-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > The question is what tool offers the most resistance given equal > amounts of effort being expended to attack them.
Interesting question, but it ignores economics. Equal amounts of effort will not be expended to attack all things, only those things that are valuable enough. Using many different "primitive" techniques keeps the value of individual attacks down, while using one big "high tech" tool puts everything in one basket, making it worth attacking. > Then look harder, we discuss it all the time. You haven't understood it so far, so I doubt that. > >Any statements regarding the anonymity of Freenet when it > >isn't under attack are meaningless, if not misleading. > > Who is making such a statement? The darknet requires steganographic transports to offer any sort of anonymity (since ISPs can easily detect abnormal flows). No such steganographic transports exist, either in theory or in practice. As such, the darknet is not dark, and won't be until someone comes up with some steganographic transport that works on a wide scale and can remain open source. This does not match the rhetoric. =jr -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDRtZ1WYfZ3rPnHH0RAtreAJ9iW9IBSmvROb4wjg1shpmJgZTcjQCeP1Zq Kw5jMLo1hCcPXGqdA4BL1Mg= =ypDu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
