From talaei_behzad at yahoo.com Thu Aug 3 11:25:10 2006 From: talaei_behzad at yahoo.com (Behzad Talaei) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 04:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [freenet-chat] sharing nodes Message-ID: <20060803112510.13614.qmail@web57111.mail.re3.yahoo.com> I need sb to share our nodes with eachother. thanks --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060803/a01a6afb/attachment.htm From nextgens at freenetproject.org Thu Aug 3 16:06:15 2006 From: nextgens at freenetproject.org (Florent =?iso-8859-1?Q?Daigni=E8re_=28NextGen$=29?=) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 18:06:15 +0200 Subject: [freenet-chat] [knight4vn@yahoo.com: Automatic MIME type detection in Internet Explorer 6.x allowed] Message-ID: <20060803160614.GE5932@freenetproject.org> Hi, FYI, in case you are short of arguments to convince your friends to install an "alternate" browser. NextGen$ -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: knight4vn at yahoo.com Subject: Automatic MIME type detection in Internet Explorer 6.x allowed Date: 3 Aug 2006 10:08:02 -0000 Size: 4027 Url: http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060803/7b4983e9/attachment.eml -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060803/7b4983e9/attachment.pgp From ian at revver.com Tue Aug 8 19:48:44 2006 From: ian at revver.com (Ian Clarke) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 12:48:44 -0700 Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [Tech] Open-net In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8D840798-186D-495E-8301-1EF9E1B1C65C@revver.com> Opennet is a high priority, but there are a few things we must do first (such as sort out our load balancing issues, and decide on exactly how opennet should be implemented). Ian. On 8 Aug 2006, at 11:29, anonymous freenet user wrote: > > When will 'Open-net' be deployed? > > I would like very much to migrate to 0.7, but I cannot condone > doing so > until 'open-net' is active and making a wider anonymity set > operational. > > As it is, 0.7 is not sufficiently anonymous, If I start a node, get > some > refs and start inserting content, it doesn't take a whole lot of > rocket > science to figure out that new content is probably coming from the new > node. Better by far to have open-net active, this makes it a LOT > easier > for lots more people to join the 0.7 network and create a larger > crowd to > get lost in. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060808/7c825e81/attachment.htm From lean-gmane at omnia.dk Wed Aug 9 11:22:46 2006 From: lean-gmane at omnia.dk (Lean Fuglsang) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:22:46 +0200 Subject: [freenet-chat] Aggregation of nodes Message-ID: Hi, is it possible to use multiple node identities on the same node? In case you got two physically machines, but with different node identity and you would like to join them together. Can you have multiple node-[number] peers-[number] in the same freenet dir? Or is there another way to to it? --Lean Fuglsang From toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Wed Aug 9 16:41:27 2006 From: toad at amphibian.dyndns.org (Matthew Toseland) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 17:41:27 +0100 Subject: [freenet-support] Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [Tech] Open-net In-Reply-To: References: <8D840798-186D-495E-8301-1EF9E1B1C65C@revver.com> Message-ID: <20060809164127.GB31917@amphibian.dyndns.org> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 09:15:13AM -0000, anonymous freenet user wrote: > On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke wrote: > > > >Opennet is a high priority, but there are a few things we must do > >first (such as sort out our load balancing issues, and decide on > >exactly how opennet should be implemented). > > > >Ian. > > Ok, That's understandable. > Is there any kind of roughly-hoped-for-date for deploying open-net? > I realize you can't nail down a date and say on x/y/z open-net will > activate. > I'm looking for some idea of how long it's expected to take in real-time. We'll probably start seriously looking into it around the end of this year. We need to sort out a number of serious issues first. -- 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: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060809/407cd98c/attachment.pgp From toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Wed Aug 9 17:38:22 2006 From: toad at amphibian.dyndns.org (Matthew Toseland) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 18:38:22 +0100 Subject: [freenet-chat] Aggregation of nodes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060809173822.GA20332@amphibian.dyndns.org> It's possible to run two nodes in the same JVM, although not trivially so. And yes it's quite possible to have multiple node-[num] etc in the same dir. What you have to do is start freenet with an explicit config filename. You can even use the wrapper: rename run.sh to run-one.sh, and copy it to run-two.sh. Do the same thing with wrapper.conf and freenet.ini, and edit each to point to the relevant other one. Make sure the nodes run on different ports, and rename any fixed filenames in the .ini's (I think downloads.dat is the only real one). Change the application names (both long and short) in the run*.sh's; that will give you unique lock files. This really ought to be on the wiki somewhere... Please write a page about it when you get it working. :) On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 01:22:46PM +0200, Lean Fuglsang wrote: > Hi, > is it possible to use multiple node identities on the same node? > In case you got two physically machines, but with different node > identity and you would like to join them together. Can you have multiple > node-[number] peers-[number] in the same freenet dir? Or is there another > way to to it? > > --Lean Fuglsang -- 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: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060809/5fd3b0ed/attachment.pgp From anonymous at panta-rhei.eu.org Wed Aug 9 09:15:13 2006 From: anonymous at panta-rhei.eu.org (anonymous freenet user) Date: 9 Aug 2006 09:15:13 -0000 Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [Tech] Open-net References: <8D840798-186D-495E-8301-1EF9E1B1C65C@revver.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke wrote: >!!! Unable to decode the following MIME section !!! >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-18-665665722 > > >--Apple-Mail-18-665665722 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset=US-ASCII; > delsp=yes; > format=flowed > >Opennet is a high priority, but there are a few things we must do >first (such as sort out our load balancing issues, and decide on >exactly how opennet should be implemented). > >Ian. Ok, That's understandable. Is there any kind of roughly-hoped-for-date for deploying open-net? I realize you can't nail down a date and say on x/y/z open-net will activate. I'm looking for some idea of how long it's expected to take in real-time. From nextgens at freenetproject.org Sat Aug 12 23:12:30 2006 From: nextgens at freenetproject.org (Florent =?iso-8859-1?Q?Daigni=E8re_=28NextGen$=29?=) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:12:30 +0200 Subject: [freenet-chat] Robots.txt Message-ID: <20060812231159.GB6357@freenetproject.org> Hi, Shall we let webcrawlers/searchengines index our irc logs ? NextGen$ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060813/eeb44ab3/attachment.pgp From ksnider at flarn.com Mon Aug 14 21:49:03 2006 From: ksnider at flarn.com (Ken Snider) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Tech] [freenet-chat] Robots.txt In-Reply-To: <20060812231159.GB6357@freenetproject.org> References: <20060812231159.GB6357@freenetproject.org> Message-ID: <44E0EFCF.5080205@flarn.com> Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > Hi, > > Shall we let webcrawlers/searchengines index our irc logs ? Considering it is an otherwise public resource, indexing it would be both useful from a query perspective, *and* potentially raise visibility of the project. --Ken. From shoeyfighter at gmail.com Tue Aug 15 17:38:41 2006 From: shoeyfighter at gmail.com (Shoey Fighter) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:38:41 -0700 Subject: [freenet-chat] Swedish Pirate Party Launches a Commerical Darknet Message-ID: Swedish Pirate Party launches a "commercial darknet": http://www2.piratpartiet.se/nyheter/press_release_pirate_party_launches_worlds_first_commercial_darknet/ Cheers to them! ShoeyFighter From ian at revver.com Tue Aug 15 18:56:49 2006 From: ian at revver.com (Ian Clarke) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:56:49 -0700 Subject: [freenet-chat] Robots.txt In-Reply-To: <20060812231159.GB6357@freenetproject.org> References: <20060812231159.GB6357@freenetproject.org> Message-ID: I don't see why not, its public. Ian. On 12 Aug 2006, at 16:12, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > Hi, > > Shall we let webcrawlers/searchengines index our irc logs ? > > NextGen$ > _______________________________________________ > chat mailing list > chat at freenetproject.org > Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/ > listinfo/chat > Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060815/3a2cf0b3/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060815/3a2cf0b3/attachment.pgp From ian at revver.com Tue Aug 15 19:38:13 2006 From: ian at revver.com (Ian Clarke) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:38:13 -0700 Subject: [freenet-chat] Freenet merchandise Message-ID: I have had some complaints that the merchandise in the Freenet store at http://www.cafepress.com/freenetproject aren't cool enough, t- shirts should be black etc etc. If anyone would like to try their hand at some new stuff, please let me know. Ian. Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060815/1ed52dd9/attachment.htm From ksnider at flarn.com Tue Aug 15 19:40:48 2006 From: ksnider at flarn.com (Ken Snider) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:40:48 -0400 Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [Tech] Freenet merchandise In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44E22340.5000105@flarn.com> Ian Clarke wrote: > I have had some complaints that the merchandise in the Freenet store > at http://www.cafepress.com/freenetproject aren't cool enough, t-shirts > should be black etc etc. If anyone would like to try their hand at some > new stuff, please let me know. Perhaps moving the existing stuff to threadless.com? They have many more colour options, AFAIK. --Ken. From toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Tue Aug 15 19:43:20 2006 From: toad at amphibian.dyndns.org (Matthew Toseland) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:43:20 +0100 Subject: [freenet-chat] Robots.txt In-Reply-To: References: <20060812231159.GB6357@freenetproject.org> Message-ID: <20060815194320.GA25090@amphibian.dyndns.org> On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 11:56:49AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > I don't see why not, its public. Okay cool lets do it. (My view is that as long as we expunge all IP addresses, and make it clear in the channel topic that it is logged, then we're fine). > > Ian. > > On 12 Aug 2006, at 16:12, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > > >Hi, > > > > Shall we let webcrawlers/searchengines index our irc logs ? > > > >NextGen$ -- 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: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060815/29cd45ca/attachment.pgp From ian at revver.com Tue Aug 15 23:35:01 2006 From: ian at revver.com (Ian Clarke) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:35:01 -0700 Subject: [freenet-chat] Robots.txt In-Reply-To: <20060815194320.GA25090@amphibian.dyndns.org> References: <20060812231159.GB6357@freenetproject.org> <20060815194320.GA25090@amphibian.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <8E7F40E3-A7B6-4E94-B5C6-8C2256DBB07D@revver.com> Oh, and email addresses (if we don't already). Ian. On 15 Aug 2006, at 12:43, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 11:56:49AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: >> I don't see why not, its public. > > Okay cool lets do it. (My view is that as long as we expunge all IP > addresses, and make it clear in the channel topic that it is logged, > then we're fine). >> >> Ian. >> >> On 12 Aug 2006, at 16:12, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Shall we let webcrawlers/searchengines index our irc logs ? >>> >>> NextGen$ > -- > Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > _______________________________________________ > chat mailing list > chat at freenetproject.org > Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/ > listinfo/chat > Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060815/ed9b7616/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060815/ed9b7616/attachment.pgp From stefan at tspse.net Tue Aug 15 23:49:05 2006 From: stefan at tspse.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Gr=F6nberg?=) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 01:49:05 +0200 Subject: [freenet-chat] Robots.txt In-Reply-To: <8E7F40E3-A7B6-4E94-B5C6-8C2256DBB07D@revver.com> References: <20060812231159.GB6357@freenetproject.org> <20060815194320.GA25090@amphibian.dyndns.org> <8E7F40E3-A7B6-4E94-B5C6-8C2256DBB07D@revver.com> Message-ID: <44E25D71.9070004@tspse.net> you might wanna fix the URL on the webby like if someone posts an url make an page that first takes you to a page that tells the user that this and that link takes you away from "freenet" and you cant be responsible for what that url contains, or mark it "really good" as an external link. Ian Clarke wrote: > Oh, and email addresses (if we don't already). > > Ian. > > On 15 Aug 2006, at 12:43, Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 11:56:49AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: >>> I don't see why not, its public. >> >> Okay cool lets do it. (My view is that as long as we expunge all IP >> addresses, and make it clear in the channel topic that it is logged, >> then we're fine). >>> >>> Ian. >>> >>> On 12 Aug 2006, at 16:12, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Shall we let webcrawlers/searchengines index our irc logs ? >>>> >>>> NextGen$ >> -- >> Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org >> >> Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ >> ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. >> _______________________________________________ >> chat mailing list >> chat at freenetproject.org >> Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general >> Unsubscribe at >> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat >> Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > > *Ian Clarke*: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. > > phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > chat mailing list > chat at freenetproject.org > Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat > Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060816/8ffe3e39/attachment.htm From nextgens at freenetproject.org Wed Aug 16 14:13:33 2006 From: nextgens at freenetproject.org (NextGen$) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:13:33 +0000 Subject: [freenet-chat] Robots.txt In-Reply-To: <44E25D71.9070004@tspse.net> References: <20060812231159.GB6357@freenetproject.org> <20060815194320.GA25090@amphibian.dyndns.org> <8E7F40E3-A7B6-4E94-B5C6-8C2256DBB07D@revver.com> <44E25D71.9070004@tspse.net> Message-ID: <20060816141333.GB27057@freenetproject.org> * Stefan Gr?nberg [2006-08-16 01:49:05]: > you might wanna fix the URL on the webby like > if someone posts an url make an page that first takes you to a page that > tells the user > that this and that link takes you away from "freenet" and you cant be > responsible for what that > url contains, or mark it "really good" as an external link. There is nothing to fix ... it's to be implemented. http://localhost:8888/CHK at G-A-lXblQMw3rty70LL6fvK~nuQ1sa5rAXPzNUJdpOw,~Uxr-jFaQ6T26IWmyK~JpQx7TJWoVbQ6qNOR6KPK94M,AAEA--8?type=text/plain http://localhost:8888/CHK at G-A-lXblQMw3rty70LL6fvK~nuQ1sa5rAXPzNUJdpOw,~Uxr-jFaQ6T26IWmyK~JpQx7TJWoVbQ6qNOR6KPK94M,AAEA--8?type=text/html The content filter is sanitizing the link : the default "safe" behaviour. NextGen$ > > Ian Clarke wrote: > >Oh, and email addresses (if we don't already). > > > >Ian. > > > >On 15 Aug 2006, at 12:43, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > >>On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 11:56:49AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > >>>I don't see why not, its public. > >> > >>Okay cool lets do it. (My view is that as long as we expunge all IP > >>addresses, and make it clear in the channel topic that it is logged, > >>then we're fine). > >>> > >>>Ian. > >>> > >>>On 12 Aug 2006, at 16:12, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > >>> > >>>>Hi, > >>>> > >>>>Shall we let webcrawlers/searchengines index our irc logs ? > >>>> > >>>>NextGen$ > >>-- > >>Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org > >> > >>Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > >>ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > >>_______________________________________________ > >>chat mailing list > >>chat at freenetproject.org > >>Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > >>Unsubscribe at > >>http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat > >>Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > > > >*Ian Clarke*: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. > > > >phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >chat mailing list > >chat at freenetproject.org > >Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > >Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat > >Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > _______________________________________________ > chat mailing list > chat at freenetproject.org > Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat > Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe From stefan at tspse.net Wed Aug 16 14:21:01 2006 From: stefan at tspse.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Gr=F6nberg?=) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:21:01 +0200 Subject: [freenet-chat] Robots.txt In-Reply-To: <20060816141333.GB27057@freenetproject.org> References: <20060812231159.GB6357@freenetproject.org> <20060815194320.GA25090@amphibian.dyndns.org> <8E7F40E3-A7B6-4E94-B5C6-8C2256DBB07D@revver.com> <44E25D71.9070004@tspse.net> <20060816141333.GB27057@freenetproject.org> Message-ID: <44E329CD.50007@tspse.net> As usually you delibirate misunderstand. NextGen$ wrote: > * Stefan Gr?nberg [2006-08-16 01:49:05]: > > >> you might wanna fix the URL on the webby like >> if someone posts an url make an page that first takes you to a page that >> tells the user >> that this and that link takes you away from "freenet" and you cant be >> responsible for what that >> url contains, or mark it "really good" as an external link. >> > > There is nothing to fix ... it's to be implemented. > > http://localhost:8888/CHK at G-A-lXblQMw3rty70LL6fvK~nuQ1sa5rAXPzNUJdpOw,~Uxr-jFaQ6T26IWmyK~JpQx7TJWoVbQ6qNOR6KPK94M,AAEA--8?type=text/plain > http://localhost:8888/CHK at G-A-lXblQMw3rty70LL6fvK~nuQ1sa5rAXPzNUJdpOw,~Uxr-jFaQ6T26IWmyK~JpQx7TJWoVbQ6qNOR6KPK94M,AAEA--8?type=text/html > > The content filter is sanitizing the link : the default "safe" behaviour. > > NextGen$ > > >> Ian Clarke wrote: >> >>> Oh, and email addresses (if we don't already). >>> >>> Ian. >>> >>> On 15 Aug 2006, at 12:43, Matthew Toseland wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 11:56:49AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't see why not, its public. >>>>> >>>> Okay cool lets do it. (My view is that as long as we expunge all IP >>>> addresses, and make it clear in the channel topic that it is logged, >>>> then we're fine). >>>> >>>>> Ian. >>>>> >>>>> On 12 Aug 2006, at 16:12, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Shall we let webcrawlers/searchengines index our irc logs ? >>>>>> >>>>>> NextGen$ >>>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org >>>> >>>> Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ >>>> ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> chat mailing list >>>> chat at freenetproject.org >>>> Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general >>>> Unsubscribe at >>>> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat >>>> Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe >>>> >>> *Ian Clarke*: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. >>> >>> phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> chat mailing list >>> chat at freenetproject.org >>> Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general >>> Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat >>> Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe >>> > > >> _______________________________________________ >> chat mailing list >> chat at freenetproject.org >> Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general >> Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat >> Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe >> > _______________________________________________ > chat mailing list > chat at freenetproject.org > Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat > Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060816/cdf4c760/attachment.htm From ian at revver.com Wed Aug 16 18:57:33 2006 From: ian at revver.com (Ian Clarke) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:57:33 -0700 Subject: [freenet-chat] Please keep this quiet for now Message-ID: <5D4182F6-4A2F-4431-8981-3DCE50F1B4CB@revver.com> We won't be officially announcing until later today (PST), so please keep this quiet until we do (ie. hold off on those Digg and Slashdot story submissions). John Gilmore, employee no. 5 at Sun Microsystems, co-founder of the EFF, and many other things, has generously donated $15,000 to the Freenet Project to support the ongoing development of the software. This virtually assures our ability to continue to employ Matthew for the next 6 months at least, and makes a nice change from the current situation where we have barely had enough to pay him from week to week. My hope is that our existing donors will continue to donate, as that might even open up the possibility of employing someone else, although not such that it would jeopardize Matthew's employment. We are currently working on the wording of the announcement, and we would welcome everyone's input - you can find the draft in the wiki: http://wiki.freenetproject.org/GilmoreDonationAnnouncement Again, please hold off on the Diggs and the Slashdot announcements, I am waiting for feedback from a number of people on the draft announcement, including John Gilmore himself. Ian. From toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Thu Aug 17 00:30:57 2006 From: toad at amphibian.dyndns.org (Matthew Toseland) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:30:57 +0100 Subject: [freenet-chat] Robots.txt In-Reply-To: <20060816141333.GB27057@freenetproject.org> References: <20060812231159.GB6357@freenetproject.org> <20060815194320.GA25090@amphibian.dyndns.org> <8E7F40E3-A7B6-4E94-B5C6-8C2256DBB07D@revver.com> <44E25D71.9070004@tspse.net> <20060816141333.GB27057@freenetproject.org> Message-ID: <20060817003057.GA31994@amphibian.dyndns.org> Yes but the other side of it isn't implemented yet (__CHECKED_HTTP__ i.e. providing for links to the outside world as long as the user clicks a button for that specific URL to confirm that they really want to go there). On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:13:33PM +0000, NextGen$ wrote: > * Stefan Gr?nberg [2006-08-16 01:49:05]: > > > you might wanna fix the URL on the webby like > > if someone posts an url make an page that first takes you to a page that > > tells the user > > that this and that link takes you away from "freenet" and you cant be > > responsible for what that > > url contains, or mark it "really good" as an external link. > > There is nothing to fix ... it's to be implemented. > > http://localhost:8888/CHK at G-A-lXblQMw3rty70LL6fvK~nuQ1sa5rAXPzNUJdpOw,~Uxr-jFaQ6T26IWmyK~JpQx7TJWoVbQ6qNOR6KPK94M,AAEA--8?type=text/plain > http://localhost:8888/CHK at G-A-lXblQMw3rty70LL6fvK~nuQ1sa5rAXPzNUJdpOw,~Uxr-jFaQ6T26IWmyK~JpQx7TJWoVbQ6qNOR6KPK94M,AAEA--8?type=text/html > > The content filter is sanitizing the link : the default "safe" behaviour. > > NextGen$ > > > > > Ian Clarke wrote: > > >Oh, and email addresses (if we don't already). > > > > > >Ian. > > > > > >On 15 Aug 2006, at 12:43, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > >>On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 11:56:49AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > >>>I don't see why not, its public. > > >> > > >>Okay cool lets do it. (My view is that as long as we expunge all IP > > >>addresses, and make it clear in the channel topic that it is logged, > > >>then we're fine). > > >>> > > >>>Ian. > > >>> > > >>>On 12 Aug 2006, at 16:12, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > > >>> > > >>>>Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>>Shall we let webcrawlers/searchengines index our irc logs ? > > >>>> > > >>>>NextGen$ > > >>-- > > >>Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org > > >> > > >>Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > > >>ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >>chat mailing list > > >>chat at freenetproject.org > > >>Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > > >>Unsubscribe at > > >>http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat > > >>Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > > > > > >*Ian Clarke*: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. > > > > > >phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >chat mailing list > > >chat at freenetproject.org > > >Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > > >Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat > > >Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > > > _______________________________________________ > > chat mailing list > > chat at freenetproject.org > > Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat > > Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > _______________________________________________ > chat mailing list > chat at freenetproject.org > Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat > Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > -- 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: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060817/21f660a5/attachment.pgp From remailer at invalid.com Wed Aug 16 08:24:22 2006 From: remailer at invalid.com (remailer at invalid.com) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:24:22 +0100 (BST) Subject: [freenet-chat] Swedish Pirate Party Launches a Commerical Darknet References: Message-ID: <20060816082422.A2E8A19415E@drooper.bananasplit.info> -----BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE----- Message-type: plaintext In "Shoey Fighter" wrote: >Swedish Pirate Party launches a "commercial darknet": > >http://www2.piratpartiet.se/nyheter/press_release_pirate_party_launches_worlds_first_commercial_darknet/ > >Cheers to them! > >ShoeyFighter except for one thing. check them out more closely and you will see that they are nothing more than another privacy.li or findnot.com they promise total anonymity and no logging. it doesn't work that way. if they are going to charge for their service (and their page says they do), and if they are going to deal with abuse complaints (no choice if they want to stay in business for very long) then they MUST do a certain level of logging to keep track of users. this means that LEAs can come in and demand those logs, with hell to pay if they don't cough them up fast. NO paid for anonymity service can work, ever. The fact that it must be paid for makes the full anonymity impossible. The best they can hope to do is add another step between the user and snoops. privacy they can provide, NOT anonymity. -----END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE----- From magetoo at fastmail.fm Thu Aug 17 19:02:03 2006 From: magetoo at fastmail.fm (Magnus Eriksson) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:02:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [freenet-chat] Swedish Pirate Party Launches a Commerical Darknet In-Reply-To: <20060816082422.A2E8A19415E@drooper.bananasplit.info> References: <20060816082422.A2E8A19415E@drooper.bananasplit.info> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 remailer at invalid.com wrote: > if they are going to charge for their service (and their page says they do), > and if they are going to deal with abuse complaints (no choice if they want to > stay in business for very long) then they MUST do a certain level of logging to > keep track of users. this means that LEAs can come in and demand those logs, > with hell to pay if they don't cough them up fast. No, they do not have to do that. The service is entirely prepaid and non-metered. The only thing they *have* to keep track of is for what period of time username is allowed to use their services. They state themselves that all credit card information, etc, is discarded as long as it's no longer needed -- i.e. immediately. The only information that is supposedly stored is usernames and the email addresses they correspond to. Abuse? Fine, just disable the account and notify via the email address the user gave. As for IP addresses, I'm not very clear on whether they log them or not. Falkvinge says they "do not retain logs over who was connected to them", but it's not apparent from Relakks' own website. Either way, the police can not demand any logs unless they want to catch someone who is suspected of a crime that would lead to at least two years in prison. That's the law. All cases of copyright violations that have been in Swedish courts so far have lead to nothing more than fines. Which means that the service is very attractive for file sharers that do not trust their ISPs. Which means that if you are not suspected of a more serious crime, you're in the clear. If you are, the situation is not clear. Of course, that's only good enough if you trust them to not lie. However, the Pirate Party's leader endorses them, and stands to lose a lot if what they say is not true. (And personally, I've met him and trust that he, at least, is not lying.) > NO paid for anonymity service can work, ever. The fact that it must be paid for > makes the full anonymity impossible. > The best they can hope to do is add another step between the user and snoops. > privacy they can provide, NOT anonymity. That depends on the method of payment, wouldn't you say? If I pay cash and only tell them my username ("Here's 50E for the rest of the year. My username is .") I don't see how my privacy or anonymity would be compromised. Especially if I have someone else go pay them. That is if you disregard traceability via IP addresses, which may or may not be relevant for Relakks. But since you mentioned payment, that's what I'm commenting. It is true, of course, that what they offer is pseudonymity, not true anonymity. That doesn't mean the service can not be used to have some reasonable amount of anonymity. MAgnus From micke at mickeu.nu Sat Aug 19 13:53:26 2006 From: micke at mickeu.nu (Michael Andersson) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:53:26 +0200 Subject: [freenet-chat] Freenet using loads of cpu Message-ID: <44E717D6.6090306@mickeu.nu> Hi there, i have been installing freenet on a linux machine with an athlon 1ghz cpu, and after having let freenet been running for a few days it uses almost 100% cpu. Is there anything i can do to minimize its cpu usage? -- Michael Andersson - micke at mickeu.nu http://www.mickeu.nu/ From null at system-e.dk Fri Aug 18 05:44:56 2006 From: null at system-e.dk (null at system-e.dk) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:44:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [freenet-chat] Swedish Pirate Party Launches a Commerical Darknet References: Message-ID: <20060818054456.2923D2C93F1@laforge.hovedspring.dk> This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion server at laforge.system-e.dk. If you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact simono at system-e.dk. For more information about anonymity, see http://www.mixminion.net/. -----BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE----- Message-type: plaintext In Magnus Eriksson wrote: >On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 remailer at invalid.com wrote: > >> if they are going to charge for their service (and their page says they do), >> and if they are going to deal with abuse complaints (no choice if they want to >> stay in business for very long) then they MUST do a certain level of logging to >> keep track of users. this means that LEAs can come in and demand those logs, >> with hell to pay if they don't cough them up fast. > > No, they do not have to do that. The service is entirely prepaid and >non-metered. The only thing they *have* to keep track of is for what >period of time username is allowed to use their services. They >state themselves that all credit card information, etc, is discarded as >long as it's no longer needed -- i.e. immediately. They state themselves.. yeah, I'll put confidence in un-corroborated statements of strangers speaking in their own profit margin... NOT. > The only information that is supposedly stored is usernames and the >email addresses they correspond to. Abuse? Fine, just disable the >account and notify via the email address the user gave. Any trust in this business is invalidated by the use of the word "Supposedly". The fact that even you use that word underlines the fact that they cannot be trusted. > As for IP addresses, I'm not very clear on whether they log them or not. >Falkvinge says they "do not retain logs over who was connected to them", >but it's not apparent from Relakks' own website. > > Either way, the police can not demand any logs unless they want to catch >someone who is suspected of a crime that would lead to at least two years >in prison. That's the law. All cases of copyright violations that have >been in Swedish courts so far have lead to nothing more than fines. >Which means that the service is very attractive for file sharers that do >not trust their ISPs. > > Which means that if you are not suspected of a more serious crime, >you're in the clear. If you are, the situation is not clear. > > > > Of course, that's only good enough if you trust them to not lie. Being a suspicious, somewhat paranoid person myself I choose to believe that they would lie without hesitation simply because if I stood to make money, I would lie just as fast. >However, the Pirate Party's leader endorses them, and stands to lose a lot >if what they say is not true. (And personally, I've met him and trust >that he, at least, is not lying.) Great for you that you have at least one person connected to this that you can personally trust. This gives no reason for anyone else to believe any of these people. > >> NO paid for anonymity service can work, ever. The fact that it must be paid for >> makes the full anonymity impossible. > >> The best they can hope to do is add another step between the user and snoops. >> privacy they can provide, NOT anonymity. > > > That depends on the method of payment, wouldn't you say? If I pay cash >and only tell them my username ("Here's 50E for the rest of the year. My >username is .") I don't see how my privacy or anonymity would be >compromised. Especially if I have someone else go pay them. That is if >you disregard traceability via IP addresses, which may or may not be >relevant for Relakks. But since you mentioned payment, that's what I'm >commenting. > > > It is true, of course, that what they offer is pseudonymity, not true >anonymity. That doesn't mean the service can not be used to have some >reasonable amount of anonymity. Perhaps. And very likely it would serve for the average kid d/ling porn, music or movies. But there ARE people who will actually believe that this service and others like it truely make them bulletproof and the dramatic claims of the companies encourage this naive belief when in fact none of them are anything more than one additional layer of mild security. I object to companies making claims like this because they lead people to believe that they are more than they are. These people may be 100% honest, but they CANNOT stand up to a government or large corporation and most of their customers think they can. This goes triple if the govt or corp is willing to do some wet work along the way. -----END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE----- From magetoo at fastmail.fm Sat Aug 19 17:37:30 2006 From: magetoo at fastmail.fm (Magnus Eriksson) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:37:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [freenet-chat] Swedish Pirate Party Launches a Commerical Darknet In-Reply-To: <20060818054456.2923D2C93F1@laforge.hovedspring.dk> References: <20060818054456.2923D2C93F1@laforge.hovedspring.dk> Message-ID: >> No, they do not have to do that. The service is entirely prepaid and >> non-metered. The only thing they *have* to keep track of is for what >> period of time username is allowed to use their services. They >> state themselves that all credit card information, etc, is discarded as >> long as it's no longer needed -- i.e. immediately. > They state themselves.. yeah, I'll put confidence in un-corroborated statements > of strangers speaking in their own profit margin... NOT. [...] > Being a suspicious, somewhat paranoid person myself I choose to believe > that they would lie without hesitation simply because if I stood to make > money, I would lie just as fast. Keeping their customers' privacy IS THEIR PRODUCT. If someone can show that have not kept that promise, they're dead. If you put yourself in their position, you have just invested lots of cash in setting up a service like this. You don't stand to make any money back if your users don't trust you. That makes me think I can have a reasonable amount of trust in their claims. >> The only information that is supposedly stored is usernames and the > Any trust in this business is invalidated by the use of the word > "Supposedly". The fact that even you use that word underlines the fact > that they cannot be trusted. Well, you can hardly expect me to speak in absolutes about a recently launched service I have never used, can you? All I can do is repeat what they say. You don't seem to have any problems doing it, though. Tell me, what evidence do you have to back the "fact" that they are not to be trusted? [...] > Perhaps. And very likely it would serve for the average kid d/ling > porn, music or movies. A.k.a. "their customers". They do say that if you are suspected of a more serious crime, the police can subpoena their records/logs, you know. It's no secret. > I object to companies making claims like this because they lead people > to believe that they are more than they are. These people may be 100% > honest, but they CANNOT stand up to a government or large corporation > and most of their customers think they can. AFAIK, they don't make any extreme claims. What they basically say is that if you're sharing music and movies, you can use their service to hide your real IP from the world, and hide the contents of your traffic from your ISP. That's about it. (Arguably, that's what they *don't* say. Openly saying "we're just the thing if you want to violate copyright" probably wouldn't be that smart..) You can have the last word. There's not really anything to add until they have been operating for a while, and I don't feel like arguing with random anonymous people just for the sake of it. MAgnus From toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Mon Aug 21 11:55:36 2006 From: toad at amphibian.dyndns.org (Matthew Toseland) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:55:36 +0100 Subject: [freenet-chat] EDRI on DADVSI Message-ID: <20060821115536.GA518@amphibian.dyndns.org> More on the DADVSI from EDRI. Interesting that the constitutional council explicitly states that software can be illegal even if it is intended for sharing non-copyrighted works; this strongly suggests that blacklisting is now mandatory in France. (An open question being whether blacklisting on demand a la DMCA takedown notices is enough, or whether all P2P apart from the whitelisting varieties is now illegal). ----- Forwarded message from EDRI-gram newsletter ----- From: EDRI-gram newsletter To: edri-news at edri.org Subject: EDRI-gram newsletter - Number 4.15, 2 August 2006 List-Id: edri-news.mailman.edri.org List-Subscribe: , ============================================================ EDRI-gram biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe Number 4.15, 2 August 2006 ============================================================ Contents ============================================================ EDRI-gram in German 1. Digital Rights Ireland Challenge to Data Retention 2. EU might fingerprint children even before 12 years old 3. End of activities Bits of Freedom 4. Telecom Italia wiretapping scandal 5. EU trying to push again biometrics on national ID cards 6. The French copyright law changed by the Constitutional Council 7. The Schengen Information System II delayed 8. Recommended reading 9. Agenda 10. About ============================================================ 6. The French copyright law changed by the Constitutional Council ============================================================ The French Constitutional Council ruled on the most controversial copyright and related rights law, known as DADVSI law, concluding that some provisions of the law "violated the constitutional protections of property". The Council has considered as unconstitutional several provisions adopted by the French Parliament that were meant to balance the initial text which was too much in favour of the industry, thus making the law even stricter. One of the aspects considered by the Council as against the equality principle was the gradual system in the application of fines for making works available on P2P networks, which was ranging from 38 to 150 euros. Under the circumstances, the penalties remain at the level of 3 years of imprisonment and 300,000 euros in fines. "By eliminating the reduced penalties, the council put ordinary people sharing music back in the same league as criminal counterfeiters," said Jean-Baptist Soufron, legal director for the Association of Audionautes. Probably the most severe decision of the Council is related to provisions related to interoperability. Basically the Council considered the government did not define interoperability properly and withdrew interoperability from the DRM circumventions exceptions. This definitely pleased Apple. Dominique Menard, partner at the Lovells law firm and a specialist in intellectual property said: "The Constitutional Council has highlighted fundamental protections for intellectual property in such a way as to put iTunes a little further from risk of the French law." The Council changed also some of the provisions adopted by the French Parliament making the creators of file-sharing software and software that could interact with DRM-protected content to be sued by copyright holders, even if the "software is intended for non-copyrighted contents". The law, which is now stricter than the initial text, will be either promulgated and then published in the Official Journal after which it can enter into force or it can be resubmitted to the Parliament for further discussions. DADVSI : The Constitutional Council makes the law tougher ! (27.07.2006) http://www.ratiatum.com/news3414_DADVSI_Le_Conseil_Constitutionnel_aggrave_la_loi.html The DADVSI law validated and made stricter by the Constitutional Council (27.07.2006) http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/30385-La-loi-DADVSI-validee-en-partie-par-le-Conse.htm EDRI-gram : New French copyright law gives Apple satisfaction (5.06.2006) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.13/frenchcopyright Parts of French "iPod law" ruled unconstitutional (29.07.2006) http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060729-7380.html ----- End forwarded message ----- -- 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: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060821/abd40e88/attachment.pgp From lean-gmane at omnia.dk Fri Aug 25 11:52:21 2006 From: lean-gmane at omnia.dk (Lean Fuglsang) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:52:21 +0200 Subject: [freenet-chat] Practical darknet - or where are the chinese? Message-ID: Hi, I was wondering what the plan is for practial darknet in china. In the west it looks like a practial IP based darknet i possible where a lot of legal communication is encrypted and ISP's are not that government friendly. The laws that have been passed have been in the style of ban the application, or prosecute the little people. But for now it seems that ISP are independent enough that a IP darknet is possible. But what is the reality in china? What kind of link management is done, I don't believe that darknet would be possible using IP, since it is possible to see that a node is using it. It is just too easy to see that a host have many encrypted udp connection. So how is it imagened that freenet should work? Should the steganography go through skype, or other messaging services? If it is phone or video, how can you connect to multiple host? You first call one, and then you call another? Can the network cope with this type of connections? What about instant messaging? Here you can talk to a lot of people, but it looks weird if you do it 24/7. What about mobile phones, usb keys and the like? What kind of application is it possible to run on each type of network? I would think it could be some type of textmessages, without too much info. So is there any chinese out there, that can post to this list and tell us how the reality look in china (in english ;)? Are there any frost forums which have chinese activity? From ian at locut.us Sat Aug 26 17:17:14 2006 From: ian at locut.us (Ian Clarke) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:17:14 -0700 Subject: [freenet-chat] A potential patent threat to Freenet and other P2P networks Message-ID: This patent purports to cover the rather obvious idea of "using substantially unique identifiers to identify data items, whereby identical data items have the same identifiers": http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5978791.html It was filed in October 1997, and is owned by Altnet, who are currently using it to sue Streamcast (creators of Morpheus), and, if they prevail or of Streamcast caves, could conceivably attack other P2P networks, including Freenet: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060815-7508.html Now it is hard to believe that prior art wouldn't exist for such an obvious idea, claim one is a text book definition of a hash function which have been around for decades, claim 2 would seem to describe a hashtable, also a notion with clear prior art going back decades, claim 5 seems to describe the operation of a cache, and so on. But then the claims discuss using this technique to retrieve things over a network. Now, one might argue that simply applying a common computer science technique to a distributed situation is not novel (I don't believe you can get a valid patent simply by combining two other things you didn't invent), but it would be really useful to find some robust examples of requesting files by their hashes over a network that pre-date October 1997. I have heard that the Xanadu project may have something in 1990, but haven't got any specific references. Is anyone aware of anything concrete? Ian. From van2 at vipmail.hu Sun Aug 27 17:45:27 2006 From: van2 at vipmail.hu (-) Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 19:45:27 +0200 (W. Europe Daylight Time) Subject: [freenet-chat] Freenet 0,5 or 0,7 Message-ID: <44F1DA37.000003.00592@XP> I'd like to add to the 0.5 vs 0.7 discussion in the support list, which we were asked to move here, so I hope the people from support are reading this! Regarding the social networks, the models that exist probably apply to national systems only, and probably to a certain social class within that, so I'm not convinced that they would have any meaning for an underground internet network. I.E. how would a darknet of chinese dissidents link up with freedom fighters in an oppressive latin american regime? And how would any of these link up with a darknet of german kids wishing to download warez or whatever? But here's the big question: what mechanism can freenet have, for protecting members of a darknet, when a darknet is infiltrated by a hostile node? When I talked about infiltrating the darknet, I did not mean breaking it from the outside with some super computers, (which I'm sure is harder to do with 0,7 than with 0,5), I simply meant posing as an "inside person" and joining it, or simply busting one member and capturing his computer. Toad (I believe) replied to this saying that I might as well hang myself if I think that there's noone I can trust in life. But come on, that's not the point, everyone knows that spies take on false identities and infiltrate every kind of illegal network. That's what they get paid for. Also, it just isn't realistic to think that people will know others in real life that they can trust with the kind of things they need anonymity for. A minority of people will have such connections, but the majority will not! This will mean that for freenet to be viable it will always need to have a public mechanism for joining. So, again the question is: What mechanism will 0,7 have for protecting members of the darknet if one of the nodes is spy? I think this issue seriously needs to be solved! Are "the bad guys" really going to spend millions on high tech computers to break a network, when all they have to do is join it? Thinking we can keep them out is absurd! Any current member of 0,7 could just as well be or become a spy or a narc or whatever. Van -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060827/c99f8e3f/attachment.htm From apostle at peculiarplace.com Mon Aug 28 05:26:47 2006 From: apostle at peculiarplace.com (Edward Langenback) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:26:47 -0500 Subject: [freenet-chat] new freesites + question Message-ID: <1677088711.20060828002647@peculiarplace.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings, As of the current version, Mixminion Message Sender is now also available on freenet 0.5 (http://freenetproject.org/download-old.html) The freenet url for it is: SSK at XKgPxdSUjAcZrV0oTUGeXmoAGfIPAgM,ZOJm89bQCLLZw7DJ23i4gw/mmsdev/1// And another site: Lastdays Watch: SSK@~7-CGZZKXiKVoxSOlFPVBsDJXXwPAgM,ckqhs1YME2xL0Ub3XcWpnA/watch/3// These are on the 0.5 (stable) version. (I'm not putting anything on the new 0.7 (alpha) version until it's out of alpha and open-net is deployed.) Speaking of open-net, is there a working approximation for when that'll happen? in Him, -Ed - -- The best way to get past my spam filter is to use pgp or gnupg to encrypt your Mail to me with RSA Key ID: 0x84D46604 (fingerprint: DA03 1EA4 7F5D DF74 B89F E871 757E 627C 84D4 6604) This key can be found on public keyservers such as http://keyserver.kjsl.com:11371/#extract - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= God's Resting Place http://lurasbookcase.com/gods-resting-place.shtml / \ \ / Join the ASCII-Ribbon Campaign to Stamp Out HTML Email ! X / \ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. iQEVAwUBRPJ+nHV+YnyE1GYEAQJLlQf9GkB2kEWs7MaDz3p25ygGerhgXbP4RgiW ifX6qBRtRLKAARTxb7d0o2D3eJ6geEEpTpAtoUIsdzO8jowCUDp+Spe/sz82a0qY rh+51pUg0PDZBLJiXsr56gEomgvD50U2zEfz8517Zsr7Q9zlyyyH6xDYNsFUgMAJ r4QtmxZ9xePq35IS0b0DmyQWQH2LsxPSzWB4rGTdUpC6IoT93JmyuAmkdyQXkXgm NBbw5VbWxj2L2aXjicwJKUsLedWYpLCj2FPEtAh4R1gopmUjLrZTLaAfssxHAbhh A/og2/X33XLU6BYw2dBQN92kApkeEia7x2TPBWqqjiDCQjiD7b6klQ== =gva+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nextgens at freenetproject.org Mon Aug 28 14:39:35 2006 From: nextgens at freenetproject.org (NextGen$) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:39:35 +0000 Subject: [freenet-chat] Freenet 0,5 or 0,7 In-Reply-To: <44F1DA37.000003.00592@XP> References: <44F1DA37.000003.00592@XP> Message-ID: <20060828143935.GE12304@freenetproject.org> * - [2006-08-27 19:45:27]: > I'd like to add to the 0.5 vs 0.7 discussion in the support list, which we > were > asked to move here, so I hope the people from support are reading this! Trolls don't need to be on @support, that's for sure :) > Regarding the social networks, the models that exist probably apply to > national > systems only, and probably to a certain social class within that, so I'm not > convinced that they would have any meaning for an underground internet > network. > I.E. how would a darknet of chinese dissidents link up with freedom fighters > in an oppressive latin american regime? And how would any of these link > up with a darknet of german kids wishing to download warez or whatever? > > But here's the big question: what mechanism can freenet have, for protecting > members of a darknet, when a darknet is infiltrated by a hostile node? > When I talked about infiltrating the darknet, I did not mean breaking it > from the > outside with some super computers, (which I'm sure is harder to do with 0,7 > than > with 0,5), I simply meant posing as an "inside person" and joining it, or > simply > busting one member and capturing his computer. see below :) > Toad (I believe) replied to this saying that I might as well hang myself if > I think > that there's noone I can trust in life. But come on, that's not the point, > everyone knows > that spies take on false identities and infiltrate every kind of illegal > network. > That's what they get paid for. How do you explain that all terrorist cells haven't been busted so ? > Also, it just isn't realistic to think that people will know others in real > life that they > can trust with the kind of things they need anonymity for. A minority > of people will have such connections, but the majority will not! This will > mean that > for freenet to be viable it will always need to have a public mechanism for > joining. That's debatable... Gmail hadn't and has been successfull. > So, again the question is: > What mechanism will 0,7 have for protecting members of the darknet if > one of the nodes is spy? I think this issue seriously needs to be solved! > It's the purpose of "premix-routing" : protecting the "first few hops". Might be implemented in freenet 0.8. Keep in mind that the "known attacks" agaisnt freenet are only probablilistic ones ... "It's likely that your have inserted/downloaded that key" : it's always a matter of plausible deniability. > Are "the bad guys" really going to spend millions on high tech > computers to break a network, when all they have to do is join it? Thinking > we can keep them out is absurd! Any current member of 0,7 could just as well > be or become a spy or a narc or whatever. > You seems to missunderstand the point : you should wonder why would opennet be more secure... and will see that it's not. On opennet a governement is likely to be able to compromize the "seednode" file and replace it with only governement powered nodes. On darknet it's not doable. Social engeenering is always more costy than technical/automatable processes. Moreover a government doesn't need to infiltrate such a network ; shuting it down is often enough... And any opennet network is harvestable, meaning that it can be trivially attacked blacklisting on country's firewall the list of IP addresses known to be running freenet. On darknet we ask people to choose who they trust, on opennet we choose for them trying to optimize the network topology. NextGen$ From nextgens at freenetproject.org Mon Aug 28 15:25:14 2006 From: nextgens at freenetproject.org (NextGen$) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:25:14 +0000 Subject: [freenet-chat] Freenet 0,5 or 0,7 In-Reply-To: <35af28770608280813l6fceee9bh64e05937f669b93@mail.gmail.com> References: <44F1DA37.000003.00592@XP> <20060828143935.GE12304@freenetproject.org> <35af28770608280813l6fceee9bh64e05937f669b93@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060828152514.GF12304@freenetproject.org> * urza9814 at gmail.com [2006-08-28 11:13:24]: > On 8/28/06, NextGen$ wrote: > >* - [2006-08-27 19:45:27]: > > > >> I'd like to add to the 0.5 vs 0.7 discussion in the support list, which > >we > >> were > >> asked to move here, so I hope the people from support are reading this! > > > >Trolls don't need to be on @support, that's for sure :) > > > > It's a good way to be noticed :) > > >> Regarding the social networks, the models that exist probably apply to > >> national > >> systems only, and probably to a certain social class within that, so I'm > >not > >> convinced that they would have any meaning for an underground internet > >> network. > >> I.E. how would a darknet of chinese dissidents link up with freedom > >fighters > >> in an oppressive latin american regime? And how would any of these link > >> up with a darknet of german kids wishing to download warez or whatever? > >> > >> But here's the big question: what mechanism can freenet have, for > >protecting > >> members of a darknet, when a darknet is infiltrated by a hostile node? > >> When I talked about infiltrating the darknet, I did not mean breaking it > >> from the > >> outside with some super computers, (which I'm sure is harder to do with > >0,7 > >> than > >> with 0,5), I simply meant posing as an "inside person" and joining it, or > >> simply > >> busting one member and capturing his computer. > > > >see below :) > > > >> Toad (I believe) replied to this saying that I might as well hang myself > >if > >> I think > >> that there's noone I can trust in life. But come on, that's not the > >point, > >> everyone knows > >> that spies take on false identities and infiltrate every kind of illegal > >> network. > >> That's what they get paid for. > > > >How do you explain that all terrorist cells haven't been busted so ? > > > > Um...they're small groups of people that know and trust each other > really well. And they're isolated. That'd be like having a few hundred > 50-100 person darknets with no communication between them and people > only invite the people they've known for many, many years. You shouldn't connect to people you don't trust, full stop. > >> Also, it just isn't realistic to think that people will know others in > >real > >> life that they > >> can trust with the kind of things they need anonymity for. A minority > >> of people will have such connections, but the majority will not! This > >will > >> mean that > >> for freenet to be viable it will always need to have a public mechanism > >for > >> joining. > > > >That's debatable... Gmail hadn't and has been successfull. > > > > How the hell can you even CONSIDER comparing Gmail to freenet? > Gmail isn't anonymous. Gmail is an invite-only system as freenet > If I invite a government agent to Gmail, that's not gonna screw me over. It won't on freenet either... It might. > I don't have to send a file to someone to get them to join Gmail. You've to send them a mail, wich is kinda the same thing. > There's no security risk with just sending Gmail invites to random people. If the fact of running freenet is illegal in your country opennet won't help at all ;) > Nothing anyone does on Gmail is illegal. At least not if they're smart. Nothing anyone does on freenet is illegal. At least not if they're smart. > Gmail and Freenet...that's like comparing my computer to a lego block. I don't get the metaphor :$ > >> So, again the question is: > >> What mechanism will 0,7 have for protecting members of the darknet if > >> one of the nodes is spy? I think this issue seriously needs to be solved! > >> > > > >It's the purpose of "premix-routing" : protecting the "first few hops". > >Might > >be implemented in freenet 0.8. > > > > MIGHT be implemented in 0.8? 0.8 is most likely about two years away. > What do we do until then? Pray? Connect only to trusted friends... On darknet you choose your friends, on opennet we choose them for you! Meaning that opennet WILL be even less secure than the current darknet ;) > >Keep in mind that the "known attacks" agaisnt freenet are only > >probablilistic ones ... "It's likely that your have inserted/downloaded > >that > >key" : it's always a matter of plausible deniability. > > > >> Are "the bad guys" really going to spend millions on high tech > >> computers to break a network, when all they have to do is join it? > >Thinking > >> we can keep them out is absurd! Any current member of 0,7 could just as > >well > >> be or become a spy or a narc or whatever. > >> > > > >You seems to missunderstand the point : you should wonder why would > >opennet be > >more secure... and will see that it's not. > > > > I wonder why a darknet is more secure...and see that it's not. Can't you read what I'm writting ? :) > > >On opennet a governement is likely to be able to compromize the "seednode" > >file and replace it with only governement powered nodes. On darknet it's > >not > >doable. Social engeenering is always more costy than technical/automatable > >processes. Moreover a government doesn't need to infiltrate such a network > >; > >shuting it down is often enough... And any opennet network is harvestable, > >meaning that it can be trivially attacked blacklisting on country's > >firewall > >the list of IP addresses known to be running freenet. > > > >On darknet we ask people to choose who they trust, on opennet we choose for > >them trying to optimize the network topology. > > > >NextGen$ > >_______________________________________________ > >chat mailing list > >chat at freenetproject.org > >Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > >Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat > >Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > > > > > -- > > border="0" alt="Get Firefox!" title="Get Firefox!" > src="http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/180x60/blank.gif"/> > From toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Mon Aug 28 15:26:43 2006 From: toad at amphibian.dyndns.org (Matthew Toseland) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:26:43 +0100 Subject: [freenet-chat] Not much point fighting individual patents was Re: [Tech] A potential patent threat to Freenet and other P2P networks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060828152643.GA16598@amphibian.dyndns.org> I'm sure I've seen md5: URIs as examples in some document, I think an RFC on URNs maybe? I'll have a look sometime if I get around to it, but it's not really worth fighting individual patents until you really have to. The top campaigning priority (even higher than the Community Patent, EPLA and London Agreement) MUST be to fight the IPRED2, because if that passes, we're in deep camel dung: Freenet would almost certainly be illegal per se (aiding and abetting copyright infringement), and most software authors, open source or not, would become criminals ("intentional" infringement of a patent "on a commercial scale", punishable by prison time, judicial winding up etc). http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ipred2/ipred2.en.html http://www.fipr.org/copyright/ipred2.html http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2060510En http://www.ffii.org.uk/archives/23 Frankly the IPRED2 would greatly reduce my respect for criminal law, not to mention for the European institutions involved... Is there an EPO equivalent for the below? I came across the below years ago but could never find it again when I wanted to... On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 10:17:14AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > This patent purports to cover the rather obvious idea of "using > substantially unique identifiers to identify data items, whereby > identical data items have the same identifiers": > > http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5978791.html > > It was filed in October 1997, and is owned by Altnet, who are > currently using it to sue Streamcast (creators of Morpheus), and, if > they prevail or of Streamcast caves, could conceivably attack other > P2P networks, including Freenet: > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060815-7508.html > > Now it is hard to believe that prior art wouldn't exist for such an > obvious idea, claim one is a text book definition of a hash function > which have been around for decades, claim 2 would seem to describe a > hashtable, also a notion with clear prior art going back decades, > claim 5 seems to describe the operation of a cache, and so on. > > But then the claims discuss using this technique to retrieve things > over a network. Now, one might argue that simply applying a common > computer science technique to a distributed situation is not novel (I > don't believe you can get a valid patent simply by combining two > other things you didn't invent), but it would be really useful to > find some robust examples of requesting files by their hashes over a > network that pre-date October 1997. > > I have heard that the Xanadu project may have something in 1990, but > haven't got any specific references. Is anyone aware of anything > concrete? > > Ian. > > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > -- 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: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060828/6c5f6834/attachment.pgp From toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Mon Aug 28 17:35:54 2006 From: toad at amphibian.dyndns.org (Matthew Toseland) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:35:54 +0100 Subject: [freenet-chat] new freesites + question In-Reply-To: <1677088711.20060828002647@peculiarplace.com> References: <1677088711.20060828002647@peculiarplace.com> Message-ID: <20060828173554.GA29486@amphibian.dyndns.org> Best guess sometime around year end. On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 12:26:47AM -0500, Edward Langenback wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Greetings, > > As of the current version, Mixminion Message Sender is now also available on freenet 0.5 > (http://freenetproject.org/download-old.html) > > The freenet url for it is: > SSK at XKgPxdSUjAcZrV0oTUGeXmoAGfIPAgM,ZOJm89bQCLLZw7DJ23i4gw/mmsdev/1// > > And another site: Lastdays Watch: > SSK@~7-CGZZKXiKVoxSOlFPVBsDJXXwPAgM,ckqhs1YME2xL0Ub3XcWpnA/watch/3// > > These are on the 0.5 (stable) version. (I'm not putting anything on the new > 0.7 (alpha) version until it's out of alpha and open-net is deployed.) > > Speaking of open-net, is there a working approximation for when that'll happen? > > in Him, > -Ed > - -- > The best way to get past my spam filter is to use pgp or > gnupg to encrypt your Mail to me with > RSA Key ID: 0x84D46604 > (fingerprint: DA03 1EA4 7F5D DF74 B89F E871 757E 627C 84D4 6604) > This key can be found on public keyservers such as > http://keyserver.kjsl.com:11371/#extract > - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > God's Resting Place > http://lurasbookcase.com/gods-resting-place.shtml > / \ > \ / Join the ASCII-Ribbon Campaign to Stamp Out HTML Email ! > X > / \ > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. > > iQEVAwUBRPJ+nHV+YnyE1GYEAQJLlQf9GkB2kEWs7MaDz3p25ygGerhgXbP4RgiW > ifX6qBRtRLKAARTxb7d0o2D3eJ6geEEpTpAtoUIsdzO8jowCUDp+Spe/sz82a0qY > rh+51pUg0PDZBLJiXsr56gEomgvD50U2zEfz8517Zsr7Q9zlyyyH6xDYNsFUgMAJ > r4QtmxZ9xePq35IS0b0DmyQWQH2LsxPSzWB4rGTdUpC6IoT93JmyuAmkdyQXkXgm > NBbw5VbWxj2L2aXjicwJKUsLedWYpLCj2FPEtAh4R1gopmUjLrZTLaAfssxHAbhh > A/og2/X33XLU6BYw2dBQN92kApkeEia7x2TPBWqqjiDCQjiD7b6klQ== > =gva+ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > chat mailing list > chat at freenetproject.org > Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat > Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > -- 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: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060828/301df628/attachment.pgp From nextgens at freenetproject.org Mon Aug 28 17:46:37 2006 From: nextgens at freenetproject.org (NextGen$) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:46:37 +0000 Subject: [freenet-chat] Freenet 0,5 or 0,7 In-Reply-To: <35af28770608280951t774d11d8ta60022929f49f679@mail.gmail.com> References: <44F1DA37.000003.00592@XP> <20060828143935.GE12304@freenetproject.org> <35af28770608280813l6fceee9bh64e05937f669b93@mail.gmail.com> <20060828152514.GF12304@freenetproject.org> <35af28770608280951t774d11d8ta60022929f49f679@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060828174637.GG12304@freenetproject.org> * urza9814 at gmail.com [2006-08-28 12:51:28]: > On 8/28/06, NextGen$ wrote: > >* urza9814 at gmail.com [2006-08-28 11:13:24]: > > [snip.] > >> On 8/28/06, NextGen$ wrote: > >> >* - [2006-08-27 19:45:27]: > >> >How do you explain that all terrorist cells haven't been busted so ? > >> > > >> > >> Um...they're small groups of people that know and trust each other > >> really well. And they're isolated. That'd be like having a few hundred > >> 50-100 person darknets with no communication between them and people > >> only invite the people they've known for many, many years. > > > >You shouldn't connect to people you don't trust, full stop. > > > > If I only connected to people I trust I'd end up with a darknet of 2. > That's not very useful. > That's usefull. > >> >> Also, it just isn't realistic to think that people will know others in > >> >real > >> >> life that they > >> >> can trust with the kind of things they need anonymity for. A minority > >> >> of people will have such connections, but the majority will not! This > >> >will > >> >> mean that > >> >> for freenet to be viable it will always need to have a public > >mechanism > >> >for > >> >> joining. > >> > > >> >That's debatable... Gmail hadn't and has been successfull. > >> > > >> > >> How the hell can you even CONSIDER comparing Gmail to freenet? > >> Gmail isn't anonymous. > > > >Gmail is an invite-only system as freenet > > > > Freenet isn't really invite only. how so ? > >> If I invite a government agent to Gmail, that's not gonna screw me over. > > > >It won't on freenet either... It might. > > > > Well, there's no possibility of that at all on Gmail. Why do you think they keep who has introduced you then ? I bet that it's a convenient way of fighting against spam. The catch a spammer and ensure that his "invitees" aren't spammer. > >> I don't have to send a file to someone to get them to join Gmail. > > > >You've to send them a mail, wich is kinda the same thing. > > > > ehh...not really. You just type their email addy in a box. We could have the same thing on freenet. Maybe we will. > >> There's no security risk with just sending Gmail invites to random > >people. > > > >If the fact of running freenet is illegal in your country opennet won't > >help > >at all ;) > > > > It's not. Freenet is already illegal here in France, I doubt it's legal in China either. [snip.] Maybe you could answer to points I've snipped. > On the darknet you know exactly who you're connected to. On the > opennet you don't. More deniability, and harder for governments to use > one compromised node to get to others. That a false assumption. Your ISP does know who you're connected to, even on opennet! Let's take an example, since a law called LEN, french ISPs have to keep logs of EVERYTHING going through their wires for up to 6 months!!!! Of course that silly law is hardly possible to apply... but still. > If the chinese government > captures one node on a darknet, chances are most of the connected > nodes are also in China. If they capture one node on an opennet, > chances are they can maybe bust one or two of the other known nodes. > And opennet works better. Security might be debatable, but I have yet > to see an argument saying that performance would be better on a > darknet. see above... on that point it's again worst with opennet than darknet because opennet's connections can be spotted by cheap traffic analysis ... on darknet it's more expensive ... and won't be doable when we have got steganographic transport plugins. > Besides, look at all the existing opennets. I've never heard of anyone > getting busted on Freenet 0.5...I've never heard of a string of > arrests on ANY P2P network where they, say, captured one guy's > computer and then watched who downloaded from him. That type of attack > would be a lot more efficient on a darknet. > Maybe because such networks aren't popular enough to be targeted ? Maybe because they don't need to make an example out of those poor guys ? > >> >Keep in mind that the "known attacks" agaisnt freenet are only > >> >probablilistic ones ... "It's likely that your have inserted/downloaded > >> >that > >> >key" : it's always a matter of plausible deniability. > >> > > >> >> Are "the bad guys" really going to spend millions on high tech > >> >> computers to break a network, when all they have to do is join it? > >> >Thinking > >> >> we can keep them out is absurd! Any current member of 0,7 could just > >as > >> >well > >> >> be or become a spy or a narc or whatever. > >> >> > >> > > >> >You seems to missunderstand the point : you should wonder why would > >> >opennet be > >> >more secure... and will see that it's not. > >> > > >> > >> I wonder why a darknet is more secure...and see that it's not. > > > >Can't you read what I'm writting ? :) > > > > Can't you read what *I'm* writing? :) > I'm replying to every questions/replies from you. You aren't doing the same for me. [snip] NextGen$ From mcharters10 at comcast.net Mon Aug 28 18:36:54 2006 From: mcharters10 at comcast.net (Mel Charters) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:36:54 -0700 Subject: [freenet-chat] Questionaire Message-ID: Is it feasible to develop a questionnaire designed to ascertaining potential darknet invitee's attitudes toward anonymous, clandestine communication on subjects of a particular group's interest? Psychological tests for compatibility matching are used throughout industry for screening job applicants, profiling criminals, and so forth. Why not for entry to an exclusive club? -- Mel Charters From van2 at vipmail.hu Tue Aug 29 16:43:07 2006 From: van2 at vipmail.hu (-) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:43:07 +0200 (W. Europe Daylight Time) Subject: [freenet-chat] Freenet 0,5 or 0,7 Message-ID: <44F46E9B.000005.01848@XP> NextGen$: I don't think you should call people trolls who are merely trying to expose the weaknesses of freenet to make it better. Isn't that what you guys want us to do? We're all in the same boat here. You stated that you believe computer based attacks on Freenet are much easier than social engineering, and therefore support the fact that freenet should be an invite only network. But, I don't think this model's going to work, for several reasons: First, the guiding principle behind freenet right now is anonymity in the numbers of a large number of users doing all sorts of different things. They may easily know you're using freenet, but it's extremely difficult to prove WHAT you downloaded. In other word it's very difficult to get specific evidence against a specific freenet user. True, if freenet becomes illegal, the opennet may not work, but what's the worse that's going to happen? They put up a national firewall making freenet unusable, or freenet users will just get a message from their ISP saying they better stop or they'll be kicked off. This may not happen until 3-5 years from now, even though it may be illegal on paper in France already. The darknet concept does not provide this sort of anonymity, you are exposed to the people you "trust", I haven't heard a single response to the question: what happens if someone in your darknet gets busted or a spy manages to infiltrate by joining? They instantly have reasonable grounds to assume that you are engaged in the same activity, since you're part of the same ring. This should be enough to bust you as well. They also now have the ability to specifically monitor WHAT you downloaded. Plus your "trusted" friend could easily rat on you. And that's that. How can you underestimate the importance of this? In contrast in opennet if a user gets busted, yes they may get a seedfile of hundreds of different users in many different countries all engaged in different activities. That's nice, they know all these people are using freenet, but it will not give them specific evidence against anyone, unless they do some extremely complex traffic analysis, spanning multiple countries and ISPs. And your comment about social engineering being more difficult, that doesn't really apply to today's situation, since right now all it takes is going on IRC to join. When is freenet planning to go underground then? I guess the entire 0,7 testing group will have to break into groups of darknets of 2-3-4 people that trust each other in real life. If it goes underground with a few hundred hard core enthusiasts, where's the fresh content going to come from? And half will be left outside without a darknet. I personally will have to form a one person darknet then. Van -------Original Message------- From: NextGen$ Date: 08/28/06 19:46:46 To: urza9814 at gmail.com Cc: chat at freenetproject.org Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Freenet 0,5 or 0,7 * urza9814 at gmail.com [2006-08-28 12:51:28]: > On 8/28/06, NextGen$ wrote: > >* urza9814 at gmail.com [2006-08-28 11:13:24]: > > [snip.] > >> On 8/28/06, NextGen$ wrote: > >> >* - [2006-08-27 19:45:27]: > >> >How do you explain that all terrorist cells haven't been busted so ? > >> > > >> > >> Um...they're small groups of people that know and trust each other > >> really well. And they're isolated. That'd be like having a few hundred > >> 50-100 person darknets with no communication between them and people > >> only invite the people they've known for many, many years. > > > >You shouldn't connect to people you don't trust, full stop. > > > > If I only connected to people I trust I'd end up with a darknet of 2. > That's not very useful. > That's usefull. > >> >> Also, it just isn't realistic to think that people will know others in > >> >real > >> >> life that they > >> >> can trust with the kind of things they need anonymity for. A minority > >> >> of people will have such connections, but the majority will not! This > >> >will > >> >> mean that > >> >> for freenet to be viable it will always need to have a public > >mechanism > >> >for > >> >> joining. > >> > > >> >That's debatable... Gmail hadn't and has been successfull. > >> > > >> > >> How the hell can you even CONSIDER comparing Gmail to freenet? > >> Gmail isn't anonymous. > > > >Gmail is an invite-only system as freenet > > > > Freenet isn't really invite only. how so ? > >> If I invite a government agent to Gmail, that's not gonna screw me over > > > >It won't on freenet either... It might. > > > > Well, there's no possibility of that at all on Gmail. Why do you think they keep who has introduced you then ? I bet that it's a convenient way of fighting against spam. The catch a spammer and ensure that his "invitees" aren't spammer. > >> I don't have to send a file to someone to get them to join Gmail. > > > >You've to send them a mail, wich is kinda the same thing. > > > > ehh...not really. You just type their email addy in a box. We could have the same thing on freenet. Maybe we will. > >> There's no security risk with just sending Gmail invites to random > >people. > > > >If the fact of running freenet is illegal in your country opennet won't > >help > >at all ;) > > > > It's not. Freenet is already illegal here in France, I doubt it's legal in China either. [snip.] Maybe you could answer to points I've snipped. > On the darknet you know exactly who you're connected to. On the > opennet you don't. More deniability, and harder for governments to use > one compromised node to get to others. That a false assumption. Your ISP does know who you're connected to, even on opennet! Let's take an example, since a law called LEN, french ISPs have to keep logs of EVERYTHING going through their wires for up to 6 months!!!! Of course that silly law is hardly possible to apply... but still. > If the chinese government > captures one node on a darknet, chances are most of the connected > nodes are also in China. If they capture one node on an opennet, > chances are they can maybe bust one or two of the other known nodes. > And opennet works better. Security might be debatable, but I have yet > to see an argument saying that performance would be better on a > darknet. see above... on that point it's again worst with opennet than darknet because opennet's connections can be spotted by cheap traffic analysis ... on darknet it's more expensive ... and won't be doable when we have got steganographic transport plugins. > Besides, look at all the existing opennets. I've never heard of anyone > getting busted on Freenet 0.5...I've never heard of a string of > arrests on ANY P2P network where they, say, captured one guy's > computer and then watched who downloaded from him. That type of attack > would be a lot more efficient on a darknet. > Maybe because such networks aren't popular enough to be targeted ? Maybe because they don't need to make an example out of those poor guys ? > >> >Keep in mind that the "known attacks" agaisnt freenet are only > >> >probablilistic ones ... "It's likely that your have inserted/downloaded > >> >that > >> >key" : it's always a matter of plausible deniability. > >> > > >> >> Are "the bad guys" really going to spend millions on high tech > >> >> computers to break a network, when all they have to do is join it? > >> >Thinking > >> >> we can keep them out is absurd! Any current member of 0,7 could just > >as > >> >well > >> >> be or become a spy or a narc or whatever. > >> >> > >> > > >> >You seems to missunderstand the point : you should wonder why would > >> >opennet be > >> >more secure... and will see that it's not. > >> > > >> > >> I wonder why a darknet is more secure...and see that it's not. > > > >Can't you read what I'm writting ? :) > > > > Can't you read what *I'm* writing? :) > I'm replying to every questions/replies from you. You aren't doing the same for me. [snip] NextGen$ _______________________________________________ chat mailing list chat at freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060829/514c65a4/attachment.htm From freenet-chat at david.sowder.com Tue Aug 29 18:09:05 2006 From: freenet-chat at david.sowder.com (David Sowder (Zothar)) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:09:05 -0500 Subject: [freenet-chat] Freenet 0,5 or 0,7 In-Reply-To: <44F46E9B.000005.01848@XP> References: <44F46E9B.000005.01848@XP> Message-ID: <44F482C1.1030508@david.sowder.com> - wrote: > > > NextGen$: I don't think you should call people trolls who are merely > trying to expose the weaknesses of freenet to make it better. Isn't > that what you guys want us to do? We're all in the same boat here. > > You stated that you believe computer based attacks on Freenet are much > easier than social engineering, and therefore support the fact that > freenet should be an invite only network. > True darknet: the target node can only be attacked socially assuming that: 1) "the bad guys" don't know which machines are running a Freenet node (i.e. they don't know what machine to target for a node) if there is in-packet signature on Freenet traffic an the Freenet packets are indistinguishable from other Internet traffic 2) "the bad guys" haven't confiscated a direct peer of the target node Opennet: the target node can be attacked electronically because: 1) the target node will potentially connect to anyone who wants a connection 2) "the bad guys" simply need to pretend to be a lot of anyones > But, I don't think this model's going to work, for several reasons: > > First, the guiding principle behind freenet right now is anonymity in > the numbers of a large number of users doing all sorts of different > things. They may easily know you're using freenet, but it's extremely > difficult to prove WHAT you downloaded. In other word it's very > difficult to get specific evidence against a specific freenet user. > True darknet anonymity: 1) the target node's traffic is anonymous to all non-direct peers, including "the bad guys" (unless they manage to get a direct peer with the target node), assuming the attackability points I mentioned above 2) the target node's traffic is anonymous to the direct peers in the sense that all or most of target node's direct peers would have to collaborate using statistical attacks to determine what the target node requested, inserted or stored 3) I'm not sure about this part, but "the bad guys" may not even be able to know what was contained in the traffic going through them unless they also had the URI of the resources being requested or inserted (i.e., if they don't have the decrypt keys, they don't know what's in the packet) Opennet anonymity: 1) the target node's traffic is anonymous in the same way that 1, 2 and 3 of "True darknet anonymity" above are still true, but becoming all or most of the peers for a target node is automatable, unlike true darknet, which requires humans to initiate each peering relationship. > True, if freenet becomes illegal, the opennet may not work, but what's > the worse that's going to happen? They put up a national firewall > making freenet unusable, or freenet users will just get a message from > their ISP saying they better stop or they'll be kicked off. This may > not happen until 3-5 years from now, even though it may be illegal on > paper in France already. > Depends on what kind of illegal we're talking about. Some places, the penalties may be much more severe than others. > The darknet concept does not provide this sort of anonymity, you are > exposed to the people you "trust", I haven't heard a single response > to the question: what happens if someone in your darknet gets busted > or a spy manages to infiltrate by joining? They instantly have > reasonable grounds to assume that you are engaged in the same > activity, since you're part of the same ring. This should be enough to > bust you as well. > The only nodes directly compromised by a darknet node owner getting busted are the direct peers of that node owner assuming "the bad guys" get control of the node before the peering relationships are severed. A panic button might save your peers. If the direct peers are compromised, "the bad guys" would then have to get control of each of the direct peers to compromise their direct peers. (Again, assuming Freenet packets are indistinguishable from other Internet traffic.) > They also now have the ability to specifically monitor WHAT you > downloaded. Plus your "trusted" friend could easily rat on you. And > that's that. > Only target node's direct peers have a chance of knowing what the target node downloaded and only if they cooperate to do statistical attacks and thus know with reasonable certainty that the target node was responsible for the download traffic and not some third party merely routing through the target node. Knowing what the target node downloaded is even more difficult if my thoughts about not having the decrypt info is also true. > How can you underestimate the importance of this? > Perhaps the assumptions you make in "this" are flawed and the "you" in your question has not underestimated any importance. > In contrast in opennet if a user gets busted, yes they may get a > seedfile of hundreds of different users in many different countries > all engaged in different activities. That's nice, they know all these > people are using freenet, but it will not give them specific evidence > against anyone, unless they do some extremely complex traffic > analysis, spanning multiple countries and ISPs. > See what I've written above. The complex analysis you seem to believe in is much easier on opennet than it is on a true darknet. > And your comment about social engineering being more difficult, that > doesn't really apply to today's situation, since right now all it > takes is going on IRC to join. When is freenet planning to go > underground then? > I don't think anybody is suggesting that the #freenet-refs channel on the Freenode IRC network is creating a true darknet. It is, however, being used to bootstrap a pseudo-darknet to test and develop the Freenet 0.7 software. Not all peering relationships are being made in such a public way. > I guess the entire 0,7 testing group will have to break into groups of > darknets of 2-3-4 people that trust each other in real life. If it > goes underground with a few hundred hard core enthusiasts, where's the > fresh content going to come from? > Perhaps you don't realize that the whole point of a true darknet is that it can exist "underground" and in "plain sight" at the same time. > And half will be left outside without a darknet. I personally > will have to form a one person darknet then. > Some people seem to have the impression that an opennet gives anonymity by hiding in the masses and that this is "more anonymous" than trusted peers being the only nodes "in the know" about a target node's activities. As the devs have said before, opennet will happen at some point; not in the next few weeks, but possibly by the end of the year or there 'bouts. When (not if) opennet is developed, I, for one, will continue to use the darknet model on my primary node and will only use an opennet node for development purposes. > /-------Original Message-------/ > > /*From:*/ NextGen$ > /*Date:*/ 08/28/06 19:46:46 > /*To:*/ urza9814 at gmail.com > /*Cc:*/ chat at freenetproject.org > /*Subject:*/ Re: [freenet-chat] Freenet 0,5 or 0,7 > > * urza9814 at gmail.com > [2006-08-28 12:51:28]: > > > On 8/28/06, NextGen$ > wrote: > > >* urza9814 at gmail.com > > [2006-08-28 11:13:24]: > > > > > [snip.] > > > >> On 8/28/06, NextGen$ > wrote: > > >> >* - > [2006-08-27 > 19:45:27]: > > >> >How do you explain that all terrorist cells haven't been busted so ? > > >> > > > >> > > >> Um...they're small groups of people that know and trust each other > > >> really well. And they're isolated. That'd be like having a few > hundred > > >> 50-100 person darknets with no communication between them and people > > >> only invite the people they've known for many, many years. > > > > > >You shouldn't connect to people you don't trust, full stop. > > > > > > > If I only connected to people I trust I'd end up with a darknet of 2. > > That's not very useful. > > > > That's usefull. > > > >> >> Also, it just isn't realistic to think that people will know > others in > > >> >real > > >> >> life that they > > >> >> can trust with the kind of things they need anonymity for. A > minority > > >> >> of people will have such connections, but the majority will > not! This > > >> >will > > >> >> mean that > > >> >> for freenet to be viable it will always need to have a public > > >mechanism > > >> >for > > >> >> joining. > > >> > > > >> >That's debatable... Gmail hadn't and has been successfull. > > >> > > > >> > > >> How the hell can you even CONSIDER comparing Gmail to freenet? > > >> Gmail isn't anonymous. > > > > > >Gmail is an invite-only system as freenet > > > > > > > Freenet isn't really invite only. > > how so ? > > > >> If I invite a government agent to Gmail, that's not gonna screw > me over. > > > > > >It won't on freenet either... It might. > > > > > > > Well, there's no possibility of that at all on Gmail. > > Why do you think they keep who has introduced you then ? > I bet that it's a convenient way of fighting against spam. The catch a > spammer and ensure that his "invitees" aren't spammer. > > > > >> I don't have to send a file to someone to get them to join Gmail. > > > > > >You've to send them a mail, wich is kinda the same thing. > > > > > > > ehh...not really. You just type their email addy in a box. > > We could have the same thing on freenet. Maybe we will. > > > >> There's no security risk with just sending Gmail invites to random > > >people. > > > > > >If the fact of running freenet is illegal in your country opennet won't > > >help > > >at all ;) > > > > > > > It's not. > > Freenet is already illegal here in France, I doubt it's legal in China > either. > > [snip.] > > Maybe you could answer to points I've snipped. > > > On the darknet you know exactly who you're connected to. On the > > opennet you don't. More deniability, and harder for governments to use > > one compromised node to get to others. > > That a false assumption. Your ISP does know who you're connected to, > even on > opennet! Let's take an example, since a law called LEN, french ISPs > have to > keep logs of EVERYTHING going through their wires for up to 6 months!!!! > > Of course that silly law is hardly possible to apply... but still. > > > If the chinese government > > captures one node on a darknet, chances are most of the connected > > nodes are also in China. If they capture one node on an opennet, > > chances are they can maybe bust one or two of the other known nodes. > > And opennet works better. Security might be debatable, but I have yet > > to see an argument saying that performance would be better on a > > darknet. > > see above... on that point it's again worst with opennet than darknet > because > opennet's connections can be spotted by cheap traffic analysis ... on > darknet > it's more expensive ... and won't be doable when we have got > steganographic > transport plugins. > > > Besides, look at all the existing opennets. I've never heard of anyone > > getting busted on Freenet 0.5...I've never heard of a string of > > arrests on ANY P2P network where they, say, captured one guy's > > computer and then watched who downloaded from him. That type of attack > > would be a lot more efficient on a darknet. > > > > Maybe because such networks aren't popular enough to be targeted ? > Maybe because they don't need to make an example out of those poor guys ? > > > >> >Keep in mind that the "known attacks" agaisnt freenet are only > > >> >probablilistic ones ... "It's likely that your have > inserted/downloaded > > >> >that > > >> >key" : it's always a matter of plausible deniability. > > >> > > > >> >> Are "the bad guys" really going to spend millions on high tech > > >> >> computers to break a network, when all they have to do is join it? > > >> >Thinking > > >> >> we can keep them out is absurd! Any current member of 0,7 > could just > > >as > > >> >well > > >> >> be or become a spy or a narc or whatever. > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >You seems to missunderstand the point : you should wonder why would > > >> >opennet be > > >> >more secure... and will see that it's not. > > >> > > > >> > > >> I wonder why a darknet is more secure...and see that it's not. > > > > > >Can't you read what I'm writting ? :) > > > > > > > Can't you read what *I'm* writing? :) > > > -- David R. Sowder Supervisor of Language Acquisition Center Department of Modern Languages University of Texas at Arlington Work: 817-272-5148 davids at uta.edu http://langlab.uta.edu/ Personal: david at sowder.com http://david.sowder.com/ From toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Tue Aug 29 18:16:45 2006 From: toad at amphibian.dyndns.org (Matthew Toseland) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:16:45 +0100 Subject: [freenet-chat] [floss-survey@libresoft.es: Research work about your project freenet hosted at Sourceforge.] Message-ID: <20060829181645.GC4518@amphibian.dyndns.org> ----- Forwarded message from floss-survey at libresoft.es ----- From: floss-survey at libresoft.es To: sanity at users.sourceforge.net, nextgens at users.sourceforge.net, amphibian at users.sourceforge.net, conrads at users.sourceforge.net, hobbex at users.sourceforge.net Cc: floss-survey at libresoft.es Subject: Research work about your project freenet hosted at Sourceforge. X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on servalan X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME,WEIRD_PORT autolearn=no version=3.0.3 Dear FLOSS developer, MERIT at the University of Maastricht along with the University Rey Juan Carlos (Madrid) are studying how developers contribute code to Free / Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects. This is an extension of our previous research projects such as flossproject.org, flosspols.org, flossworld.org, and libresoft.urjc.es. In this study, we are looking for survey respondents like you, who contribute to at least one of a small number of projects that we have selected for the study. About the study, you'll find below more information, but as a summary: - To fill it will not take more than 10 minutes. - All personal information will be kept strictly confidential. Only aggregated and anonymized data will be published, as part of our study. These results will be publicly available under a open documentation license. - We need you resend the included message to your development mail list. We have selected only a few developers to send our message, but we need the participation of all possible developers in this survey. In the survey link, please fill in correctly your CVS login and select your project, that is: freenet Please, follow the survey link: http://libresoft.urjc.es:9999/Survey/ Please, do not hesitate to contact us if you have any question; you can ask to grex at gsyc.escet.urjc.es. Model of message to be sent to your developer mailing list: ---- Dear FLOSS developer, MERIT at the University of Maastricht along with the University Rey Juan Carlos (Madrid) are studying how developers contribute code to Free / Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects. This is an extension of our previous research projects such as flossproject.org, flosspols.org, flossworld.org, and libresoft.urjc.es. In this study, we are looking for survey respondents like you, who contribute to at least one of a small number of projects that we have selected for the study. Therefore, we would like to ask you to participate in a small survey and to fill in our questionnaire, which you will find online at http://libresoft.urjc.es:9999/Survey/ To fill in the survey takes not more than 10 minutes of your time. Of course, all personal information will be kept strictly confidential, no personal information will be revealed to third parties, and the information obtained will be properly aggregated and anonymized so that no data about named individuals will be published. We also would like to point out that this study has only academic and no commercial purpose, and the resulting analysis will be freely available. Rishab Ghosh ,MERIT (Board member, Open Source Initiative) rishab at dxm.org Ruediger Glott, MERIT Ruediger.Glott at INFONOMICS.unimaas.nl Gregorio Robles, URJC grex at gsyc.escet.urjc.es Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona, URJC jgb at gsyc.escet.urjc.es ----- End forwarded message ----- -- 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: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060829/9b171fe0/attachment.pgp From anonymous at bigappleremailer.com Sun Aug 27 22:32:08 2006 From: anonymous at bigappleremailer.com ([Anonymous] Anon User) Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 18:32:08 -0400 Subject: [freenet-chat] Darknet - Opennet gateway Message-ID: <1156717928_950@bigapple.yi.org> -----BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE----- Message-type: plaintext Can an 0.7 opennet node have, in addition to opennet connections, additional darknet connections? The idea is for opennet - darknet gateways to connect all of the various darknets. Also, when will opennet be available? Thank you -----END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE----- From toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Tue Aug 29 19:37:14 2006 From: toad at amphibian.dyndns.org (Matthew Toseland) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:37:14 +0100 Subject: [freenet-chat] Practical darknet - or where are the chinese? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060829193714.GA5715@amphibian.dyndns.org> On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 01:52:21PM +0200, Lean Fuglsang wrote: > Hi, > I was wondering what the plan is for practial darknet in china. In the > west it looks like a practial IP based darknet i possible where a lot of > legal communication is encrypted and ISP's are not that government > friendly. A lot of legal traffic is encrypted in China too. They use SSL for exactly the same reason that we do; mostly to protect credit card numbers. And in the west many ISPs are very anxious to prevent litigation at almost all costs. > The laws that have been passed have been in the style of ban the > application, or prosecute the little people. But for now it seems that ISP > are independent enough that a IP darknet is possible. > > But what is the reality in china? What kind of link management is done, I > don't believe that darknet would be possible using IP, since it is > possible to see that a node is using it. It is just too easy to see that a > host have many encrypted udp connection. That sort of traffic flow analysis is expensive. ISPs don't have one computer behind each incoming connection, they have a big router behind hundreds of them. Freenet 0.7 traffic as it is is detectable only by trying to profile packet sizes, timing etc, or by the fact that it isn't anything else. Either way it's not that easy to detect, and if you detect it by it not being anything else you effectively force registration of protocols with the government. This is not the case in China now AFAIK and I doubt it will be the case in the near future. > > So how is it imagened that freenet should work? Should the steganography > go through skype, or other messaging services? If it is phone or video, > how can you connect to multiple host? You first call one, and then you > call another? Can the network cope with this type of connections? VoIP (preferably including video) is a promising avenue for future research into stego. We can use it parasitically, by for example sending data on the video stream and keeping the voice stream as it is (so the traffic is only what would have happened anyway but it doesn't include video), or we can try to fake timings (which is hard!). > What about instant messaging? Here you can talk to a lot of people, but it > looks weird if you do it 24/7. Indeed. You can pass files through IM too... The network is not *at present* able to deal with very high latency transports, but I expect that in future we will add such features; I hope to move in that direction, at least. Long term requests, passive requests, publish/subscribe, queueing a fetch of a page which isn't currently available, and so on. > What about mobile phones, usb keys and the like? I doubt it's possible with mobile phones. Passing boxes of disks around is feasible but requires more user involvement than most users will want to do. One suggestion was to use PDAs with wifi, which automatically exchange with friends when they come nearby. Of course wifi is another option; either fixed or transient wifi links. > What kind of application is it possible to run on each type of network? I > would think it could be some type of textmessages, without too much info. This is all far future stuff. Right now freenet 0.7 works in china, if you can get darknet connections; freenet 0.5 doesn't. > > So is there any chinese out there, that can post to this list and tell us > how the reality look in china (in english ;)? > > Are there any frost forums which have chinese activity? One thing which is important in the nearer future is localisation; even in europe we will get more users if they can use freenet with the GUI in their local language. We have translators lined up for many languages; the bottleneck is implementing translation hooks; if somebody wants to work on this that would be nice, otherwise I will get around to it some time in the beta period... -- 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: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060829/b1b6b6b2/attachment.pgp From toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Tue Aug 29 19:46:17 2006 From: toad at amphibian.dyndns.org (Matthew Toseland) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:46:17 +0100 Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7 In-Reply-To: <35af28770608241752n72d84023y802cc7af7abd9ab3@mail.gmail.com> References: <4f9383510608241246l61fce66n70db296a540f5391@mail.gmail.com> <8b525dee0608241615u184403c1i4646b53a1a97c0e6@mail.gmail.com> <35af28770608241752n72d84023y802cc7af7abd9ab3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060829194617.GB5715@amphibian.dyndns.org> (Moved to chat) On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:52:16PM -0400, urza9814 at gmail.com wrote: > opennets are only bad in certain circumstances. The USA is not yet one > of them. That depends. China, Iran, and arguably France are. The EU may be in the very near future. And if the network is being actively (electronically) attacked (flooding etc), which is not yet legal for the RIAA etc in most countries, a darknet is better. > With a darknet, it may be harder to get into the network, but > once your in it's a LOT easier to identify who is sharing and > inserting what files. How so? If you are on opennet, you know your peers' IPs and can run correlation/timing/etc attacks against them. If you are on darknet, you know your peers' IPs, and can run correlation/timing/etc attacks against them. I don't see why darknet is less secure. > So it could be argued that a darknet is much > riskier than an opennet. In a darknet, everyone else pretty much knows > who you are. Not true. YOUR PEERS know exactly who you are. That's it! Their peers don't know who you are, nor does the rest of the network. > As soon as one computer on the net gets compromised or > one person decides they don't like what you're doing, you're all > pretty much screwed. Still nonsense. > I mean, I'm no expert on darknets, but it seems > that if you only have 5 or 10 connections, and you always have the > same connections, and you have IRC logs swapping node refs and, better > yet, the actual node ref...it would be pretty easy to figure out what > nodes host what files. In an opennet, this kind of thing is expected > and protected against. How is it protected against on opennet? Correlation and timing attacks are quite possible on both opennet and darknet, but on opennet you can identify every node and connect to all of them. Defences against correlation attacks are hard, and even more so on opennet, because we have even less chance of knowing which nodes are "real". -- 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: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060829/0abf1d87/attachment.pgp From toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Tue Aug 29 19:47:36 2006 From: toad at amphibian.dyndns.org (Matthew Toseland) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:47:36 +0100 Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7 In-Reply-To: <8b525dee0608241808w1b9781b9sd65bff576e4822b3@mail.gmail.com> References: <4f9383510608241246l61fce66n70db296a540f5391@mail.gmail.com> <8b525dee0608241615u184403c1i4646b53a1a97c0e6@mail.gmail.com> <35af28770608241752n72d84023y802cc7af7abd9ab3@mail.gmail.com> <8b525dee0608241808w1b9781b9sd65bff576e4822b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060829194736.GC5715@amphibian.dyndns.org> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:08:13PM -0400, Juiceman wrote: > > With 10 connections, the data that could intercepted by one attacker > is roughly 10%. The problem is the attacker doesn't know how many > connections you have, so you could just be passing on data from any > number of connections you have. He can work it out, and your requests normally are for splitfiles... -- 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: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060829/82721d18/attachment.pgp From toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Tue Aug 29 19:54:04 2006 From: toad at amphibian.dyndns.org (Matthew Toseland) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:54:04 +0100 Subject: [freenet-chat] Caching issues was Re: Migration path, please! (Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7 In-Reply-To: <8C8965D6BE1FB62-1460-66C@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C8965D6BE1FB62-1460-66C@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <20060829195404.GD5715@amphibian.dyndns.org> On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 08:59:23AM -0400, fwolff33 at aol.com wrote: > > Juiceman wrote: > >With 10 connections, the data that could intercepted by one attacker > >is roughly 10%. The problem is the attacker doesn't know how many > >connections you have, so you could just be passing on data from any > >number of connections you have. > > It's currently trivialy easy to find out if a request of a connected peer was forwarded by that peer or if it was a local request from that peer because local requests aren't stored in the datastore/-cache. (http://wiki.freenetproject.org/FreenetZeroPointSevenSecurity, search for the headline "Datastore") Thus you only have to probe the datastore of the requesting peer after sending the data to it and can find out if it was forwarded or originated there. In my opinion this isn't really acceptable on either a dark- or opennet (perhaps on a true darknet but that doesn't exist right now) but it certainly would cause havoc on an opennet. This is true (for inserts; requests are cached anyway). The problem is that the alternative, caching local inserts, is equally dire; the attack that the Register highlighted last year: Anything you insert is 100% in your datastore, so if it is seized, or if an attacker makes the requests remotely and times them, they can guess what you've been browsing. (As on 0.5). What do you suggest we do? A "client cache" (temporary cache using ephemeral keys) would help slightly. Premix routing would seem to be the ultimate solution, but is difficult, and thus not to be implemented before 0.8. I have been toying with the idea of some kind of non-encrypted semi-permanent tunnels to provide some request security; a tunnel would be a random route taken by a whole bunch of requests, or even all local requests from a node over a period; it would be randomly either forwarded or broken up and the requests routed on each hop. While it is being forwarded, the requests aren't cached, and don't check the cache. This would provide a small anonymity set, but better than nothing. -- 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: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060829/c018513e/attachment.pgp From toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Tue Aug 29 20:05:39 2006 From: toad at amphibian.dyndns.org (Matthew Toseland) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:05:39 +0100 Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 In-Reply-To: References: <6CBF3C82-F1C8-4EB7-9190-2C2FF4B461BE@locut.us> Message-ID: <20060829200539.GF5715@amphibian.dyndns.org> (Moved to -chat). On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 11:42:32PM +0000, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: > > How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group > trades connection information with someone in another group? > > Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in > Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No > one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and > they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to > because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their > freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network? These three networks will grow, until people are added who are on more than one of these networks. A lot of people in england know people in France or in China. In particular a lot of people in the US know people in China; according to some this is one of the factors behind China's recent economic success. Now, I'm not saying there are no barriers. Plainly there are cultural, national, language, geographic barriers. It may be that some of these barriers are so huge that we need to adapt the routing algorithm to explicitly divide the darknet into subnetworks, and try requests locally before passing them on to distant networks (networks we have few connections to). But this isn't necessarily catastrophic. And if it is the case then it is something we will have to address whether or not we have opennet, because there are many places where you simply CANNOT USE OPENNET. -- 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: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060829/39d20d5a/attachment.pgp From toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Tue Aug 29 20:11:23 2006 From: toad at amphibian.dyndns.org (Matthew Toseland) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:11:23 +0100 Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: Campaigning for Open-Net [WAS Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7] In-Reply-To: <20060827015320.C4BE26C32F@remailer.paranoici.org> References: <35af28770608261648v10edeb06mee2478eebf1be3b0@mail.gmail.com> <20060827015320.C4BE26C32F@remailer.paranoici.org> Message-ID: <20060829201123.GG5715@amphibian.dyndns.org> This is not true. A global darknet is feasible, as I have explained: National barriers, and even language barriers are by no means absolute, and to the extent that they affect the network they can be dealt with. If Freenet provides something of value, we can make a large darknet. AND IF IT ISN'T THERE IS NO POINT IN DOING FREENET BECAUSE IF FREENET EVER DOES MEET ITS GOALS IT WILL BE ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE. That is not to say that opennet isn't important. Opennet will be implemented. But not yet, because it is not time to do it yet. We do not want to introduce more chaos to an already chaotic situation by implementing opennet before we have even started to sort out load balancing, for example. On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 03:53:20AM +0200, somebody wrote: > > > The answer is simple. Without open-net and at least some reasonable percentage of nodes > operating as part of both open and dark nets, 0.7 will NEVER become part of any global > network. It will instead be limited, broken into hundreds or thousands of little > 'island netowrks' > > Open-net is required to tie these islands into a global network. > > I will repeat something I read on frost recently, > > "We should all start pestering the hell outta both Ian and Toad to get open-net deployed." -- 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: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060829/d2e4ec78/attachment.pgp From toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Tue Aug 29 20:26:41 2006 From: toad at amphibian.dyndns.org (Matthew Toseland) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:26:41 +0100 Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 In-Reply-To: <35af28770608262021v94df0a4q57909f3d50e7796a@mail.gmail.com> References: <6CBF3C82-F1C8-4EB7-9190-2C2FF4B461BE@locut.us> <4f9383510608261906w1f5c9a34we64e3fc71635c6b4@mail.gmail.com> <35af28770608262021v94df0a4q57909f3d50e7796a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060829202641.GH5715@amphibian.dyndns.org> (Moved to -chat) On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 11:21:29PM -0400, urza9814 at gmail.com wrote: > Yea, but you don't know all the nodes in the network, you just know > the ones your connected to. Right. > So if one of those links between the > networks goes down, half your downloads stall out and die. If you have two large networks connected by only two links, yes, you have a problem. > And wouldn't that put a pretty big strain on certain computers? I mean, > if you get this global network of small networks...90% of the data you > request will probably be on another 'network'. Freenet 0.7/Dark isn't designed for a "global network of small networks". It's designed for one huge friend-to-friend network. My friends are not the same as my friend's friends, although there is usually some overlap. What Freenet 0.7 is *not* is a way to connect small WASTE-style cells of 20 people who all know, trust, and directly connect to, each other, together. > The number of > connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than > connections within the network. If we get big barriers within a network then we will need to deal with this by making the routing algorithm smart enough to recognize distinct sub-networks. But the sub-networks do not have to be tiny; I'd expect, for example, a number of chinese darknets which eventually unify, with a relatively small number of connections to various western darknets, which in turn may connect to the opennet if there is one. Queries should probably be run within the chinese darknet before passing them on to the western darknet, if only for speed's sake, but we would still have a global structure. > Therefore the computers that connect > between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the > ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual > networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. No, you have a darknet. An opennet is when you connect to total strangers. A darknet is when you connect to your friends. If some of your friends live in other countries, so much the better. > Except you > have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you > have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a > good thing. No idea what you are talking about. -- 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: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060829/17ba6936/attachment.pgp From toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Tue Aug 29 20:35:58 2006 From: toad at amphibian.dyndns.org (Matthew Toseland) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:35:58 +0100 Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 In-Reply-To: References: <35af28770608262021v94df0a4q57909f3d50e7796a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060829203558.GI5715@amphibian.dyndns.org> (Moved to -chat) On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 04:19:35AM +0000, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: > I agree. I wouldn't want to be the only connection between 2 networks, or > even one of a small few. I simply don't have the ba