Re: [freenet-support] ?spam? Re: ?spam? Re: ?spam? Re: Peer IP address leakage?

2009-08-27 Thread Matthew Toseland
On Monday 24 August 2009 05:06:02 Michael Yip wrote:
 Michael Yip wrote:
  Evan Daniel wrote:

  On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 5:19 AM, Michael Yipmhy...@cs.bham.ac.uk wrote:

  
  Dsoslglece wrote:
  

  Michael Yip a écrit :

  
  Hi,
 
  My name is Michael and I'm currently studying the source code of 
  Freenet.
 
  I have found that the object reference for all PeerNode objects has the
  IP address of the peer associated with it. How is anonymity kept with
  the IP of the peer exposed? I have examined the log file and it seems
  the object reference of the peers are logged as they are added.
 
  What I'm confused is since Freenet seek to promote freedom of speech in
  the presence of strict government control, if they decide to run a
  Freenet node and collect IP addresses in this manner, the consequences
  would be unthinkable
 
  I have tested this by adding another node of mine and my IP address
  appears as expected.
 
  Can anyone explain to me why??
 
  Thanks,
 
  Michael
  ___
  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
 
 
 
  

  Hi Michael...
  it is correct that your IP would be known by your neighbour node, but,
  he is the only one to be able to identify you... more, and beside the
  fact of being able to be sure that you are using Freenet (only sure of
  this), even so, he has no way of knowing if the info or file or
  whatever, coming to you, or going from you, did or not come or go 10
  nodes away from you, since you act also (as a node) in passing
  packets... and anyway, even so, he is (and you are, and any of your
  neighbours) unable to know the content of the package, if you didn't
  create it yourself or ask yourself for it since only the original
  sender and final receiver are able to know it's content.
  Hope it was clear...
 
 

  
 Hi,
 
 Thanks for your reply.
 
 Taking from the point that IP addresses are known to your peers, I
  have another question.
 
 I've noticed that the hop-to-live counter is decremented according
  to the policy of:
  1)  the source node of the request,
  2) the node which recently reported fail for a data request or
  3) the node handling the request (usually because the node is the
  source of the request)
 
 Ok, so what if I modify the code for my node so that:
 
 1) maxHTL = 1
 2) decrementAtMin = false
 3) disableProbabilisticHTLs = false
 
Would this mean that my peers would not forward my message any
  further? This is because if so, this would allow me to probe my peers
  using my set of keys for data
  

  Your peers will sometimes pass on requests at min htl, specifically to
  avoid this problem.  That's what the probabilistic htl thing is for.
 
  Turning off probabilistic htl only turns it off on your node; it
  doesn't change your peers config, obviously.  So turning it off will
  let other people probe your store, but doesn't help you probe theirs.
 
  Evan Daniel

  
  Hi Evan,
 
  But what I've found from the source code (the Node class and the 
  RequestSender class) is that the HTL of a request would actually be 
  decremented according to the SOURCE of a request (that is, if a source 
  exists e.g. the node is forwarding a request). Also, it could also be 
  decremented according to the most recently failed node if the request 
  has been forwarded beforehand. Only if neither exists would the request 
  be decremented according to the node handling the request.
 
  This is at least as far as I understand from the source code so if 
  anyone can point out otherwise, I would be glad to hear it.
 
  Thanks,
 
  Michael
 
 

  ___
  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

  
 

 Hi all,
 
 After examining the source code further, I have found that the peers of 
 a node which are represented by the class PeerNode, have their own set 
 of probablistic HTL factors.
 
 Such factors (decrementHTLAtMaximum and decrementHTLAtMinimum) in the 
 PeerNode DO NOT actually follow the factors of the peers they represent.
 
 This means that each Freenet node actually has full control over how it 
 decrements the HTL of the requests that it processes. This means that 
 the peer which sent the request has no control over how the HTL of that 
 request is to be decremented at the destination node. Thus, a node 
 cannot probe by setting its maxHTL value to 1 and disableProbablisticHTL 
 

Re: [freenet-support] ?spam? Re: ?spam? Re: ?spam? Re: Peer IP address leakage?

2009-08-23 Thread Michael Yip
Michael Yip wrote:
 Evan Daniel wrote:
   
 On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 5:19 AM, Michael Yipmhy...@cs.bham.ac.uk wrote:
   
 
 Dsoslglece wrote:
 
   
 Michael Yip a écrit :
   
 
 Hi,

 My name is Michael and I'm currently studying the source code of Freenet.

 I have found that the object reference for all PeerNode objects has the
 IP address of the peer associated with it. How is anonymity kept with
 the IP of the peer exposed? I have examined the log file and it seems
 the object reference of the peers are logged as they are added.

 What I'm confused is since Freenet seek to promote freedom of speech in
 the presence of strict government control, if they decide to run a
 Freenet node and collect IP addresses in this manner, the consequences
 would be unthinkable

 I have tested this by adding another node of mine and my IP address
 appears as expected.

 Can anyone explain to me why??

 Thanks,

 Michael
 ___
 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



 
   
 Hi Michael...
 it is correct that your IP would be known by your neighbour node, but,
 he is the only one to be able to identify you... more, and beside the
 fact of being able to be sure that you are using Freenet (only sure of
 this), even so, he has no way of knowing if the info or file or
 whatever, coming to you, or going from you, did or not come or go 10
 nodes away from you, since you act also (as a node) in passing
 packets... and anyway, even so, he is (and you are, and any of your
 neighbours) unable to know the content of the package, if you didn't
 create it yourself or ask yourself for it since only the original
 sender and final receiver are able to know it's content.
 Hope it was clear...


   
 
Hi,

Thanks for your reply.

Taking from the point that IP addresses are known to your peers, I
 have another question.

I've noticed that the hop-to-live counter is decremented according
 to the policy of:
 1)  the source node of the request,
 2) the node which recently reported fail for a data request or
 3) the node handling the request (usually because the node is the
 source of the request)

Ok, so what if I modify the code for my node so that:

1) maxHTL = 1
2) decrementAtMin = false
3) disableProbabilisticHTLs = false

   Would this mean that my peers would not forward my message any
 further? This is because if so, this would allow me to probe my peers
 using my set of keys for data
 
   
 Your peers will sometimes pass on requests at min htl, specifically to
 avoid this problem.  That's what the probabilistic htl thing is for.

 Turning off probabilistic htl only turns it off on your node; it
 doesn't change your peers config, obviously.  So turning it off will
 let other people probe your store, but doesn't help you probe theirs.

 Evan Daniel
   
 
 Hi Evan,

 But what I've found from the source code (the Node class and the 
 RequestSender class) is that the HTL of a request would actually be 
 decremented according to the SOURCE of a request (that is, if a source 
 exists e.g. the node is forwarding a request). Also, it could also be 
 decremented according to the most recently failed node if the request 
 has been forwarded beforehand. Only if neither exists would the request 
 be decremented according to the node handling the request.

 This is at least as far as I understand from the source code so if 
 anyone can point out otherwise, I would be glad to hear it.

 Thanks,

 Michael


   
 ___
 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
   
 

   
Hi all,

After examining the source code further, I have found that the peers of 
a node which are represented by the class PeerNode, have their own set 
of probablistic HTL factors.

Such factors (decrementHTLAtMaximum and decrementHTLAtMinimum) in the 
PeerNode DO NOT actually follow the factors of the peers they represent.

This means that each Freenet node actually has full control over how it 
decrements the HTL of the requests that it processes. This means that 
the peer which sent the request has no control over how the HTL of that 
request is to be decremented at the destination node. Thus, a node 
cannot probe by setting its maxHTL value to 1 and disableProbablisticHTL 
= true.

Can anyone please confirm this for me?

Thanks,

Michael
 ___
 Support mailing list
 Support@freenetproject.org