On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 08:46:57PM -0400, Evan Daniel wrote: > On 6/21/06, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > >Should we have a dropdown for each peer to indicate our level of trust > >for that node? > > > >Implicit - 100% trust, can send local requests to this node even if its > > our only peer. > >Strong - can send local requests to this node if we have at least 3 > > connected peers > >Marginal - can send local requests to this node if we have at least 5 > > connected peers > >Untrusted - don't ever send local requests to this node > > Doesn't this give the trusted nodes attack opportunities? :) > > If most of a node's requests sent to me are in one region of the > keyspace, except for an occasional few, then can't I assume that those > few are local requests sent to me because I am the best node with a > sufficient trust level? (ie I'm deducing that he doesn't have enough > connected nodes to use a different, less trusted, but better routing > location peer instead of me.) > > Of course, there's a tradeoff here...
Well, we can play that sort of game anyway; it's called a correlation attack... -- 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/20060622/e9ed0b55/attachment.pgp>
