[freenet-support] Freenet and firewall

[3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i]

Thanks for your response.

I like the principle "always jump a nation boundary on each hop" :)


On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Matthew Toseland  wrote:

> On Thursday 18 December 2008 22:03, 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i wrote:
> > My idea:
> > Interpose at least one "foreign IP address" between sender and recipient
> of
> > a same country.
> > The goal: isolate the sender and recipient.
> > The "foreign IP address" is a "country" that cooperates little, or
> doesn't
> > cooperate.
> > For example:
> > USA --> Venezuela --> USA
> > USA --> Russia --> Venezuela --> USA
> > China --> USA --> China
> > Etc.
> > Friends are unnecessary. The authorities and lobbies artists are more
> > difficult to trap users.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> This has been proposed before. I believe there is a VPN-based network on
> such
> principles (always jump a nation boundary on each hop). I would point out
> that the set of such antipathic relationships is quite small. On Freenet,
> it
> wouldn't help much IMHO (on opennet i.e. Strangers, it is possible to
> attack
> the network without compromising nodes) and would have a considerable
> performance cost. There was a design decision taken that if you have
> security
> level NORMAL and therefore use opennet you want adequate (if not stellar)
> performance; high security and opennet do not go together on Freenet's
> architecture, so options that cost a lot of performance are disabled by
> default on NORMAL; HIGH turns off opennet. However if somebody sends a
> patch
> and some mechanism to update the IP mappings, we would consider having it
> as
> an option.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:31 AM, Luke771  wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:31:46 +0100
> > > "3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i" <3buib3s50i at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thank you for your reply.
> > > >
> > > >  I tried to block all traffic. Everything is blocked, except Freenet
> and
> > > > TOR.
> > > >
> > > > I wanted to allow only the IP ranges of some countries. And allow
> > > connection
> > > > to seednodes. This is an intermediate solution between darknet and
> > > opennet.
> > >
> > > No, this is nonsense.
> > > You can run darknet, opennet, or even both side by side, but there's no
> > > such thing as an 'intermediate solution' The idea of blocking whole
> > > countries (based on -what? biased information from the propaganda
> machine?)
> > > makes no sense at all. Please reconsider your position.
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

[freenet-support] Freenet and firewall

[Matthew Toseland]

On Thursday 18 December 2008 22:03, 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i wrote:
> My idea:
> Interpose at least one "foreign IP address" between sender and recipient of
> a same country.
> The goal: isolate the sender and recipient.
> The "foreign IP address" is a "country" that cooperates little, or doesn't
> cooperate.
> For example:
> USA --> Venezuela --> USA
> USA --> Russia --> Venezuela --> USA
> China --> USA --> China
> Etc.
> Friends are unnecessary. The authorities and lobbies artists are more
> difficult to trap users.
> 
> What do you think?

This has been proposed before. I believe there is a VPN-based network on such 
principles (always jump a nation boundary on each hop). I would point out 
that the set of such antipathic relationships is quite small. On Freenet, it 
wouldn't help much IMHO (on opennet i.e. Strangers, it is possible to attack 
the network without compromising nodes) and would have a considerable 
performance cost. There was a design decision taken that if you have security 
level NORMAL and therefore use opennet you want adequate (if not stellar) 
performance; high security and opennet do not go together on Freenet's 
architecture, so options that cost a lot of performance are disabled by 
default on NORMAL; HIGH turns off opennet. However if somebody sends a patch 
and some mechanism to update the IP mappings, we would consider having it as 
an option.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:31 AM, Luke771  wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:31:46 +0100
> > "3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i" <3buib3s50i at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you for your reply.
> > >
> > >  I tried to block all traffic. Everything is blocked, except Freenet and
> > > TOR.
> > >
> > > I wanted to allow only the IP ranges of some countries. And allow
> > connection
> > > to seednodes. This is an intermediate solution between darknet and
> > opennet.
> >
> > No, this is nonsense.
> > You can run darknet, opennet, or even both side by side, but there's no
> > such thing as an 'intermediate solution' The idea of blocking whole
> > countries (based on -what? biased information from the propaganda 
machine?)
> > makes no sense at all. Please reconsider your position.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet and firewall

[Matthew Toseland]

On Thursday 18 December 2008 22:03, 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i wrote:
 My idea:
 Interpose at least one foreign IP address between sender and recipient of
 a same country.
 The goal: isolate the sender and recipient.
 The foreign IP address is a country that cooperates little, or doesn't
 cooperate.
 For example:
 USA -- Venezuela -- USA
 USA -- Russia -- Venezuela -- USA
 China -- USA -- China
 Etc.
 Friends are unnecessary. The authorities and lobbies artists are more
 difficult to trap users.
 
 What do you think?

This has been proposed before. I believe there is a VPN-based network on such 
principles (always jump a nation boundary on each hop). I would point out 
that the set of such antipathic relationships is quite small. On Freenet, it 
wouldn't help much IMHO (on opennet i.e. Strangers, it is possible to attack 
the network without compromising nodes) and would have a considerable 
performance cost. There was a design decision taken that if you have security 
level NORMAL and therefore use opennet you want adequate (if not stellar) 
performance; high security and opennet do not go together on Freenet's 
architecture, so options that cost a lot of performance are disabled by 
default on NORMAL; HIGH turns off opennet. However if somebody sends a patch 
and some mechanism to update the IP mappings, we would consider having it as 
an option.
 
 
 On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:31 AM, Luke771 luke...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:31:46 +0100
  3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i 3buib3s...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   Thank you for your reply.
  
I tried to block all traffic. Everything is blocked, except Freenet and
   TOR.
  
   I wanted to allow only the IP ranges of some countries. And allow
  connection
   to seednodes. This is an intermediate solution between darknet and
  opennet.
 
  No, this is nonsense.
  You can run darknet, opennet, or even both side by side, but there's no
  such thing as an 'intermediate solution' The idea of blocking whole
  countries (based on -what? biased information from the propaganda 
machine?)
  makes no sense at all. Please reconsider your position.


pgplvQxuLU6l2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
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] Freenet and firewall

[3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i]

My idea:
Interpose at least one "foreign IP address" between sender and recipient of
a same country.
The goal: isolate the sender and recipient.
The "foreign IP address" is a "country" that cooperates little, or doesn't
cooperate.
For example:
USA --> Venezuela --> USA
USA --> Russia --> Venezuela --> USA
China --> USA --> China
Etc.
Friends are unnecessary. The authorities and lobbies artists are more
difficult to trap users.

What do you think?


On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:31 AM, Luke771  wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:31:46 +0100
> "3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i" <3buib3s50i at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for your reply.
> >
> >  I tried to block all traffic. Everything is blocked, except Freenet and
> > TOR.
> >
> > I wanted to allow only the IP ranges of some countries. And allow
> connection
> > to seednodes. This is an intermediate solution between darknet and
> opennet.
>
> No, this is nonsense.
> You can run darknet, opennet, or even both side by side, but there's no
> such thing as an 'intermediate solution' The idea of blocking whole
> countries (based on -what? biased information from the propaganda machine?)
> makes no sense at all. Please reconsider your position.
> ___
> 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
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

[freenet-support] Freenet and firewall

[Volodya]

Luke771 wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:31:46 +0100
> "3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i" <3buib3s50i at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Thank you for your reply.
>>
>>  I tried to block all traffic. Everything is blocked, except Freenet and
>> TOR.
>>
>> I wanted to allow only the IP ranges of some countries. And allow connection
>> to seednodes. This is an intermediate solution between darknet and opennet.
> 
> No, this is nonsense.
> You can run darknet, opennet, or even both side by side, but there's no such 
> thing as an 'intermediate solution' The idea of blocking whole countries 
> (based on -what? biased information from the propaganda machine?) makes no 
> sense at all. Please reconsider your position.

There was shitlist on 0,5 right before 0,7 got released. I even contributed to 
it by writing range thingy rather than being able to block a single ip at the 
time.

   - Volodya

-- 
http://freedom.libsyn.com/   Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/ Anarchopedia, A Free Knowledge Portal
http://www.freedomporn.org/  Freedom Porn, anarchist and activist smut

  "None of us are free until all of us are free."~ Mihail Bakunin

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet and firewall

[Volodya]

Luke771 wrote:
 On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:31:46 +0100
 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i 3buib3s...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Thank you for your reply.

  I tried to block all traffic. Everything is blocked, except Freenet and
 TOR.

 I wanted to allow only the IP ranges of some countries. And allow connection
 to seednodes. This is an intermediate solution between darknet and opennet.
 
 No, this is nonsense.
 You can run darknet, opennet, or even both side by side, but there's no such 
 thing as an 'intermediate solution' The idea of blocking whole countries 
 (based on -what? biased information from the propaganda machine?) makes no 
 sense at all. Please reconsider your position.

There was shitlist on 0,5 right before 0,7 got released. I even contributed to 
it by writing range thingy rather than being able to block a single ip at the 
time.

   - Volodya

-- 
http://freedom.libsyn.com/   Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/ Anarchopedia, A Free Knowledge Portal
http://www.freedomporn.org/  Freedom Porn, anarchist and activist smut

  None of us are free until all of us are free.~ Mihail Bakunin
___
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

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet and firewall

[3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i]

My idea:
Interpose at least one foreign IP address between sender and recipient of
a same country.
The goal: isolate the sender and recipient.
The foreign IP address is a country that cooperates little, or doesn't
cooperate.
For example:
USA -- Venezuela -- USA
USA -- Russia -- Venezuela -- USA
China -- USA -- China
Etc.
Friends are unnecessary. The authorities and lobbies artists are more
difficult to trap users.

What do you think?


On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:31 AM, Luke771 luke...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:31:46 +0100
 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i 3buib3s...@gmail.com wrote:

  Thank you for your reply.
 
   I tried to block all traffic. Everything is blocked, except Freenet and
  TOR.
 
  I wanted to allow only the IP ranges of some countries. And allow
 connection
  to seednodes. This is an intermediate solution between darknet and
 opennet.

 No, this is nonsense.
 You can run darknet, opennet, or even both side by side, but there's no
 such thing as an 'intermediate solution' The idea of blocking whole
 countries (based on -what? biased information from the propaganda machine?)
 makes no sense at all. Please reconsider your position.
 ___
 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

___
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] Freenet and firewall

[Luke771]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:31:46 +0100
"3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i" <3buib3s50i at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you for your reply.
> 
>  I tried to block all traffic. Everything is blocked, except Freenet and
> TOR.
> 
> I wanted to allow only the IP ranges of some countries. And allow connection
> to seednodes. This is an intermediate solution between darknet and opennet.

No, this is nonsense.
You can run darknet, opennet, or even both side by side, but there's no such 
thing as an 'intermediate solution' The idea of blocking whole countries (based 
on -what? biased information from the propaganda machine?) makes no sense at 
all. Please reconsider your position.

[freenet-support] Freenet and firewall

[3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i]

Thank you for your reply.

 I tried to block all traffic. Everything is blocked, except Freenet and
TOR.

I wanted to allow only the IP ranges of some countries. And allow connection
to seednodes. This is an intermediate solution between darknet and opennet.

This is not a mistake of rules, but I will continue to search, and test
different firewalls.



On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Luke771  wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:45:49 +0100
> "3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i" <3buib3s50i at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I use the OpenNet mode and I want to use a firewall to block certain IP
> > addresses. All traffic is blocked, except for TOR and Freenet which
> aren't
> > blocked by the firewall. Even with a "deny all"! Why? You have an idea?
> >
>
> Because you allowed Freenet and Tor to accept conections from the internet?
>
>
> If you ran darknet, you could make a firewall rule and allow connections
> only to your manually added Darknet peers ('Friends'), but as long as you
> run Opennet, your node need to be able to communicate to any IP.
>
> You could either use a 'negative' firewall rule like "allow connections on
> port  to everyone  excpet ", or software like
> PeerGuardian that blocks a list of "bad" IP's: you could use that software
> and replace their "bad IP's" list with your own list of IP's you need to
> block.
>
> Note that the PeerGuardian approach of blocking IP's based on who owns them
> (NSA, etc) is essentially pointless because if the 'bad guys' are going to
> spy on you, they won't do that from secretservices.gov ; they would use
> apartments and connections on private citizens' names.
>
> Anyways, yours is basically a firewall question. Check out your firewall's
> manual, read some forums, use Google, etc., and learn how to make a firewall
> rule to deny access to specific IP's/ranges
> ___
> 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
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

[freenet-support] Freenet and firewall

[Luke771]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:45:49 +0100
"3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i" <3buib3s50i at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I use the OpenNet mode and I want to use a firewall to block certain IP
> addresses. All traffic is blocked, except for TOR and Freenet which aren't
> blocked by the firewall. Even with a "deny all"! Why? You have an idea?
> 

Because you allowed Freenet and Tor to accept conections from the internet?


If you ran darknet, you could make a firewall rule and allow connections only 
to your manually added Darknet peers ('Friends'), but as long as you run 
Opennet, your node need to be able to communicate to any IP.

You could either use a 'negative' firewall rule like "allow connections on port 
 to everyone  excpet ", or software like PeerGuardian that 
blocks a list of "bad" IP's: you could use that software and replace their "bad 
IP's" list with your own list of IP's you need to block.

Note that the PeerGuardian approach of blocking IP's based on who owns them 
(NSA, etc) is essentially pointless because if the 'bad guys' are going to spy 
on you, they won't do that from secretservices.gov ; they would use apartments 
and connections on private citizens' names.

Anyways, yours is basically a firewall question. Check out your firewall's 
manual, read some forums, use Google, etc., and learn how to make a firewall 
rule to deny access to specific IP's/ranges

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet and firewall

[Luke771]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:45:49 +0100
3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i 3buib3s...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,
 
 I use the OpenNet mode and I want to use a firewall to block certain IP
 addresses. All traffic is blocked, except for TOR and Freenet which aren't
 blocked by the firewall. Even with a deny all! Why? You have an idea?
 

Because you allowed Freenet and Tor to accept conections from the internet?


If you ran darknet, you could make a firewall rule and allow connections only 
to your manually added Darknet peers ('Friends'), but as long as you run 
Opennet, your node need to be able to communicate to any IP.

You could either use a 'negative' firewall rule like allow connections on port 
opennet port to everyone  excpet list, or software like PeerGuardian that 
blocks a list of bad IP's: you could use that software and replace their bad 
IP's list with your own list of IP's you need to block.

Note that the PeerGuardian approach of blocking IP's based on who owns them 
(NSA, etc) is essentially pointless because if the 'bad guys' are going to spy 
on you, they won't do that from secretservices.gov ; they would use apartments 
and connections on private citizens' names.

Anyways, yours is basically a firewall question. Check out your firewall's 
manual, read some forums, use Google, etc., and learn how to make a firewall 
rule to deny access to specific IP's/ranges
___
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

Re: [freenet-support] Freenet and firewall

[3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i]

Thank you for your reply.

 I tried to block all traffic. Everything is blocked, except Freenet and
TOR.

I wanted to allow only the IP ranges of some countries. And allow connection
to seednodes. This is an intermediate solution between darknet and opennet.

This is not a mistake of rules, but I will continue to search, and test
different firewalls.



On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Luke771 luke...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:45:49 +0100
 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i 3buib3s...@gmail.com wrote:

  Hi,
 
  I use the OpenNet mode and I want to use a firewall to block certain IP
  addresses. All traffic is blocked, except for TOR and Freenet which
 aren't
  blocked by the firewall. Even with a deny all! Why? You have an idea?
 

 Because you allowed Freenet and Tor to accept conections from the internet?


 If you ran darknet, you could make a firewall rule and allow connections
 only to your manually added Darknet peers ('Friends'), but as long as you
 run Opennet, your node need to be able to communicate to any IP.

 You could either use a 'negative' firewall rule like allow connections on
 port opennet port to everyone  excpet list, or software like
 PeerGuardian that blocks a list of bad IP's: you could use that software
 and replace their bad IP's list with your own list of IP's you need to
 block.

 Note that the PeerGuardian approach of blocking IP's based on who owns them
 (NSA, etc) is essentially pointless because if the 'bad guys' are going to
 spy on you, they won't do that from secretservices.gov ; they would use
 apartments and connections on private citizens' names.

 Anyways, yours is basically a firewall question. Check out your firewall's
 manual, read some forums, use Google, etc., and learn how to make a firewall
 rule to deny access to specific IP's/ranges
 ___
 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

___
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] Freenet and firewall

[3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i]

Hi,

I use the OpenNet mode and I want to use a firewall to block certain IP
addresses. All traffic is blocked, except for TOR and Freenet which aren't
blocked by the firewall. Even with a "deny all"! Why? You have an idea?
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

[freenet-support] Freenet and firewall

[3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i]

Hi,

I use the OpenNet mode and I want to use a firewall to block certain IP
addresses. All traffic is blocked, except for TOR and Freenet which aren't
blocked by the firewall. Even with a deny all! Why? You have an idea?
___
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

RE: [freenet-support] Freenet vs. firewall

[tech]

Use proxies for freenet.  Basically let the freenet 
traffic tunnel through a proxy on port 80. Some people
in China managed to do this, but I do not understand
how they did it.

It will be great if freenet software supports such proxy 
configuration, or include something for this.

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tom Kludy
 Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 2:10 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [freenet-support] Freenet vs. firewall
 
 
 Where I work there is a firewall in place that not
 only denies all incoming connections, but also denies
 all outgoing connections except those on port 80. 
 (Yes, it is rediculous.  But it is impossible for me
 to get around this.)
 
 Are there any freenet servers running on port 80 that
 I can connect to?
 
 Please respond directly to this email address.  I do
 not subscribe to the freenet support mail group.
 
 Thanks,
 -TomK
 
 
 __
 Do You Yahoo!?
 Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
 a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
 
 ___
 Support mailing list
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/support

___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/support