On Sunday 24 October 2010 22:05:13 Volodya wrote: > On 24.10.2010 23:38, Daxter wrote: > >> From my understanding, there is a fundamental flaw in p2p technologies > >> like Freenet for those that want to deploy in highly-censored countries. > >> That is, it's too obvious. The censor doesn't have to know what's being > >> transmitted, only that /something/ is that's outside of their control. All > >> they have to do is disallow the ports on which the technology runs. > >> Torrenters can at least get around this by changing the port they're > >> using; Freenet has no such option. > > Not only does Freenet have such an option, but the default ports used are > random, thus are different for each computer it's installed on. > > >> From my understanding of internet communication protocols, the use of udp > >> is too obvious; it stands out like a sore thumb. Why not tunnel the > >> connection over tcp? Wouldn't that prevent potential censors from > >> differentiating it from the rest of transmitted data? As well, wouldn't it > >> solve the closed ports issue? > > It's a planned feature, but for now the protocol has no identifiable > signature. > For all intensive purposes it looks like a very long Skype conference call.
Unfortunately that is not true. Very few protocols use very big UDP packets. We will implement transport plugins in future, allowing use of TCP, and various other stego mechanisms. However right now most people use opennet, and there is no point in worrying about it on opennet. :(
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ 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
