Re: Global messaging (was: EvilDude, Round 2)

> so you don't retry it quite so aggressively.

No problem! But it is harder than on 0.5 and more complicated for the
clients. I only meant 32KB would be great.

On 1/15/07, Matthew Toseland <toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 10:21:54AM +0100, bbackde-gM/[email protected] wrote:
> > > Sorry - I still don't understand. A key that's readable and writable to
> > > everyone - is that not a KSK?
> >
> > Yes, thats KSK. But you see the problems we have with the 'new' KSK
> > keys which are 1KB in size and provide transparent redirects to other
> > keys? KSKs on 0.5 were great for Frosts messaging (32KB size, no
> > transparent redirects), but the 'new' KSKs introduced the problems we
> > talk about here (new kind of attacks, ...).
>
> Inserting random garbage has always been a viable attack against Frost.
> All you have to do is set an appropriate maximum data size.
> >
> > The devs tried to make it easier for clients, but now some clients
> > have serious problems.
> > It could help to introduce a new type of freenet key, like KSK but
> > without redirects and 32KB maximum size (like CHK). This would be
> > perfect for Frost like clients.
>
> How does that differ to just setting max size = 32kB in Frost? Sure you
> have the code=28 issues, but so what? You can handle them - if you get a
> code 28, there's a possibility that it's an attack, so you don't retry
> it quite so aggressively.
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFFq8SYA9rUluQ9pFARAlVgAJ9ow4ZDEBQ61gbg78pxl7Q0TCaF6ACgu5hI
> TsAlHclMI/TYtzpjtN9NGVk=
> =qUO1
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tech mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
>
>