Am Mittwoch 05 April 2006 10:41 schrieb Josh Webb: > It seems that the argument for a darknet is that somebody watching your > traffic won't see you communicating with "known Freenet nodes," thereby > making it harder to know if you're running a node. > > However, the effectiveness of this approach would seem to be mitigated > by the fact that an observer who can tell if you are communicating with > a "known Freenet node" will also be able to see that you are sending and > receiving a relatively large amount of encrypted UDP traffic, which > would tell them "something" is going on. If you were in a situation > where simply running a Freenet node was something you wanted to hide, > that "something" would be almost as bad.
Then freenet will have to go one step further and mask the queries as regular traffic. For example as image-data oder videostreams. Someday it could even hide the data inside real videostreams and pictures, which simply "donate" 1/3 of their banwidth to the secure communication, while the rest is only video. Maybe people could hold an open video-conference while using the same data-stream for secure data-transfer. Or VoIP. But naturally that would further increase the bandwidth need of freenet and might not fit the timeframe where the network-topology is being formed as first step, but it can well be a long-term goal. Best Wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein Hei?t politsch sein Ohne es zu merken. - Arne Babenhauserheide ( http://draketo.de ) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20060405/24dca1ad/attachment.pgp>
