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 --
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]