On 8/24/06, urza9814 at gmail.com <urza9814 at gmail.com> wrote:
> opennets are only bad in certain circumstances. The USA is not yet one
> of them. With a darknet, it may be harder to get into the network, but
> once your in it's a LOT easier to identify who is sharing and
> inserting what files. So it could be argued that a darknet is much
> riskier than an opennet. In a darknet, everyone else pretty much knows
> who you are. As soon as one computer on the net gets compromised or
> one person decides they don't like what you're doing, you're all
> pretty much screwed. I mean, I'm no expert on darknets, but it seems
> that if you only have 5 or 10 connections, and you always have the
> same connections, and you have IRC logs swapping node refs and, better
> yet, the actual node ref...it would be pretty easy to figure out what
> nodes host what files. In an opennet, this kind of thing is expected
> and protected against.

With 10 connections, the data that could intercepted by one attacker
is roughly 10%.  The problem is the attacker doesn't know how many
connections you have, so you could just be passing on data from any
number of connections you have.
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the
death, your right to say it. - Voltaire

Reply via email to