-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 25 May 2006, at 13:13, Michael Rogers wrote: >> Even if C is faking responses, that will only lead to >> B incurring a debt to C, which will make B less likely to forward >> requests to C in future. > > Sorry, why will B be less likely to forward requests to C? Perhaps > we're > talking at cross purposes - what kind of mechanism do you have in > mind?
Well, B will be less likely to forward inserts to C because B will have incurred a debt with C, and nodes should try to reduce their debt - or at least, spread it evenly among their neighbors. >> Essentially I think the question is whether it is really such a bad >> thing if C can mislead its neighbors into thinking that it is >> inserting >> when it really isn't. What is the worst case scenario here? > > C saves bandwidth by dropping inserts, so it appears to have lots of > bandwidth, and sends fake 'insert succeeded' responses, so it > appears to > be super-reliable. C's neighbours give it lots of bandwidth in > return. C > can mount a more powerful attack than it could have done without > reciprocation, because its neighbours allow it to use a larger > share of > their bandwidth. But this wouldn't be a much easier attack than simply setting up a node that actually had lots of bandwidth? Remember also that there is a trust relationship between B and C, so yes, C's neighbors will be hurt by trusting someone that they shouldn't have trusted, but that is true in-general with Freenet 0.7, if you trust people improperly, you suffer. Ian. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEdirIQtgxRWSmsqwRAl9pAJ0QNnIfe/qm+4ging72sLwxr6ENAQCbBI1c 4CtYnpflJlmvAQmVO5ApB98= =z36i -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
