On 6/22/06, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > 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...
And if it really bothered you that they might be able to make a more precise guess you could just set all nodes to have the highest trust level and it wouldn't have any different effect than it do now without the feature. > -- > Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFEmekXHzsuOmVUoi0RApCaAKCWTMzWfYPrjr2082wa8/G4z2+2BQCgna9v > alFEp05W5rqiIk7H+/KCmm4= > =c8Tg > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > >
