On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 10:19:39AM -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > On Sunday 03 September 2006 07:18, Dave Baker wrote: > > I still don't see where the correlation between well-behaved nodes and > > non-malicious ones came from. > > I do not think we can ever know that a node is non-malicious. Even a good > friend > can turn cause you pain (consider divorce)... I think we can assume that > most nodes > a not malicious. Given this if we look for nodes that behave or respond > abnormally > and decide not to trust them we probably will at the very least aviod hacked > freenets...
Treachery is a big problem. We can mitigate it a bit with premix routing. Premix routing doesn't work on opennet because Sybil is too easy on opennet. But for obvious attacks, positive trust gained by not doing them can be helpful. > > I would say that new nodes are trusted - with just enough that other nodes > will allow > them to connect. If the new node does not behave, it quickly will lose trust > and will > not get integrated. On the other hand if it behaves the converse will happen. So the attacker will create a new node... We can't blacklist IP addresses because of ISP-level NATing... > > Ed -- 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/20060905/e6d2b807/attachment.pgp>
