On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 12:57:48PM -0400, jrandom at i2p.net wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > I don't believe that most ISPs routinely do traffic flow analysis on > > their users. If they did, they would have implemented proper egress > > filtering many years ago. The fact that they haven't suggests that they > > really don't care, in general. > > Perhaps, but a state level adversary can trivially make them care. The > fact that the hardware and software is already in use at some ISPs means > that its cost is not in the billion dollar range. TBH I'd be suprised if > most ISPs couldn't handle the necessary detection with a fast x86 box in > promiscuous mode. Telcos pushing GBps would of course need the dedicated > hardware, but, as CALEA's backdoors have shown us, hardware vendors have > no problem adding in custom features like that when there's a demand. > Whats another grand when you're upgrading your 150k router anyway? > Especially when required to by law.
Major telcos have MAJOR internal connectivity. 10Gbps per fiber... lots of fibers... I'd expect traffic flow analysis to increase the cost of the router significantly, for the simple reason that it would have to do a lot more. 100 operations per byte will cost a lot more than 10 operations per byte. > > All it takes is a reason to do it, and a few smart coders. > > The state can provide both. So why does the state block freenet 0.5 on the most primitive level, and that many years late? > > =jr -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20051012/0d05f9cd/attachment.pgp>
