subject:"Re\: \[freenet\-support\] anonymity\(NOT\)"

Re: [freenet-support] Anonymity of browsing without downloading

2016-09-27 Thread Eric Tully

Durran,

 There are lots of good and legal reasons to use Freenet.  Most
 people assume that tools like Freenet and Tor are for criminals -
 and yes, I have a feeling that there are some criminals who use
 anonymizing tools - but one good example might be computer virus
 researchers.

You want to be a better programmer, you want to study existing viruses,
you want to develop tools to eliminate viruses, and you want to learn to
write software that doesn't contain vulnerabilities in the first place. 
 In the process of researching viruses, you could possibly visit web
sites that try to infect your computer - or they have pop-up ads on
their site that have less than honorable content.  With all of the
javascript, html, and images loaded behind the scenes that you didn't
specifically request - and may never have seen on your screen - you
could end up with cache that contains material that your HR department
could use to fire you or that police could use to put you in jail.

 So... with that much to risk, you don't want to use a commercial
 product that won't let you look under the hood.  Imagine buying
 "Anonymity" software that runs and makes all sorts of promises
 about how you're completely invisible.  Since you can't see the
 source code,  you have NO IDEA whether they're telling the truth or
 not.  And here's the important part:  THEY HAVE EVERY REASON TO
 EXAGGERATE HOW WELL THEIR SOFTWARE WORKS.  They could lie to make
 the sale, sell you the software, and when it turns out to be a lie,
  who goes to jail?  Hint:  Not them.

 But here's the thing:   When you decide to use open source software
 so that you can avoid that trap,  you can't just send out an email
 and say, "Hey, does this stuff really work?"  Because, just like
 the commercial software, you're going to get answers... and if
 those answers turn out to be wrong,  who goes to jail?   Still not
 them.

 No matter whether you're a virus researcher... or a bad guy who
 wants to commit crime anonymously... are you really going to trust
 the word of a complete stranger who you've never met, can't see,
 and who doesn't owe you anything?  If you're REALLY concerned about
 the consequences of getting caught (whether you're a good guy or a
 bad guy),  asking the question "Does this stuff really work?"  is
 completely the wrong way to be safe.   If you're REALLY concerned, 
 there's only one way:   learn to program,  read the code,  learn
 how browsers and operating systems work, study the Freenet source
 code,  and then TEST TEST TEST.   For example,  scan your hard
 drive for a bunch of blue pixels.  If you don't find any, put an
 image with all blue pixels up on Freenet and surf for that image
 using Freenet.  Then hire some forensics guys to search your hard
 drive for blue pixels.  If they find any,  then you KNOW that the
 stuff doesn't work.  If they don't find any, then you're getting
 closer to trusting the software.  Then interview more forensics
 guys and ask them what they know that the first forensics guys
 didn't know.  And have them scan your hard drive.  The more you
 learn, the more confidence you'll have about how to use anonymizing
 tools correctly and how well they work.

 But if you just ask, "Is this stuff any good?" and someone says,
 "It's perfect",  is that really going to make you feel better when
 you get fired or arrested or your girlfriend leaves you?   

 And if you ask, "Is this stuff any good", and someone says, "There
 SHOULD not be anything which can be CLEARLY traced to your usage,
 AS LONG AS you use...",  there are so many qualifications in that
 sentence that it's pretty much not even an answer.  (I mean, good
 for Arne for being clear that he's not 100% certain that it's
 perfect).  When you get an answer like that,  it should be clear to
 you that asking online isn't going to help you when you end up in
 court.  This is one of those times when you can't rely on a free
 answer you get on the Internet,  you need to LEARN and TEST if
 you're actually concerned.

 Of course, if you're just trying to keep your mom from knowing that
 you used the computer to look at boobs,  then maybe that answer is
 good enough.

- Eric

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016, at 06:01 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Dear Durran,
> 
> There should not be anything which can be clearly traced to your usage,
> as long as you use at least "low security" (not None!). Forensic
> analysis might still reveal stuff, however, for example from browsers
> leaking memory into swap or disobeying caching policies even in
> incognito mode, or from not completely deleted files.
> 
> To be more secure, encrypt your disk (then deletions work more
> securely).
> 
> There will be encrypted fragments of many different kinds of files on
> your

Re: [freenet-support] Anonymity of browsing without downloading

2016-09-25 Thread Arne Babenhauserheide

Dear Durran,

There should not be anything which can be clearly traced to your usage,
as long as you use at least "low security" (not None!). Forensic
analysis might still reveal stuff, however, for example from browsers
leaking memory into swap or disobeying caching policies even in
incognito mode, or from not completely deleted files.

To be more secure, encrypt your disk (then deletions work more
securely).

There will be encrypted fragments of many different kinds of files on
your computer, but these do not need to correspond to files you
requested yourself.

Best wishes,
Arne

Durran Mix writes:

> Spam detection software, running on the system "freenetproject.org",
> has identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original
> message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
> similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
> the administrator of that system for details.
>
> Content preview:  Hello, If I browse freenet sites without downloading any 
> content,
>while using incognito mode, will there be anything incriminating on my 
> computer?
>Also, same scenario but what if i fully delete and uninstall freenet after
>each browsing session? [...] 
>
> Content analysis details:   (5.5 points, 5.0 required)
>
>  pts rule name  description
>  -- --
>  2.0 FREENET_FROM_BACKUPMX  Received from the backup-MX server
>  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM  Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail 
> provider
> (zep_rocks[at]hotmail.com)
>  0.8 BAYES_50   BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
> [score: 0.5502]
>  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE   BODY: HTML included in message
> -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK 
> signature
>  0.1 DKIM_SIGNEDMessage has a DKIM or DK signature, not 
> necessarily valid
> -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU  Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from 
> author's
> domain
>  0.8 RDNS_NONE  Delivered to internal network by a host with no 
> rDNS
>  2.0 FREENET_LOC_SHORT  Contains short body and URI
>
> The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to
> open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus,
> or confirm that your address can receive spam.  If you wish to view
> it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.
>
> ___
> 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


-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken


signature.asc
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

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-07 Thread evolution

Quoting Troed Sångberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 On the other hand, I don't live in the Fascist states of America. (See
 link for explanation)

 http://troed.se/index.php?subaction=showcommentsid=1091214452

 http://troed.se - controversial views or common sense?

You do operate a flog, don't you?  Even just a mirror of troed.se?

-todd

___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-07 Thread Jay Oliveri

You replied to Mr. Findley, but quoted Troed.  Either way this thread is way 
OT here and has been continued on Freenet-chat 
(gmane.network.freenet.general).

On Saturday 07 August 2004 12:41 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Quoting Troed Sångberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
  On the other hand, I don't live in the Fascist states of America. (See
  link for explanation)
 
  http://troed.se/index.php?subaction=showcommentsid=1091214452
 
  http://troed.se - controversial views or common sense?

 You do operate a flog, don't you?  Even just a mirror of troed.se?

 -todd

-- 
Jay Oliveri
GnuPG ID: 0x5AA5DD54
FCPTools Maintainer
www.sf.net/users/joliveri
___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-05 Thread Kendy Kutzner

On 2004-08-04T19:27:56+0200, Martin Scheffler wrote:
 Kendy Kutzner wrote:
  On 2004-08-04T14:50:52+0200, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
   Traffic
   analysis might help me figure who made a request and who served
   it, but I still have to break encryption before I can figure
   which file that request concerned.
 
  That is not entirely true. The files are encrypted with keys
  based on the file's content. When the file content is known, then
  routing keys can be computed.
 
 No, this description is inaccurate!
 When you know the _exact_ file contents, you don't need freenet. And 
 besides, the very same text or data with just one bit changed is a new 
 key, this means you are only able to scan for well-known data.

No doubt in that. When I'm talking about file content, of course
I mean _exact_ file content. And why Alice, Bob and Carol don't
need Freenet when Eve also can browse the freesites?

 The SHA1 hash from the original and unencrypted data is used as encryption 
 key. The data is encrypted with that (You can not get back the encryption 
 key without decrypting first).
 
 Then, some other data is added for routing and checking, and the SHA1 hash 
 of the whole piece makes up the routing key, this is what you see while 
 proxying and caching the key data.

So where is the inaccuracy in 'when the [exact] file content is
known, then routing keys can be computed'?

What I wanted to say: Eve also can spider Freenet and can know a
lot of content _exactly_. Therefore it can compromise
intermediate hosts and do much easier traffic analysis.

Kendy

-- 



pgpnvzH5rx5vd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Zenon Panoussis

miguel wrote:
Just wondering... with all this encryption permeating Freenet
there remains a gaping hole through which the nazi's could saunter through
with their spy tools and legal bypasses to incriminate any and all Freenetters
they choose to incriminate... the ip address/port# of all. Even using a third party
dns service wouldn't help. Maybe not this day, but in light of current trends in
government policies, in the not-too-distant future they will be slipping in and snagging
whomever they choose by the ip address and will thus render useless all Freenet anonymity measures.
Is there not a way to spoof the ip addresses, or mask the ip addresses so that our uncles
and big brothers can't come in and bring down the house(s)?
But the IP where a request originates and the IP of the machine
where a requested file is stored *are* masked by the proxying
system.
Assume I'm the Gestapo and I'm running one or several freenet
nodes and logging everything that goes on. I see a request
coming from your IP. I can't figure what is being requested,
because the key is encrypted. I can't figure who requested it,
because your machine might be - and probably is - proxying
the request for some other node. Unless the requested file is
served from my own node, all I can do is pass on the request
to yet another node and I'll never know which node or nodes
finally served the file.
Now, if I'm not the Gestapo but something much worse, like, say,
Homeland Security, I could monitor the traffic of my peers in
order to discover their peers and then monitor their traffic
too until I have a good picture of the entire network. Traffic
analysis might help me figure who made a request and who served
it, but I still have to break encryption before I can figure
which file that request concerned.
Being the almighty Homeland Security, I do break the encryption.
Fine, now I know that X requested kiddie porn and Y served it.
However, I can't get anyone prosecuted for this. Y is going to
deny - quite truthfully - that he knew that he was serving
kiddie porn, X is going to claim that he just clicked on a
link not knowing what it was and was appalled to find out,
and I will have disclosed that I have broken freenet. That
last part is the worst, because then all the leftists, the
anti-globalists, the anti-war pack and other such terrorists
will know to not use freenet any more. Of course, the same
will happen if I get freenet forbidden: then the entire world
will keep using it, except my local gulag population, which
is the easiest one for me to monitor. Thus, I have to let
freenet live and let the kiddie porn pass and concentrate on
finding out who inserts subversive propaganda against our
Beloved Leader.
Or something like that. The real and ever-present danger
against freenet is not in your IP being shown to your peers.
It is in (a) the integrity of its developers and (b) in the
security of the software archive. If the latter ever gets
compromised, we might all end up running a piece of Big
Broher-owned spyware called freenet.
Z
--
Framtiden r som en babianrv, frggrann och full av skit.
Arne Anka
___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

54 matches

Mail list logo