Anyone here use Freenet? it's very fast. The security vulnerabilities are worth hesitation, however. Perhaps its lack of use and maybe lack of surveillance makes up for that?
By alternatives, I mean alternatives to Tor. I like Tor, but it could be shut down by ZOG in an instant and then we'd be left with our cocks in our hands, gents.
Other urls found in this thread:
ceur-ws.org
freenetproject.org
reddit.com
ohmygodel.com
youtube.com
mail-archive.com
twitter.com
Tor is solid. The best the US government can do is look for security flaws in onion site webservers. Freenet looks like a honeypot.
I dont know what to think on those. I hear TOR or freenet or I2P are good for privacy, but I also see lots of anons saying they're all compromised and have been for some time. Nothing's really consistent.
idk..
I think it's a matter of what you want. I don't know much about I2P's structure, but I can take a stab at FN and TOR.
TOR doesn't store shit on your computer. TOR masks your IP and what you view via its chain of relay nodes. Therefore, the only way (unless there is an exploit) to trace what you're seeing/doing is via taking control of a large number of nodes. TOR has a download/upload speed dependent on the connection speeds of the nodes.
FN stores a ton of shit on your PC (encrypted). The idea with FN is that you can claim ignorance. Supposedly how connections/downloads are requested, it isn't meant to be determinable that you specifically requested a block of CP stuff. I believe FN makes your IP visible to all those you're connected to. Of course, you could use the darknet function, but then if one of those people gets compromised you're compromised. By just connecting normally, you're masked in a sea of trees. As for speeds, anything is better than I2P, but it wouldn't compare to TOR. Another bad thing is that things fall off of the network, that is, you could be waiting for a block of a download to arrive that never does.
I would just leave it up to personal taste tbh. TOR is more so for websites, FN is more so like an old BBS board, and I2P is pretty similiar to TOR with its special websites (though mimics FN with having to be on all the time).
tl;dr encrypt your shit. If whatever you're using is not vulnerable, it wont reveal what you obtain using it (that's the entire point of any of these) and that's it.
Anyways, I don't see how lack of use would be a positive. That means there are less IPs to investigate on FN. Also, if anything I've said is retarded/wrong, someone correct me. I personally have only used TOR and looked into FN when the thought of "Hey, I'm not willing to buy a web server... how could I host a site?" and notions like FN and I2P sites appeared.
Thank you for the eloquent response. I personally think the ease of hosting a site on FN is a reason I'd prefer to use it over clearnet if there were more people on it. How secure is FN mail? I wonder if any third parties can read text sent through freemail. That would be one advantage to use freemail even with only one or two friends to send messages to.
Freenet is a honeypot. Don't use it.
Regarding Freenet, you should read: ceur-ws.org
wat
I don't think Freenet is a "honeypot" or "compromised" (in the way that the brainlets here say about every piece of anonymity software), but law enforcement is sending Freenet users to prison on the basis of possibly-spurious statistical analyses of Freenet traffic. I wouldn't use it for that reason alone.
freenetproject.org
reddit.com
Why do you say that? Can I be implicated if I don't do anything illegal? I just want privacy.
Freenet's too insecure. I2P is great sec wise, but it's also slow as fuck. Tor is decent all around, but it's development is pozzed so just beware of that.
Freenet is bareback.
This isn't the 90s
How's it insecure user?
NSA nigger spotted
There are quite a few attacks against Tor which have varying degrees of effectiveness when it comes to de-user'ing users.
The main one that comes to mind is the correlation attack which uses analysis of traffic going through malicious relays to track and eventually de-user users, its easy to set up and perform with a small amount of funds since all you would need are a few hundred RPi's setup as relays and some as entry/exit nodes and just log the traffic data. I2P doesn't suffer from this kind of attack to well not to the same extent because of its Garlic routing model.
Looking at the Tor network statistics there are currently ~6500 relays and ~1800 bridges, you only need a few % of the network bandwidth to collect data fast enough to bring the process of de-user'ing people down to a few weeks or months.
cia own all the major nodes
I heard this stuff for ages but I'm yet to see any practical proof of that (i.e. they catched someone). Is this talk youtube.com
How do you get that strata? For all of those, Freenet, tor, and I2P, your ISP can tell you're using them (I believe) just not what you're transfering over them.
On that notion, I don't see why
couldn't have happened with tor. Maybe it's because with Freenet you can claim (the lie) that one is specifically downloading CP due to the return value of that one function call, were as in tor, it'd be harder to spin that type of lie since there is no specific function that says "are you downloading this block?"
I don't know if it relates to FreeMail, but anything with mail in the title probably requires an ID. And so, remember, that by using an ID you're making yourself capable of being tracked. Of course, there are benefits. People will actually read what you post since anons can post malware/etc.
Freenet isn't for CP you illiterate nigger. It's a content-addressable storage. This means it has to store content on your computer, because that's how the content is hosted. Literally IPFS does the same thing. The only reason Freenet encrypts the content is so that you can't be reasonably held liable for doing some insane process of filtering out what content you partially host by some oppressive government (which is basically equivalent to arresting people for using the internet). We basically would already be using content-addressable hosting for everything as it's vastly superior in every way to something like the web, but the normalfags get their panties in a bunch at the thought that it could help people store CP, so we gotta wait about 20 years for IETF to make some gay botnet version (they've been working on it for years, I can't remember the name), and even then it wont be usable in the middle east for example because people insult muhammed and use swear words both of which are illegal. This is the reason Freenet encrypts data. It's not practical to support something that complies with all 200-1000 governments (country!=government) that currently exist.
Tor is for browsing the clearweb and other TCP channels. Freenet supports something that is more web than the clearnet will ever be.
Freenet is for content-addressable storage. For example you can host stuff without leaving your computer on and it has unlimited bandwidth. For example Freenet FMS which Tor and I2P simply will never have. And Freenet can't be used for interactive channels. Tor is for interactive channels. I2P is for interactive channels with datagrams (allowing more applications) instead of TCP.
...
It doesn't fucking matter. I2P is also shit for many reasons. Computers are shit in general because from the hardware up, they are produced by capitalist countries which ultimately comes down to hiring newgrads (tought by retards managed by retards) who can't even write one line of code without introducing a remote code execution vulnerability, because this is what the market swallows. You think I'm exaggerating, but the recent vulns in Perl for example quite literally meant you can't write a sigle line of code without an RCE. The only sane thing to do right now (and for the last 10 years) is use tor because it mitigates the chance that every thing you do gets recorded.
This. Thank you for articulating why I like Freenet perfectly.
Isn't the dev team of tor based in Tel Aviv?
...
I see, thanks a lot anons.
Wew lads.
Number station
/thread
Any suggestions on buying a ham radio? I already have some little chinkbox but I'm not sure if it can pick up shortwave signals.
>>>/hamradio/ is pretty cool but I would like advice from a Zig Forums nerd.
You can even set up a Raspberry Pi as a number station IIRC.
Whatever >>>/hamradio/ say is pretty much gospel for recommendations.
heh
go back to Zig Forumspol^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H whatever shithole you came from nigger. go back to your stupid paid VPN as an alternative to tor you insufferable retard
Fuck off nigger.
water is wet - letter agencies run nodes for sure
Leave.
What are you even trying to say?
the "tor is insecure buy a VPN instead" meme is from pol my friend
Yes, but this is irelevant to the post you're replying to, losing anonimity != security.
Well any program which opens a port and has contact with the outside will always open up potential holes (a basic example would be a buffer overflow), but aside from that, you should never access unencrypted content (e.g. plain http), as the exit node is the one to decrypt the content to send it to the target server, in other words, an exit node can easily perform a MITM attack whenever you have an unencrypted connection through Tor.
Tor is good, but you when using it you should assume that every single exit node is malicious, no exceptions, you should assume that every exit node is closely looking at whatever unencrypted traffic is going through either for analytics, finding possible sensitive information, or both. And I mean why wouldn't they?, they're setting up an exit node for the Tor network for free, so they might as well try to get something out of the idiots who don't know how it works. There's been multiple studies to find out whenever Tor exit nodes are trying to sniff data, and they've all had positive results, there was one I read not long ago about some guy who set up a fake bitcoin service and logged in on it through the Tor network mulltiple times through an unencrypted connection, and of course later on there were multiple log in attempts from unknown locations, some with the wrong credentials, and some with the right ones.
In short: always use ssl/tls on Tor, https everywhere has a checkbox to block all unencrypted requests (unencrypted content mixed in encrypted sites included), if you're connecting to a hidden service then there's no need to worry as it's end-to-end encrypted.
correlation attacks are real
yes, they exist.
In countries where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty maybe, but in many countries anonymity quite literally is your security because even being found to be things like TOR is enough to get you thrown in a labour camp for the better part of a decade or worse.
I knew someone would nitpick that, also now that I read it again, I meant "anonimity != security", anyway.
now you're completely taking me out of context, I was merely pointing out how doesn't asnwer , when someone talks about security in a technology board they usually mean computer security.
oh for fuck's sake, fuck it, eat the reddit spacing, I'm not deleting it again.
Freenet works as a distributed datastore system. Uploaded material gets spread across the nodes automatically as it passes through the network. If illegal material is uploaded, there is no way for you to stop it landing on your node, or even to know it is there, until the FBI knock on your door and seize your system.
The original concept also incorporated the same sort of proxy-through anonymity that Tor has, but as the network developed and people studied it, it became apparent that the datastore functionality effectively compromises the proxy-through aspect. Most blocks of data are acquired directly from immediate peers' datastores, and even if the immediate peer did not possess the offending block before they served it to your node, they do afterwards.
Picture this:
FBI runs a Freenet node.
FBI node requests illegal material from peer node A.
Peer node A doesn't have it, but their peer node B does.
Peer node A fetches it from peer node B and serves it to FBI node.
Peer node A now has it in their datastore.
FBI traces IP, raids peer node A's home, seizes their computer.
Freenet was an interesting research project in the early days around 2000-2004. Around 2005ish they came to a realization of how fundamentally insecure the original concept was, and rather than grasp the nettle and re-architect the whole thing, they fell back on creating a separate insecure "opennet" and a "darknet" based on trusted peers. This was never an adequate solution, IMO, and the whole project has been a waste of time since. It's a shame because the distributed datastore concept has real merit as a censorship resistant platform. I'd love to see such a system that ran over I2P or Tor.
Addendum because I just remembered something that demonstrates the project founders' appalling judgment.
For several years after the project began, the website had an answer in the FAQ that appeared to defend cp. The question was something like "There is kiddy porn on here! Why don't you take it down?!?!?" The answer went into a classical rant about freedom of speech and what is obscene to one person is acceptable to another blah blah. All they had to say was "To resist censorship, we built this network to be decentralized and have no central control, so unfortunately it is not possible for us to take anything down, however appalling we find it.".
The whole thing made people wonder if Ian Clarke is pedophile. Someone even set up a freesite to say as much.
And here's some more interesting and relevant info regarding Freenet security:
Is I2P vulnerable to the same kind of attack as the one in ohmygodel.com
>implying I even suggested using a vpn though that's not a bad idea, regardless of whether you use a hidden service or not
Are you just here to derail like a delusional aspie or are you actually going to contribute to the thread?
So it's not completely insecure, but you can be easily de-user'd, which as pointed out, is enough to land you in prison. Does using ssl/tls protect against the de-anonymization attacks?
polite sage for doublepost
So that's how it works, huh? Now I understand everything!
...
The only true darknet, in any sense of a computer internetwork, is to lease dark fibers from companies and roll your own with your friends and family.
First, Tor can't work if all or most of the nodes are malicious. I've been using tor for 10 years and have never had a problem despite the existence of malicious nodes. That's because I'm actually competent. Even when browsing plaintext. I don't really care if people are replacing 1 in 10 million plaintext articles with something else because the amount of misinformation on the internet is already too high for that to matter anyway. You shouldn't be relying on anything you read online in one article anyway. You should be verifying information by talking to people, reflecting, and reading books.
Where's the punchline? Arresting someone for this would be the same as arresting someone because their router forwarded a datagram of illegal data to you. That's not an actual attack, it's just government autism (assuming it actually ever happened, I know there have been some moronic LE attacks on Freenet recently but I don't remember or care much for the details).
lol fuck off normalfag. software doesn't automatically have bad engineering because the guy is not anti-CP or brainwashed in some similar way such as pro-sharia. quite the opposite actually
Exactly, you're one of those retarded faggots who suggest using a VPN for anonymity. Literally paying for what is equivalent to a free open proxy. Using tor is definately good enough for idiots like you and a lot better than promoting consumerist placebo trash like VPN.
Normal routers don't retain copies of everything they forward. Sure, you can make a defense argument explaining that this is how the network functions, and you had no involvement in putting it there or knowledge of it being there, but do you want to have to? See the mailing list post I already linked:
mail-archive.com
No, it has bad engineering because it has bad engineering. I already detailed the lack of effective anonymity in the post I was replying to. These problems are long acknowledged by the project developers, it's why they created the "darknet"/"opennet" separation. Relying on trusted peers is not a satisfactory solution.
The point about the FAQ answer was the terrible judgment. If you build a censorship-proof network, it will inevitably end up with CP on it. How stupid to go for the "CP is free speech" argument when you could simply explain the impossibility of censoring it?
I agree with most of what you have said.
It literally comes pre-configured, you don't have to configure anything.
What he's talking about is setting the proxy server in your browser (i2p doesn't come with a browser) to the correct i2p local address and randomally generated port(it gets generated on i2p's first run and is random to prevent traffic sniffing). But you're right, it isn't hard.
Perhaps it's best that people who are brainlets don't get privacy. Do they deserve it? I don't think people who put forth no effort and have very few brain cells deserve to live, let alone have internet privacy.
We need a herd of faggot plebs to absorb damage over time, and to be drained for their stem cells.
I can't disagree with you on any of that. Some of the privacy tools and processes are so simple to use that if you need someone to spoonfeed you "configuration" steps then you probably don't deserve privacy.
There are constantly shills in any thread anywhere there is discussion on this topic on the Internet claiming that privacy is too hard, like the one I originally replied to in this thread. They should be mocked mercilessly so that the lurker understands that people who are so mentally deficient that they are incapable of reading a couple lines of text are not the kind of people they should be emulating or getting advice from.
When some faggot comes at you with the "WINE is too hard" or "Tor is so difficult" make sure everybody knows that it's only possible for an actually mentally retarded person to spout such idiocy.
Shill operations against privacy are designed to appeal to the normalfag's laziness, to reinforce their preconceptions that privacy is too much of a pain. Well guess what, shills and normalfags, you don't get privacy because you're too stupid to understand why you want it or how to get it.
That's my take on it anyway. Foster an internet bullying culture which doesn't tolerate this kind of bullshit.
So, what would you propose instead if the darknet thing doesn't really cut it? Supposing I understand it correctly, if you had purely darknet connections, only by physically taking control of one of those nodes could infiltrate the group. If you have a darknet where some are half opennet and half darknet, you're merely forcing the the attacker to DDoS/force to back off more nodes (i.e., if the issue with pure opennet is your adversary being your only connections, then if we think of the darknet as a supernode, the same issue arises, just with more connections). If you're pure opennet, the issue was stated before. Also, to have a true darknet, you'd have to give some id (so, you'd be really fucked if your darknet ever got breached).
Now, here is lotsa spaghetti:
What would be the proposed solution to this? If one wishes to keep this idea of distributed storage, we would have the following issue:
There exists a file F on the network (encrypted). In order to request this file, you send a request from your node. If this request isn't encrypted, then people know what file you're requesting (this may be dealt with by the idea that any node will continually request arbitrary files as the storage layout of the network would be in constant flux. Therefore, no one could claim you knowingly requested the file & it wasn't just the network re-laying-itself-out). If you see negatives to that option beside the fact that people would know "your node requested (name of file F)", let me know.
The alternative is we encrypt the request, but then someone somewhere has to be able to decrypt the request. Since storage is distributed over the network, I believe all nodes would have to be capable of decrypting the request, thus, as long as the network can be infiltrated (by creating a node), this approach is moot. tl;dr I can't think of a way the request itself could be made hidden.
However, if we take the idea from my first thought, even if all the surrounding nodes are adversaries, even if you request file F, there'd be no way to determine if it was a purposeful request.
None of this would fix the issue though if your government decided to outright ban Freenet/etc.
For real though, , what's your proposed engineering in place of the existing bad engineering? How would you attempt to obtain "effective anonimity," and what do you mean by anonimity? Sorry if it's obvious, however I only know a bit about the subject.
In this infrastructure, any adversary opposed to the network's existence can DoS by hosting a bunch of random generated data and having a second node request it, to speed up the distribution process. Persistence of data, independent of the content distributing nodes preserving the data and periodically re-uploading a complete copy would present an on-going challenge; as opposed to those simply maintaining an incomplete/complete copy in the distributed storage share that can be simply over-written by "junk" data. Distributors and downloaders would be must vulnerable to identification by "watering down" the distributed share contents.
I only understood part of your post.
I understand that.
Sure. Put that isn't entirely an issue, at least in terms of security. From a Freenet perspective, I believe that would require one to merely heal a key. Thus, user could request a key to be healed, someone could heal it (without responding, except maybe with user so as to not use an ID). Even if user only stated it was healed days after the fact so that (somehow) a correlation attack couldn't be done, it would still take a while for the nodes which attempt to flood the network with bad data to displace this newly inserted data (even without some notion of priority within the network, from a purely random perspective, it wouldn't be completely lost immediately).
"If a file has to be healed many times, who cares?" would be the short answer. So, sincea file would still be reasonably distrubted before disappearing, persistance of data is neglible.
This clause I did not understand.
How so? I guess my issue is understanding what you mean by watering down. Assuming watering down refers to the junk data pushed onto the network stated before, how would that directly affect distributors and downloaders? As long as the requests/downloads are done randomly, what would be the issue? After all, due to the randomness, one couldn't determine that distributor is re-destributing or that a downloader is redownloading.
One issue that I did just notice though would be when truly new files are pushed onto the network. If the adversary exists before this file is pushed onto the network, then he can reasonable state file F was pushed on by the first node to "request"/upload file F (of course, a reasonable requirement for this assertion would be that the adversary has at least one connection to every node on the network--only then could he claim with certainty that your node was the first to upload/distribute file F).
The true core point of my post (this one and ) was to see, what alternative to Freenet would there be in creating a secure distributed storage system? The negative which I'm willing to allow is the persistance of data, since that's not a security risk. I attempted to outline an idea in the previous post (the one of a network which is constantly in flux, so, one cannot reasonably state that a request for a file was done by an actual "person" as opposed to the ntwork). However, as I found out in this post, it would still suffer the a flaw for distributors (i.e. the first to "upload" a unique file could be targetted if the adversary had at least one connection to each node on the network before the distributor distributes the file).
why we allow those countries to exist? why not terrorism them or holocaust or nuclear attacks? or just kill every leader until one will stop imprisoning Tor users?
This. Privacy is the easiest thing in the world if you care. I hate when people trivialize good opsec by discouraging others from using it.
Careful user, your Zig Forums is showing.
...
...
Who is "we"? The U.S.? Learn some history. Oppressive regimes are a-ok with the American government as long as they're friendly to U.S. interests. Democratic countries that don't serve U.S. interests, on the other hand, get Allende'd. See U.S. support for the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, Ngo Dinh Diem, etc.
The USG dumps money into Tor because citizens in rival and enemy states (China, Iran) can use it to fuck with their governments. But we're not going to bat for them if they get caught.
Can't you just configure Freenet to store its stuff in memory instead of on disk? Worst case, you can just setup a memory filesystem. That's trivial to do on Linux/BSD systems. Then if FBI one day shows up to take your HDD, they won't find fiddly-diddly. Oh, and you can encrypt the memory filesystem too. But I'm presuming Freenet already encrypts its shit (never used it tbh).
shut the fuck up faggot. routers store data in RAM. piping data over the wire is also a form of storage, even if the wire never has the full file at any point (neither does Freenet, since it only stores blocks - and the difference in capacity of the two mediums is negligable). something being stored on a less temporary form like HDD (which is still very temporary since it's Freenet) makes absolutely no difference. some autistic and irrelevant definition of storage changes nothing. by your logic, it's now illegal to run a file hosting website, email (since your computer store stuff people send to you), web browser (since it stores files you browsed in the cache, and you have absolutely no control of which 10000 sites get transitively included when you visit some clickbait website plastered with ads and XYZ As A Service.js) chat (since your computer stores stuff people send to you) or IPFS (which is exactly the same as Freenet but with 0 anonymity)
The bottom line is if you can arrest someone for having a block of CP on Freenet, you can arrest someone for doing basically anything related to computers.
No, you didn't. You never explained anything useful such as how to find someone who actually requested a file, which is all that matters. I'm not an expert on Freenet but I strongly suspect the only real attack on opennet is in the realm of Sybil attacks, which are far beyond the capabilities of some stupid cops. Also I have no idea what point you're trying to make by linking to this out of context thread about a guy doubting the veracity of some stupid-sounding Freenet investigation.
tor is a tiny volunteer project you nignog.
You can't DoS a content-addressable data network (such as Freenet) when it actually becomes relevant (e.g used by hundreds of millions of users who have to support it to use it). Files dying isn't much of a problem, since there's no good solution to it anyway and it the web is far worse. In Freenet I think merely requesting a file forces it to be replicated again, so most stuff people actually care about will stay alive, and anything one cares about hosting will also stay alive as long as he (or anyone who cares about keeping it alive) keeps reuploading it.
A similar datastore concept layered over I2P and/or Tor would be nice.
Out of context? It was a lawyer seeking expert witness assistance to defend their client...
WHO WAS BEING PROSECUTED FOR THE CONTENTS OF THEIR FREENET NODE.
no, it sounds like they actually think they found the requester of some data, not the forwarder of some block of it. you have to actually claim what you're trying to say instead of randomly spamming a link over and over. so this link has nothing to do at all with your retarded idea that someone can get arrested because their freenet node has a block of CP on it
This is why people who insist privacy is difficult should be mocked and called retards.
Iz don'ts fucken care if no one cares, maybe any idea I've given has been thrown around since 2000, nevertheless, anyone care to give a solution to the problem I posed? The one where, if the adversary is connected to every single node on the network and can therefore determine you were the first to make the request. Maybe if the request was sent in an encrypted form whose key is dependent on a timestamp (i.e. it will only decrypt after/at a certain time) then you can send many requests (with random past the present date times for decryption). Thus, when they're decrypted, the first one to be decrypted need not be the one from your machine. Of course, it'll then take longer to obtain your requested block, but at least, the time of the initiators/distributors request/upload cannot be verified.
Careful your nigger is showing
Boy you are 300% nigger.
Call me watermelon man.
You mean like the "shill" who called himself a retard in the very post you're referencing?
I don't know who's nigging who anymore.
honeypot
Tor is shit by the way. All exit nodes are public and can be blocked in an instant. Cloudflare already does it "one more step...". And many more sites.
How
Seriously, how
Anyone know what an FBlob is?
NOT ALL P2P PROTOCOLS ARE THE SAME
Jesus Christ. I am sick of all these retards too lazy to even read a Wikipedia coming out of the wood work pretending like Freenet and Tor and ipfs and literally every thing is written for the same end, or can't be used in conjunction with one another. Fuck you. Fuck this stupid board full of larpers and teenagers.
who are you quoting?
fuck you, IPFS is retarded
the purpose of tor is for accessing existing TCP services (like the web). yes some sites block tor because they're run by autistic sysadmins. the cuckflare problem no longer affects most tor users (who use Tor Browser, which is whitelisted by User-Agent header on all cuckflare sites by default). also making exit nodes private wouldn't solve much at all really. a proper solution is IPFS of course, but it's incompatible with existing TCP services
Just because they have technical differences, doesn't mean that some of the philosophical goals behind the projects are not similar enough to be loosely grouped together. kys faggot