On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 10:21:54AM +0100, bbackde at googlemail.com wrote: > > Sorry - I still don't understand. A key that's readable and writable to > > everyone - is that not a KSK? > > Yes, thats KSK. But you see the problems we have with the 'new' KSK > keys which are 1KB in size and provide transparent redirects to other > keys? KSKs on 0.5 were great for Frosts messaging (32KB size, no > transparent redirects), but the 'new' KSKs introduced the problems we > talk about here (new kind of attacks, ...).
Inserting random garbage has always been a viable attack against Frost. All you have to do is set an appropriate maximum data size. > > The devs tried to make it easier for clients, but now some clients > have serious problems. > It could help to introduce a new type of freenet key, like KSK but > without redirects and 32KB maximum size (like CHK). This would be > perfect for Frost like clients. How does that differ to just setting max size = 32kB in Frost? Sure you have the code=28 issues, but so what? You can handle them - if you get a code 28, there's a possibility that it's an attack, so you don't retry it quite so aggressively. -------------- 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/20070115/92ce3710/attachment.pgp>
