[freenet-dev] FCP changes for ULPRs

[Matthew Toseland]

On Thursday 14 February 2008 23:43, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >> "Ultra-lightweight" could actually be a disadvantage here, because if 
> >> the peers can easily handle that number of requests they won't throttle 
> >> the attacker.
> > 
> > No, he has to do a real request to get a ULPR subscription. Therefore it 
is 
> > subject to all the normal throttling mechanisms.
> 
> But a real request can be, what, 100 bytes? 200? And the attacker only 
> needs to send 3 per second to each peer.

Hmm, so what you're saying is that if we reject a request because of overload 
we should NOT remember that peer and offer them the data. Fair point. Fixed 
in trunk 17940.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080215/cbd10d6b/attachment.pgp