Some more detailed info is available here: http://wiki.freenetproject.org/FreenetZeroPointSevenSecurity
On Thursday 03 January 2008 17:01, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Thursday 03 January 2008 03:01, niel wrote: > > :-) > > > > I love the Freenet Idea, and this is a positive thread I have made. > > > > I have been reading the newest documentation for freenet 0.7, and as I > > interpret it, freenet is not anomymous to use for me, and most other freenet > > newbies, as we do not have any "friends" to exchange "reference nodes" with, > > and we are not clever enough to use freenet as the few "freenet experts" > can. > > Sort of true. It's likely to be safer than the internet at large. It's more > survivable than Tor. But there are a lot of possible attacks, and if you have > (genuine!) Friends they are much harder. It may not be safer than Tor, otoh > it's a lot harder to block, and anyway what it does is different. > > > > Freenet has become fairly easy to install and use, and it has become fast. > > Thanks! > > > > But, is It dangerous to use? > > Well, we try to warn people, but there's a limit to how much you can do. > > > > People may think they are in safe territory. > > > > This is how I believe it is, and would like to hear some comments on this > MOST > > IMPORTANT ISSUE, from the "freenet experts" - and to create some serious > > debate, to really make freenet anonymous for ALL PEOPLE of the world. > > > > Until that time: Should ordinary people be told not to use freenet in an > > anonymous way until a new safe freenet version arrives? > > Freenet is still an alpha, it is nowhere near 1.0. There are major possible > attacks and there are major changes that will need to be made before 1.0 to > make it safer. At this stage, I wouldn't rely on it protecting you if you're > going to get into major trouble if found, but otoh it *is* safer than some > other tools people use, even in oppressive regimes. While it is certainly > useful, it is released primarily for testing and development; if there were > no users, there probably wouldn't be any devs either. > > > > I do not say, that freenet cannot be used anonymously, but only for a small > > exclusive group of smart people who know how to. > > > > I had hoped that freenet was a really free place to be for everyone, where > > really free expression of speech and thought could be executed. > > There is no such thing as perfect security. Freenet is still under > development, and the remaining major security issues will take some time to > deal with. However, building a large, fast and useful Freenet will > undoubtedly help in terms of anonymity: if there are only a few hundred, or > even a few thousand, nodes, they can all be marked as low probability > suspects and correlated with other evidence, ignoring any technical attacks > on your anonymity. > > > > A really anonymous Freenet is urgently needed, now more than ever, and it > > should at best be as easy to use as the ordinary Internet - > > Anonymity will always have costs. For example, you need to not make it easy to > find you by giving away too much personal info. > > > > that would be a revolution! > > We're working on it. We need users to get where we are going. It's not > perfect, but it's improving, and it's useful. 0.7, amongst other changes, > introduces the long-term "darknet" feature, which will be critical to > Freenet's long term security and survivability. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20080103/dbeaa616/attachment.pgp>
