Juiceman wrote:
>With 10 connections, the data that could intercepted by one attacker
>is roughly 10%. The problem is the attacker doesn't know how many
>connections you have, so you could just be passing on data from any
>number of connections you have.
It's currently trivialy easy to find out
Juiceman wrote:
With 10 connections, the data that could intercepted by one attacker
is roughly 10%. The problem is the attacker doesn't know how many
connections you have, so you could just be passing on data from any
number of connections you have.
It's currently trivialy easy to
On 8/24/06, urza9814 at gmail.com wrote:
> opennets are only bad in certain circumstances. The USA is not yet one
> of them. With a darknet, it may be harder to get into the network, but
> once your in it's a LOT easier to identify who is sharing and
> inserting what files. So it could be argued
opennets are only bad in certain circumstances. The USA is not yet one
of them. With a darknet, it may be harder to get into the network, but
once your in it's a LOT easier to identify who is sharing and
inserting what files. So it could be argued that a darknet is much
riskier than an opennet. In
So by running 0.7 in default mode I'm running in darknet? Or is there
another piece of the freenet puzzle I need to discover?
>From: "Evan Daniel"
>Reply-To: evand at pobox.com, support at freenetproject.org
>To: "diddler4u at hotmail.com"
>CC: support at freenetproject.org
>Subject: Re:
Evan,
Would you define this statement? "they're (developers) working against a
very real
clock."
_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
0.7 is currently darknet only. 0.5 is opennet only.
On 8/24/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote:
> So by running 0.7 in default mode I'm running in darknet? Or is there
> another piece of the freenet puzzle I need to discover?
>
>
> >From: "Evan Daniel"
> >Reply-To: evand at pobox.com, support
On 8/24/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote:
> Evan,
>
> Would you define this statement? "they're (developers) working against a
> very real
> clock."
Happily. At some point, running Freenet will (likely) become illegal,
assuming current trends continue. This includes in the West. It may
On 24 Aug 2006 10:46:58 -0400, Rowland wrote:
> A me-too and a summary of the discussion thus far as I see it:
>
> 1. Breaking backward compatibility is a bad thing.
> 2. Saying you won't ever do it again is small comfort.
> 3. Providing a migration path would help a lot.
> 4. I don't care about
On 24 Aug 2006 10:46:58 -0400, Rowland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A me-too and a summary of the discussion thus far as I see it:
1. Breaking backward compatibility is a bad thing.
2. Saying you won't ever do it again is small comfort.
3. Providing a migration path would help a lot.
4. I don't
Evan,
Would you define this statement? they're (developers) working against a
very real
clock.
_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Evan,
Would you define this statement? they're (developers) working against a
very real
clock.
Happily. At some point, running Freenet will (likely) become illegal,
assuming current trends continue. This includes in the West. It may
So by running 0.7 in default mode I'm running in darknet? Or is there
another piece of the freenet puzzle I need to discover?
From: Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], support@freenetproject.org
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: support@freenetproject.org
On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So by running 0.7 in default mode I'm running in darknet? Or is there
another piece of the freenet puzzle I need to discover?
It is a darknet because unless you give out your ref to someone
(like currently on IRC but that will change
opennets are only bad in certain circumstances. The USA is not yet one
of them. With a darknet, it may be harder to get into the network, but
once your in it's a LOT easier to identify who is sharing and
inserting what files. So it could be argued that a darknet is much
riskier than an opennet.
On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
opennets are only bad in certain circumstances. The USA is not yet one
of them. With a darknet, it may be harder to get into the network, but
once your in it's a LOT easier to identify who is sharing and
inserting what files. So it could be
16 matches
Mail list logo
