On Wednesday 28 January 2009 05:19, Roc Admin wrote: > Hey Matt, > Thanks for updating the FAQ - very good stuff. Can you speak to a > comparison of attacks between Freenet and Tor? I'm just starting to get > involved with Freenet so if you have a page that already answers this feel > free to point me there
Arguably that's what the attacks page updates were about?? > > Antitree > > 2009/1/20 Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> > > > http://freenetproject.org/faq.html#attack > > > > I have heavily updated the attacks section on the FAQ (after adding a > > section > > on browsers). We more or less said that Tor provides anonymity and we don't > > on it before, which simply isn't true; Tor does not protect against > > advanced > > (presumably meaning global) traffic analysis, and depending on which > > attacks > > you take seriously doesn't protect against compromise of the majority of > > nodes either, the two examples given. Freenet provides a different kind of > > anonymity, and in some cases it is safer than Tor; in some cases Tor is > > safer. And it will improve significantly with the tunnels implementation we > > will hopefully have in 0.9. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tech mailing list > > Tech at freenetproject.org > > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 827 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20090128/76d5c5a6/attachment.pgp>
