<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>On 25 Aug 2001, at 16:06, Gary Jeffers wrote: <color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> My fellow Cypherpunks,
Ray Dillinger believes that scanning would assist oppressors as
much as regular users. Joseph Ashwood agrees with this and further
thinks that the Internet overhead of a scanner would be a serious
problem.
</color>The problem is this: there's no way that you can set this up so that random users can find gnutella servers and LEOs can't. No way, impossible, give up. <color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> I still think that scanners would be effective. Here's why:
Gnutella still exists, Napster doesn't! Security does not have to be
bulletproof in all cases. Gnutella is a harder target than was Napster.
There may be other reasons why Gnutella is alive and Napster is dead.
I would think the ability to pin blame on the target might be another
reason.
</color>Right. Napster is an entity, Gnutella is a protocol. <color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> A scan enabled Gnutella would be a much harder target than a central
service provided Gnutella. The scan enabled version would be much harder to
shut down due to various kinds of expenses - legal, administ-
rative, politics, etc.. Not impossible to shut down - just harder,
slower, and with various expenses we would like the oppressors to pick
up :-)
</color>No. The scan version would make it a little harder for everyone to find the first gnutella server to connect to, and that's all it would do. The only way a scan version would make any sense would be if it somehow became illegal to post a list of gnutella servers while it remained legal to actually run a gnutella server, a situation so bizzare I don't think it merits discussion. <color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> As far as Joseph Ashwood's claim that the Internet overhead would be
too much. Is his point exaggerated? Would it be possible to write low
overhead scanners? I do not have the "skill set" to say. Maybe he is
right, maybe not. Anybody got something definitive to say on this?
Yours Truly,
Gary Jeffers
</color>Atwood's numbers are based on estimates as to how many people want to use scanners, and the fact that they're pretty likely to hit the same set of addresses. If you're the only one using a scanner, it won't be much of a burden on anyone. It really wouldn't be difficult to write one. Here's the URL of the protocol spec http://www.gnutelladev.com/protocol/gdnp.html basically, all you have to do is send it a UDP packet saying <color><param>0100,0100,0100</param><FontFamily><param>Courier New</param>'GDNP CONNECT/0.10\n\n'<FontFamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger> </color><FontFamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>and see if you get back <color><param>0100,0100,0100</param><FontFamily><param>Courier New</param>'GDNP OK\n\n'<FontFamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger> it may be worth your while just to see if you can get it to work as an excercise. If you're running your own server and just look at your own IP address (use 127.0.0.1 if you don't know it) you can play with it without affecting the outside world. George</color><FontFamily><param>Arial</param><smaller> <color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>
BEAT STATE!!!
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
<nofill>