Re: Error messages in wrapper log

On 02/08/2013 08:52 AM, Mel wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> The newer versions of Freenet are giving errors that I am not sure are
> safe. I have checked some of the archives but could not find the exact
> answer. A portion of my wrapper log is below. This is on a Vista 32bit
> machine with all updates as far as I can tell. The main questions are
> the warning about the wrapper jar and JVM being different, and having
> only some level of anonymity.
> 
> Thanks for your help.
> 
> MW
> 
> [snip]
> INFO   | jvm 1    | 2013/02/05 13:01:42 | WrapperManager: WARNING - The
> Wrapper jar file currently in use is version "3.3.1"
> INFO   | jvm 1    | 2013/02/05 13:01:42 | WrapperManager: while the
> version of the Wrapper which launched this JVM is
> INFO   | jvm 1    | 2013/02/05 13:01:42 | WrapperManager: "3.3.5".
> INFO   | jvm 1    | 2013/02/05 13:01:42 | WrapperManager: The Wrapper
> may appear to work correctly but some features may
> INFO   | jvm 1    | 2013/02/05 13:01:42 | WrapperManager: not function
> correctly.  This configuration has not been tested
> INFO   | jvm 1    | 2013/02/05 13:01:42 | WrapperManager: and is not
> supported.

This is a known problem with Freenet's usage of the wrapper. I've lost
track of what's holding up an upgrade at this point.

> INFO   | jvm 1    | 2013/02/05 13:01:49 | Testnet mode DISABLED. You may
> have some level of anonymity. :)
> INFO   | jvm 1    | 2013/02/05 13:01:49 | Note that this version of
> Freenet is still a very early alpha, and may well have numerous bugs and
> design flaws.
> INFO   | jvm 1    | 2013/02/05 13:01:49 | In particular: YOU ARE WIDE
> OPEN TO YOUR IMMEDIATE PEERS! They can eavesdrop on your requests with
> relatively little difficulty at present (correlation attacks etc).

This is the part you mention as "only some level of anonymity?" It's an
inherent property of the network that if someone malicious is able to
directly connect to your node they can get more information than you'd
like by virtue of routing a large portion of one's requests.

This is why darknet is better than opennet: if you know someone
personally they're much less likely to be malicious than some arbitrary
person your node automatically connects to as part of opennet.

Does that answer your questions? Please let me know if that raises
anything unclear or surprising.

Steve

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
[email protected]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:support-request-RdDMkVZAZeuJnvDnx1genB2eb7JE58TQ@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=+1VI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----