jetiants http://www.jetiants.tk Gnu-net http://www.ovmj.org/GNUnet/ I2p http://www.i2p.net/ Tor http://freehaven.net/tor/ These may be naive questions (I don't know GNUnet too well), but
hopefully I am about to learn something: GNUnet tries to achieve at least three goals at the same time that are not perfectly understood and should rather be treated individually:
- anonymity - censor resistance - high-performance document distribution
Performance is a secondary goal to the first 2 in GNUnet. The first 2 are related so I'm not sure how or why they need to be treated separately.
Also, don't the shortcomings of mix networks also apply to Freenet- / GNUnet-style anonymization schemes?
I suspect that no matter what (existing) adversary model you pick, plugging a good mix network into your design on the transport layer gives you the highest anonymity possible.
I don't know how GNUnet's architecture compares to mix networks. I *do* know that GNUnet attempts to protect against traffic analysis. If you think mix networks are better, they better have good protection against traffic analysis. Can you point us to any good URLs or papers on how mix networks protect against traffic analysis? Chris _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@zgp.org http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers _______________________________________________ Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences: http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]