIC.  And I'm thinking of running in nonpersistent mode, so 
that the node and all traces of its activity are lost when I shut it 
down.  Would that be problematic for Freenet, if the node were up for 
at least a few weeks per instance?

Also, I'd appreciate guidance re optimal CPU, memory, storage and 
bandwidth settings.  The server has two 3.6 GHz Xeons and 4 Gb RAM, 
and I could spare 100 Gb RAID 10 storage and maybe 50 KiB/sec output bandwidth.

=
Jim Cook   





[freenet-support] update and more questions

2008-04-28 Thread Jim Cook
Thank you again, Matthew (and Volodya) for your patience with my 
naive questions.  Regarding the Firefox issue, I've found a Win BAT 
file http://www.mouserunner.com/FF_Tips_Multiple_Fx.html that 
facilitates running multiple instances with different profiles.

I've had a node up on a Win NT box for ca. 24 hours in promiscuous 
mode.  It's connected to ca. 20 nodes, and is slow but 
acceptably-responsive.  When I'm not browsing, input and output rates 
are 16.1 KiB/sec and 18.6 KiB/sec respectively.  Although output 
tends to mirror input, there are frequent output spikes that seem to 
originate from my node.  In other words, my node seems to be working.

I haven't seen anything (in the security links that you've posted, or 
elsewhere) about gaining admin access to other nodes via Freenet.  I 
can't imagine that y'all haven't considered this in coding 
Freenet.  So I'm being unreasonably paranoid, right?  Of course, 
there's always the risk of downloading malware (or getting it from my ISP =-O).

Yesterday, I also had a node up for ca. 12 hours on Ubuntu 7.10 in 
VMware Player.  Before I trashed it and went to sleep, it was 
connected to ca. 15 nodes, and seemed happy.  However, although I 
added this node and my Win NT node to each other as trusted peers, 
they never connected.  Is that a consequence of running in 
promiscuous mode?  How do I tell them to connect?

I have a relatively underutilized Win SBS 2003 server, and I'm 
thinking of setting up a node in Ubuntu/VMware via a dedicated 
physical NIC.  And I'm thinking of running in nonpersistent mode, so 
that the node and all traces of its activity are lost when I shut it 
down.  Would that be problematic for Freenet, if the node were up for 
at least a few weeks per instance?

Also, I'd appreciate guidance re optimal CPU, memory, storage and 
bandwidth settings.  The server has two 3.6 GHz Xeons and 4 Gb RAM, 
and I could spare 100 Gb RAID 10 storage and maybe 50 KiB/sec output bandwidth.

=
Jim Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED]  


___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


[freenet-support] insecure mode and port forwarding

2008-04-25 Thread Jim Cook
As far as I know, I don't know anyone running Freenet, so I'm running 
in insecure/promiscuous mode.  Freenet kindly warns me that others 
can therefore identify my node and attack it.  However, although I've 
read the FAQ and googled some, I'm not clear what sorts of attacks 
are possible, other than knowing which sites I've visited.

Freenet also reminds me to forward UDP ports X and  because 
I'm behind a NAT, and so other nodes behind symmetrical NATs can't 
connect to my node.  However, Freenet seems to be working OK in that 
I'm connected to ca. 13 nodes.  I currently don't forward any ports 
through my hardware firewall, and I hesitate to do so without 
understanding the security implications.

I'd appreciate suggestions for further reading re both issues.

Thanks again.

=
Jim Cook   





[freenet-support] Firefox 2 gone after installing Freenet 0.7

2008-04-25 Thread Jim Cook
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 



[freenet-support] Firefox 2 gone after installing Freenet 0.7

2008-04-25 Thread Jim Cook
I just installed Freenet 0.7, and it seems to have replaced Firefox 2 
with Firefox 1.  I suspect that, if I reinstall Firefox 2, I may 
screw up Freenet.

Is that so?  And if it's so, is there a workaround (other than 
running Freenet in a virtual machine)?

Also, what's up with Google Toolbar?  Is that a requirement for 
running Freenet-tweaked Firefox?

Thanks

=
Jim Cook