Re: [freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
-BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE- Message-type: plaintext In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:52:44PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote: Matthew Toseland a ?crit : On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote: As far as the above goes, please read the responses to the other post. I did. So you confirm my understanding ? 99% of current Freenet users won't be able to join the darknet and will have to use opennet. In the short term, perhaps. In the West you won't need to have known somebody for 25 years in order to trust them enough to connect to their node; I would be happy to connect to a number of people I have never met, who I know online. There are a few parameters here: 1. Are they an acquaintance, beyond random computer selection? We must not connect people randomly, because routing requires a small world graph. 2. Do you trust them enough for them to know for sure that you run a freenet node? It may be illegal in some places, in which case you will need to pick more carefully. 3. Do you trust them not to launch attacks on you in order to break your anonymity? How difficult such attacks are depends on the design decisions we make in 0.7.0, and hopefully in future they will be more difficult, but you will always be most vulnerable to your immediate neighbours (just as you are most vulnerable to your real life friends in real life). Suppose Freenet 0.7 becomes illegal in France (what it already is, because of the AES 256 encryption). My understanding is that the french crypto regulations were abandoned some time ago. The opennet won't be secure for us, but we won't be able to join the darknet. What could we do ? Keep on using 0.5 ? Make your own darknet. :) Then come to Bristol, take me out for a pizza, and I'll connect to your node ;). Seriously, there needs to be some sort of relationship for the small world properties to hold, but beyond that it's not such a big deal. The opennet will probably be more secure than 0.5. But both are very easy to shut down, because they can be very easily harvested - all nodes can be found easily, meaning they can be blocked, attacked, etc. That is why I'm searching a way for someone who is neither a member of alpha-testers/Freenet-devs, nor a very organised terrorist/paedophile to join the darknet. Surprisingly enough most paedophiles are disorganized. Just like most other people are disorganized. I wouldnt know, I am not aware of knowing any paedophiles. Do you think it would be possible for nodes in the darknet to see what happens in the opennet ? Maybe a special kind of nodes that acts as a gateway between the 2 networks : it wouldn't endanger the anonymity of thoses who are in the darknet but it would give them the ability to see the newcommers and eventually decide to invite them. *Any* node on the opennet is vulnerable to being found, blocked, seized etc. However there is no reason that content cannot be migrated from one to the other. So we can expect opennet darknet gateways to exist? My opinion is that a resistance-network has to be closed tight when war is on. But it needs to create itself before that. So if some people could choose the become some fuses between open and dark, the darknet would remain safe and be able to recruit. It is IMHO strategically vital that we can test the network as a pure darknet. We will need an opennet as well, because we need to have something for people to download from freenetproject.org. I'm affraid that if this fonctionnality isn't enabled in Freenet, people will do it by other ways (internet forums, mailing-lists, weak encrypted emails, etc.) which are way less secure than Freenet. Or worse, some will decide to publish their keys and allow anyone to connect to the darknet through them... In which case there will be weak segments of the darknet. That does not undermine the whole structure. The mainstreamers can still use the opennet. I expect there to be some cross-recruiting. But the intention is for the darknet to be separate from the opennet. People who happen to be on both can migrate content manually. They can also get to know people on the opennet, and perhaps add them later. I first met Ian after having worked for him for around a year; I have a friend in Australia who I've never met but I would be perfectly happy to connect my node to. But at this stage, I would happily connect to Newsbyte. Or CofE if I knew him, but I obviously wouldn't want him to breach his carefully guarded anonymity just for that. :) -- http://www.freenet-fr.org -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE- ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Re: [freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 10:55:12AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: On 19 Sep 2005, at 16:54, Matthew Toseland wrote: It is IMHO strategically vital that we can test the network as a pure darknet. We will need an opennet as well, because we need to have something for people to download from freenetproject.org. I see no reason for there to be a separate opennet and darknet. We have open nodes and dark nodes within a single network. Having two separate networks will simply confuse our userbase and reduce the utility of the network for everyone. Which reduces globally scalable darknet to clusters of dark nodes hanging off the opennet. The result of which is that it does not tell us anything about the viability of the global darknet. And WHEN, not if, the opennet is compromized, there is no global darknet. Just a few disconnected nodes. Ian. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
On 20 Sep 2005, at 10:56, Matthew Toseland wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 10:55:12AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: On 19 Sep 2005, at 16:54, Matthew Toseland wrote: It is IMHO strategically vital that we can test the network as a pure darknet. We will need an opennet as well, because we need to have something for people to download from freenetproject.org. I see no reason for there to be a separate opennet and darknet. We have open nodes and dark nodes within a single network. Having two separate networks will simply confuse our userbase and reduce the utility of the network for everyone. Which reduces globally scalable darknet to clusters of dark nodes hanging off the opennet. Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative is clusters of isolated dark nodes, which is worse? The result of which is that it does not tell us anything about the viability of the global darknet. And WHEN, not if, the opennet is compromized, there is no global darknet. Just a few disconnected nodes. If you truly believe that dark nodes would be in small isolated pockets, then what makes you believe that a pure-darknet is viable at all without open nodes to glue it together? Ian. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:12:40AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: On 20 Sep 2005, at 10:56, Matthew Toseland wrote: Which reduces globally scalable darknet to clusters of dark nodes hanging off the opennet. Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative is clusters of isolated dark nodes, which is worse? There would be no real reason to grow the darknet, that's the point. If the only way to connect (easily) is by growing the darknet, it will grow. The result of which is that it does not tell us anything about the viability of the global darknet. And WHEN, not if, the opennet is compromized, there is no global darknet. Just a few disconnected nodes. If you truly believe that dark nodes would be in small isolated pockets, then what makes you believe that a pure-darknet is viable at all without open nodes to glue it together? I don't believe people would make the effort to grow the darknet if they are connected by open nodes. And furthermore, if they are connected by open nodes, it tells us nothing whatsoever about the viability of a fully dark network. Ian. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 12:58:44PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: On 20 Sep 2005, at 11:33, Matthew Toseland wrote: Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative is clusters of isolated dark nodes, which is worse? There would be no real reason to grow the darknet, that's the point. If the only way to connect (easily) is by growing the darknet, it will grow. So you propose to force people to run darknet nodes even though they might be quite satisfied to use the opennet? I don't believe in forcing users to do things against their will. Eh? I don't understand. If they want to use the opennet, they can use the opennet. The result of which is that it does not tell us anything about the viability of the global darknet. And WHEN, not if, the opennet is compromized, there is no global darknet. Just a few disconnected nodes. If you truly believe that dark nodes would be in small isolated pockets, then what makes you believe that a pure-darknet is viable at all without open nodes to glue it together? I don't believe people would make the effort to grow the darknet if they are connected by open nodes. And furthermore, if they are connected by open nodes, it tells us nothing whatsoever about the viability of a fully dark network. People get a choice. If people chose to leave their nodes open, then so be it. It isn't our place to force people to do one thing or the other. In which case the whole experiment will have been totally pointless, and there will be NOTHING to build on in the future, because we won't have actually prototyped the globally scalable darknet. Ian. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
On 20 Sep 2005, at 14:08, Matthew Toseland wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 12:58:44PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: On 20 Sep 2005, at 11:33, Matthew Toseland wrote: Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative is clusters of isolated dark nodes, which is worse? There would be no real reason to grow the darknet, that's the point. If the only way to connect (easily) is by growing the darknet, it will grow. So you propose to force people to run darknet nodes even though they might be quite satisfied to use the opennet? I don't believe in forcing users to do things against their will. Eh? I don't understand. If they want to use the opennet, they can use the opennet. Yeah, but then they can't be part of the darknet. You are saying to people: I'm sorry, you can only connect to people you trust, you aren't allowed to connect to strangers. If the user wants to connect to strangers, and those strangers are happy to connect to them, then it is futile for us to try to prevent it. The result of which is that it does not tell us anything about the viability of the global darknet. And WHEN, not if, the opennet is compromized, there is no global darknet. Just a few disconnected nodes. If you truly believe that dark nodes would be in small isolated pockets, then what makes you believe that a pure-darknet is viable at all without open nodes to glue it together? I don't believe people would make the effort to grow the darknet if they are connected by open nodes. And furthermore, if they are connected by open nodes, it tells us nothing whatsoever about the viability of a fully dark network. People get a choice. If people chose to leave their nodes open, then so be it. It isn't our place to force people to do one thing or the other. In which case the whole experiment will have been totally pointless, and there will be NOTHING to build on in the future, because we won't have actually prototyped the globally scalable darknet. Perhaps according to your definition of darknet we won't, but my definition of darknet includes the choice to connect to strangers if the user is willing to take that risk. What you don't seem to realise is that we don't get to choose whether or not people will connect to each-other indiscriminately, many people will regardless of what we say to them. We will see Freenet matchmaking websites set up that will probably ruin the network's topology as they will have no regard for the requirements of a small world network. The best option is to offer people the choice, and if they want an open node, then at least we can ensure that it won't screw up the small world topology. Sure, we might not know for sure whether it could have worked in a pure trusted-link network, but who cares so long as it works in a realistic scenario which is a mixture of open and dark nodes? Ian. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 02:55:55PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: On 20 Sep 2005, at 14:08, Matthew Toseland wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 12:58:44PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: On 20 Sep 2005, at 11:33, Matthew Toseland wrote: Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative is clusters of isolated dark nodes, which is worse? There would be no real reason to grow the darknet, that's the point. If the only way to connect (easily) is by growing the darknet, it will grow. So you propose to force people to run darknet nodes even though they might be quite satisfied to use the opennet? I don't believe in forcing users to do things against their will. Eh? I don't understand. If they want to use the opennet, they can use the opennet. Yeah, but then they can't be part of the darknet. You are saying to people: I'm sorry, you can only connect to people you trust, you aren't allowed to connect to strangers. If the user wants to connect to strangers, and those strangers are happy to connect to them, then it is futile for us to try to prevent it. They can connect to whomever they like. I object to there being one network with both harvestable path folding and darknet topologies. I don't know if the routing would work, or how we could make it work, but I also object to it on strategic grounds. I don't believe people would make the effort to grow the darknet if they are connected by open nodes. And furthermore, if they are connected by open nodes, it tells us nothing whatsoever about the viability of a fully dark network. People get a choice. If people chose to leave their nodes open, then so be it. It isn't our place to force people to do one thing or the other. In which case the whole experiment will have been totally pointless, and there will be NOTHING to build on in the future, because we won't have actually prototyped the globally scalable darknet. Perhaps according to your definition of darknet we won't, but my definition of darknet includes the choice to connect to strangers if the user is willing to take that risk. Of course you can connect to strangers. But using path folding to do it means that it is *no longer a pure darknet*. The segment of it which has path folding will probably be the vast majority of the nodes. We are no longer testing darknet routing, we are testing opennet routing. What you don't seem to realise is that we don't get to choose whether or not people will connect to each-other indiscriminately, many people will regardless of what we say to them. We will see Freenet matchmaking websites set up that will probably ruin the network's topology as they will have no regard for the requirements of a small world network. They can use the opennet. And it will only ruin the network in those areas of the network whose occupants allow it to happen i.e. who put their nodes up. And it won't work, because the topology is broken, so the people who used the matchmaker will go back to the opennet. The best option is to offer people the choice, and if they want an open node, then at least we can ensure that it won't screw up the small world topology. Sure, we might not know for sure whether it could have worked in a pure trusted-link network, but who cares so long as it works in a realistic scenario which is a mixture of open and dark nodes? It's not a realistic scenario in China, Saudi, or any other hazardous environment. And it does not tell us anything we do not already know, because the proportion of unharvestable darknet nodes will be low. We're not just trying to build a working network here, we also want to validate it. Even automated matchmakers are harder to harvest than path folding - partly because only idiots will use them. Ian. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:52:44PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote: Matthew Toseland a ?crit : On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote: As far as the above goes, please read the responses to the other post. I did. So you confirm my understanding ? 99% of current Freenet users won't be able to join the darknet and will have to use opennet. In the short term, perhaps. In the West you won't need to have known somebody for 25 years in order to trust them enough to connect to their node; I would be happy to connect to a number of people I have never met, who I know online. There are a few parameters here: 1. Are they an acquaintance, beyond random computer selection? We must not connect people randomly, because routing requires a small world graph. 2. Do you trust them enough for them to know for sure that you run a freenet node? It may be illegal in some places, in which case you will need to pick more carefully. 3. Do you trust them not to launch attacks on you in order to break your anonymity? How difficult such attacks are depends on the design decisions we make in 0.7.0, and hopefully in future they will be more difficult, but you will always be most vulnerable to your immediate neighbours (just as you are most vulnerable to your real life friends in real life). Suppose Freenet 0.7 becomes illegal in France (what it already is, because of the AES 256 encryption). My understanding is that the french crypto regulations were abandoned some time ago. The opennet won't be secure for us, but we won't be able to join the darknet. What could we do ? Keep on using 0.5 ? Make your own darknet. :) Then come to Bristol, take me out for a pizza, and I'll connect to your node ;). Seriously, there needs to be some sort of relationship for the small world properties to hold, but beyond that it's not such a big deal. The opennet will probably be more secure than 0.5. But both are very easy to shut down, because they can be very easily harvested - all nodes can be found easily, meaning they can be blocked, attacked, etc. That is why I'm searching a way for someone who is neither a member of alpha-testers/Freenet-devs, nor a very organised terrorist/paedophile to join the darknet. Surprisingly enough most paedophiles are disorganized. Just like most other people are disorganized. Do you think it would be possible for nodes in the darknet to see what happens in the opennet ? Maybe a special kind of nodes that acts as a gateway between the 2 networks : it wouldn't endanger the anonymity of thoses who are in the darknet but it would give them the ability to see the newcommers and eventually decide to invite them. *Any* node on the opennet is vulnerable to being found, blocked, seized etc. However there is no reason that content cannot be migrated from one to the other. My opinion is that a resistance-network has to be closed tight when war is on. But it needs to create itself before that. So if some people could choose the become some fuses between open and dark, the darknet would remain safe and be able to recruit. It is IMHO strategically vital that we can test the network as a pure darknet. We will need an opennet as well, because we need to have something for people to download from freenetproject.org. I'm affraid that if this fonctionnality isn't enabled in Freenet, people will do it by other ways (internet forums, mailing-lists, weak encrypted emails, etc.) which are way less secure than Freenet. Or worse, some will decide to publish their keys and allow anyone to connect to the darknet through them... In which case there will be weak segments of the darknet. That does not undermine the whole structure. The mainstreamers can still use the opennet. I expect there to be some cross-recruiting. But the intention is for the darknet to be separate from the opennet. People who happen to be on both can migrate content manually. They can also get to know people on the opennet, and perhaps add them later. I first met Ian after having worked for him for around a year; I have a friend in Australia who I've never met but I would be perfectly happy to connect my node to. But at this stage, I would happily connect to Newsbyte. Or CofE if I knew him, but I obviously wouldn't want him to breach his carefully guarded anonymity just for that. :) -- http://www.freenet-fr.org -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
Matthew Toseland a écrit : My understanding is that the french crypto regulations were abandoned some time ago. That law is just a project (no decree yet). For the moment, we're still limited to 128b. Make your own darknet. :) Then come to Bristol, take me out for a pizza, and I'll connect to your node ;). Seriously, there needs to be some sort of relationship for the small world properties to hold, but beyond that it's not such a big deal. Some of us think about it but I see 2 problems to that : - We don't know each others and can't trust one not to be part of DST (our MI-5) or SNEP (our RIAA). So we can't reasonably reveal our real identities. - If we do that, newcommers will be completely alone and we won't be able to guide them or invite them into the darknet. OK for the pizza as long as it has cheese on it ;-) I'm affraid that if this fonctionnality isn't enabled in Freenet, people will do it by other ways (internet forums, mailing-lists, weak encrypted emails, etc.) which are way less secure than Freenet. Or worse, some will decide to publish their keys and allow anyone to connect to the darknet through them... In which case there will be weak segments of the darknet. That does not undermine the whole structure. The mainstreamers can still use the opennet. I expect there to be some cross-recruiting. But the intention is for the darknet to be separate from the opennet. People who happen to be on both can migrate content manually. They can also get to know people on the opennet, and perhaps add them later. I first met Ian after having worked for him for around a year; I have a friend in Australia who I've never met but I would be perfectly happy to connect my node to. But at this stage, I would happily connect to Newsbyte. Or CofE if I knew him, but I obviously wouldn't want him to breach his carefully guarded anonymity just for that. :) Mmm, well. Let's wait and see how that will work. Middle 2006, it'll be clearer... Thanks for your answers. -- http://www.freenet-fr.org ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 07:37:27PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote: Matthew Toseland a ?crit : My understanding is that the french crypto regulations were abandoned some time ago. That law is just a project (no decree yet). For the moment, we're still limited to 128b. That's bizarre. Nobody can actually break 128 bit AES at the moment, as far as we know - why have an upper limit that can't be broken anyway? Make your own darknet. :) Then come to Bristol, take me out for a pizza, and I'll connect to your node ;). Seriously, there needs to be some sort of relationship for the small world properties to hold, but beyond that it's not such a big deal. Some of us think about it but I see 2 problems to that : - We don't know each others and can't trust one not to be part of DST (our MI-5) or SNEP (our RIAA). So we can't reasonably reveal our real identities. It depends on how paranoid you are. While it is possible that somebody is a mole, infiltrating networks like that is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more expensive than just harvesting the opennet. Infiltrating social networks via actual social connections is seriously expensive. - If we do that, newcommers will be completely alone and we won't be able to guide them or invite them into the darknet. OK for the pizza as long as it has cheese on it ;-) I'm affraid that if this fonctionnality isn't enabled in Freenet, people will do it by other ways (internet forums, mailing-lists, weak encrypted emails, etc.) which are way less secure than Freenet. Or worse, some will decide to publish their keys and allow anyone to connect to the darknet through them... In which case there will be weak segments of the darknet. That does not undermine the whole structure. The mainstreamers can still use the opennet. I expect there to be some cross-recruiting. But the intention is for the darknet to be separate from the opennet. People who happen to be on both can migrate content manually. They can also get to know people on the opennet, and perhaps add them later. I first met Ian after having worked for him for around a year; I have a friend in Australia who I've never met but I would be perfectly happy to connect my node to. But at this stage, I would happily connect to Newsbyte. Or CofE if I knew him, but I obviously wouldn't want him to breach his carefully guarded anonymity just for that. :) Mmm, well. Let's wait and see how that will work. Middle 2006, it'll be clearer... Thanks for your answers. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote: Following the post named Hypothetical question, I'd like to expose you a practical case : the French community. Stop me when I'm wrong. We all know each others only by Freenet and it is said that it isn't enough to form a darknet together, correct ? So we'll have to stay on the opennet which is less secure. If, by a kind of miracle, I meet someone IRL that I trust and is interrested in Freenet. We make a darknet together and... we're completely alone ! We won't even see the opennet, so we'll have no chance to make new connections except IRL. If the French Community decides to make a Darknet, we'll maybe be able to make connections to non-french users we know (but only in Freenet, which is a very BAD trust relationship) and to join the big darknet. But newcommers, how will they find us ? We won't be able to see their posts or sites. As far as the above goes, please read the responses to the other post. Suppose Freenet 0.7 becomes illegal in France (what it already is, because of the AES 256 encryption). The opennet won't be secure for us, but we won't be able to join the darknet. What could we do ? Keep on using 0.5 ? The opennet will probably be more secure than 0.5. But both are very easy to shut down, because they can be very easily harvested - all nodes can be found easily, meaning they can be blocked, attacked, etc. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
Matthew Toseland a écrit : On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote: Following the post named Hypothetical question, I'd like to expose you a practical case : the French community. Stop me when I'm wrong. We all know each others only by Freenet and it is said that it isn't enough to form a darknet together, correct ? So we'll have to stay on the opennet which is less secure. If, by a kind of miracle, I meet someone IRL that I trust and is interrested in Freenet. We make a darknet together and... we're completely alone ! We won't even see the opennet, so we'll have no chance to make new connections except IRL. If the French Community decides to make a Darknet, we'll maybe be able to make connections to non-french users we know (but only in Freenet, which is a very BAD trust relationship) and to join the big darknet. But newcommers, how will they find us ? We won't be able to see their posts or sites. As far as the above goes, please read the responses to the other post. I did. So you confirm my understanding ? 99% of current Freenet users won't be able to join the darknet and will have to use opennet. Suppose Freenet 0.7 becomes illegal in France (what it already is, because of the AES 256 encryption). The opennet won't be secure for us, but we won't be able to join the darknet. What could we do ? Keep on using 0.5 ? The opennet will probably be more secure than 0.5. But both are very easy to shut down, because they can be very easily harvested - all nodes can be found easily, meaning they can be blocked, attacked, etc. That is why I'm searching a way for someone who is neither a member of alpha-testers/Freenet-devs, nor a very organised terrorist/paedophile to join the darknet. Do you think it would be possible for nodes in the darknet to see what happens in the opennet ? Maybe a special kind of nodes that acts as a gateway between the 2 networks : it wouldn't endanger the anonymity of thoses who are in the darknet but it would give them the ability to see the newcommers and eventually decide to invite them. My opinion is that a resistance-network has to be closed tight when war is on. But it needs to create itself before that. So if some people could choose the become some fuses between open and dark, the darknet would remain safe and be able to recruit. I'm affraid that if this fonctionnality isn't enabled in Freenet, people will do it by other ways (internet forums, mailing-lists, weak encrypted emails, etc.) which are way less secure than Freenet. Or worse, some will decide to publish their keys and allow anyone to connect to the darknet through them... -- http://www.freenet-fr.org ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
