[freenet-dev] FCP changes for ULPRs

[Michael Rogers]

On Feb 15 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> 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.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a peer can overflow the ULPR 
table without being throttled because it only requires 3 requests per 
second of a few hundred bytes each. By doing so, the attacker can fragment 
the ULPR trees of other nodes' requests. The attack doesn't require much 
bandwidth, so an attacker with a fast connection can attack several hundred 
opennet peers at once.

Cheers,
Michael