Slashdot Mirror


After 3 Years, Freenet 0.7 Released

evanbd writes "After over 3 years of work, the Freenet Project has announced the release of Freenet 0.7. 'Freenet is software designed to allow the free exchange of information over the Internet without fear of censorship, or reprisal. To achieve this Freenet makes it very difficult for adversaries to reveal the identity, either of the person publishing, or downloading content' ... 'The journey towards Freenet 0.7 began in 2005 with the realization that some of Freenet's most vulnerable users needed to hide the fact that they were using Freenet, not just what they were doing with it. The result of this realization was a ground-up redesign and rewrite of Freenet, adding a "darknet" capability, allowing users to limit who their Freenet software would communicate with to trusted friends.'"

35 of 365 comments (clear)

  1. Are we just now getting this dupe by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Funny

    because it was uploaded via freenet?

    1. Re:Are we just now getting this dupe by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Informative

      ... because it was uploaded via freenet?

      No.

      It's because the previous article was the release candidate and the official release came out today.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    2. Re:Are we just now getting this dupe by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It depends on a lot of things, primarily lots of people install it one day, screw around for an hour or so and give up. This is the wrong way to test out freenet, it takes a bit for your node to really become part of the network, and until then things are quite slow.

      Eventually, after maybe a day or so of running the node, the speed approaches what it would otherwise be outside of freenet, with some overhead of course.

    3. Re:Are we just now getting this dupe by paganizer · · Score: 5, Informative

      OK. Then my earlier skewering of Freenet 0.7 was a candidate skewering, and this will be the release skewering.
      This is going to be frustrating for me because I'll get at least one post with something like this in it: "It is really funny and annoying at the same time when some pseudo-informed trolls from 0.5 throw around false information constantly. These people maybe want to get some technical knowledge on networking prior to spreading bullshit."

      Before I really get into this, I have to point something out; to really have some idea of the reality of the situation in regards to Freenet, you have to install it and run it at least for a day; I think it pretty much reguires you run FROST (freenets main messaging & file sharing system) as well. There are 2 main freenets, the 0.5 network and the 0.7 network.

      freenet 0.7, and darknet, is insecure. With a Darknet system, your node PRIMARILY communicates with the other members (around 10) of your darknet; you are supposed to know & trust people in your darknet. So around 15 nodes.
      Freenet 0.5, which is opennet, communicates with all other 0.5 nodes it knows about, with no preference except for tested routing speed. This works out these days to around 35 random nodes.
      The basic concept is this: you request some information on Freenet with your client. your node sends out a request to neighboring nodes; if that node has the information, it sends the information to your node, you get it. If your neighboring node doesn't have it, it sends out requests to it's neighboring nodes to see if they have it. this process continues until the information is found.
      The principle that makes this all work for illegal information is reasonable deniability; the information in your node is lightly encrypted, but the main thing is that no one can prove you are the one that put it there; your node could have received a request from another node looking for the information, and stored a copy of it.
      (this is vastly simplified. I will likely get a post or two from 0.7 zealots pointing out picayune discrepancies)

      With open net, this works. you communicate principly at random with other nodes. In order to prove you requested the information the Powers That Be would have to control the majority of the nodes in the open net and statistical analysis.

      With Darknet, you have a limited set of nodes. Statistical analysis is easier.

      I used "tibetan freedom fighters" in my last post, I'll use "secret plans to attack Iran" (SPAI) today.
      You post your .pdf of the SPAI on Freenet 0.5 in Frost. Other 0.5 users see the key(link) and click on it. their nodes request the random nodes they know about to give them the info. The contacted nodes then ask other nodes, who then ask other nodes, until they find it. The information then travels back to your node, caching its self on the requesting nodes on the way to your node. eventually, you get it.
      On the NSA run node, they see requests for the keyfile come in. they can tell which node the request came from, but they can NOT tell if your node was the original requesting node; likewise, they can't tell if your node is the original posting node.

      With 0.7, it works a little simpler. When the NSA node see a request, they know with a approximate 2 in 3 probability that the information requested came from a member of the same darknet that their node is on. And they know the IP address of the darknet members. Do I really need to point out anything more on this?
      (By the way, if I have a substantially flawed understanding of this, PLEASE point it out).

      The above point is why the 0.5 network, which, by the way, WORKS for messaging and file sharing (something the 0.7 network has a little trouble with right now), has possibly more users than the 0.7 network. I would say it with certainty, but there really is no way to tell. I know my node connects with about 350 other nodes on a regular basis.

      0.7 has better methods of hiding a node from outside monitoring, but the methods do not re

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    4. Re:Are we just now getting this dupe by evanbd · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you don't like darknets, don't turn them on. I think you're wrong, but I won't bother refuting that point here. Freenet 0.7 gives you the choice of darknet mode, opennet mode, or a mix. As a corollary, there aren't discrete "darknets" but rather one large network with a mix of darknet and opennet connections (for the most part; there may be a handful of small poorly-connected darknet subnets).

      I do not recall any freenet developer talking about implementing any sort of blocking; nor have they done so. Unless you can back up that statement, I will be forced to conclude you are trolling. As you say, the ability to block anything, no matter how abhorrent, implies the ability to censor valid political speech and is therefore a bad thing for a network like freenet.

      Also, I suggest you try out FMS as a replacement for Frost / Thaw; it is far more spam resistant for a variety of reasons.

      I really don't understand this continued bashing of 0.7; now that it has implemented a proper opennet feature, with the ability to turn off the darknet option, what is the complaint?

  2. Nothing to see here.... move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    All I got was - Access to this site has been blocked by your system administrator (i'm at work).

    1. Re:Nothing to see here.... move along by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sounds like you could use some sort of "free network" to get around your employer's attempts at censorship. Unfortunately, as you've just discovered, no such thing exists.

      Oh well, back to the grind.

  3. Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A new and improved way to share that child pornography! More congratulations are in order for the powers that be. They have managed to convince a large segment of the population that the only consequence of anonymous communication on the internet is the proliferation of child porn. The citizens are now ready and willing to be tracked and logged.
  4. Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. by Hyppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is that the only use you can think of for this? Is this just a hopeless attempt at trolling? Is your world view so ethnocentric that you don't realize how censorship affects people?

    Here's a quick list of situations or people off the top of my head that could benefit from this:

    - Citizens of a government which controls information flow (China, Kuwait, etc)
    - Investigative journalists releasing stories (Judith Miller, anyone?)
    - Leaking protected or damaging information (Wikileaks has been shown to be vulnerable)

    If all you can think about is "OmG teh CHILDRENS!!111", then something is seriously wrong with you.

  5. Great! How do I download it... by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...without disclosing the fact that I want to hide the fact that I'm hiding something?

    Because, of course, if I haven't got anything to hide, why would I want to hide the fact that I'm hiding something?

    Maybe Freenet 0.8 will provide a way to hide the fact that I'm hiding the fact that I'm hiding something.

    1. Re:Great! How do I download it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...without disclosing the fact that I want to hide the fact that I'm hiding something?

      Step 1 : Post as Anonymous Coward...

    2. Re:Great! How do I download it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Step 2: Don't put a link to your mother's book in your sig.

      (That book looks awesome!)

  6. Re:How do you find trusted friends on a darknet? by HappySmileMan · · Score: 4, Informative

    To be honest Opennet seems much more fitting to their philosophy than Darknet, but for some reason or another they really want people to switch to Darknet. They even disabled the option to use Opennet in previous builds, until users complained. Generally you have no reason not to use Opennet, unless you're really paranoid, or in a country that forbids Freenet by law.

  7. Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More congratulations are in order for the powers that be. They have managed to convince a large segment of the population that the only consequence of anonymous communication on the internet is the proliferation of child porn. The citizens are now ready and willing to be tracked and logged.

    It's a signal-to-noise ratio problem, and what constitutes signal (or noise) is a function of what the authorities are looking for.

    In China, Freenet is a tool used by traitors to pass destabilizing messages (to the PRC, that's signal) back and forth, hiding in a sea of American child porn (to the PRC, that's noise).

    In the USA, Freenet is a tool used by pedophiles to pass disgusting images back and forth (to the FBI, that's signal), hiding in a sea of "Free Tibet" and "Falun Gong" emails (to the FBI, that's noise).

    Unfortunately, since the network is designed that you can't host one without hosting the other, neither is a particularly advisable thing to have on your network, no matter where you live.

  8. Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX by grub · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Have you actually seen Freenet? The only purpose it's pretty much used for is the exchange of the worst crimes of humanity.

    With Freenet you have to actively look for what you want. If you found "the worst crimes of humanity" it's because you were looking for them in the first place.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  9. ground-up redesign by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The result of this realization was a ground-up redesign

    They ground up the redesign? ;)

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  10. Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX by emag · · Score: 5, Informative

    The last time I used Freenet, in the 0.4? days, there were sites that would index whatever was submitted, without regard to content, and it was these index sites that were most heavily promoted for "finding" anything in Freenet. It was hard NOT to notice "the worst crimes of humanity", so to speak, when they're sitting there with a full description. Whether the descriptions were accurate, I have no idea, as the novelty of Freenet wore off as soon as I realized I could get better speed from a tape-carrying tortoise.

    --
    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
  11. Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. by evanbd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wikileaks has been mirrored to Freenet more than once. I don't know of an up to date link, or a single regularly updated source, but it's there.

    A large number of photos from Tibet are available, and there is at least one highly active user posting them and keeping them up to date, with commentary.

  12. Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Again, have you actually used Freenet? I've used freenet. Albeit briefly. I went to a couple index pages and did not see any child pornography nor links to it. But then again I wasn't looking for it too closely. I saw mostly political blogs, MP3s, movies, and hacking tools.
  13. Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only purpose it's pretty much used for is the exchange of the worst crimes of humanity.
    Also, guns kill people
    Cars kill the enviornment
    Retention of individual sovereignty/responsibility/money kills "fairness".
    So, I'm thinkin': a government program can fix all of these woes.
    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  14. Re:How do you find trusted friends on a darknet? by Sanity · · Score: 4, Informative

    We hadn't "disabled" opennet in previous builds, it just hadn't been implemented yet.

  15. The failure of Freenet by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Freenet is an important concept. On it you get complete freedom of speech: the ability to discuss and spread your ideas, with full anonymity and freedom from censorship. Of course, this means that you will probably come across things on it that will go against your beliefs. While nothing forces you to actually visit these freesites, you will have to come to terms that this might be cached on your computer even without you visiting them. But this is important to freedom of speech: if people where able to censor anything, the system just wouldn't work.

    So why does Freenet fail? Lack of documentation. I don't mean ease of use in the interface - I mean for the protocols and network design. A system as important as Freenet -- one that people expect unfaltering anonymity and security from -- should be rigorously and meticulously documented.

    But it's not. In fact, if you bring it up with the Freenet developers they will gladly tell you this is intentional -- that they use security through obscurity to guard against someone finding a way to break the system.

    So -- do you trust your freedom with the competency of a handful of developers to make a good design? I don't. I want as many people looking at the system as possible. I want people to really bash on it, to try to break it. This gives me confidence, not worry, because problems will be solved sooner than later.

    This would also open up the possibility of more than one client to access the network. If you have two separate clients that implement the same strict protocol and one of them messes up, it's likely to be caught far sooner than with just one. An immediate example of where this would have helped is with a bug that existed in 0.7's AES implementation for a very long time, where the data wasn't being encrypted properly.

    The Freenet developers don't want multiple clients either -- again, they worry that one might break the network. This line of thought is incomprehensible to me, because as a developer I would want things that could break my network to be discovered as soon as possible so I could fix the design.

    Sure, you could look at the source code. It is Open Source, after all. But what if you don't know Java? I don't particularly want to learn Java just so I can review Freenet's code. As a C++ developer I might be able to read and understand most of it, but I don't trust myself to review something so important without years of prior Java experience -- the chance that I'd miss something is just too great.

    1. Re:The failure of Freenet by amphibian · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is not true that we practice security through obscurity. It *is* true that we haven't documented Freenet to the point that it could be reimplemented easily from the documentation. We don't want other node (not client) implementations right now, because Freenet is very much still a work in progress, and as a distributed, emergent system, lots of node implementations all of which implement slightly different behaviour (but the same protocol) would be a major problem: It would make it even harder for us to evaluate the effect of changes in the routing algorithm, for example. As a C++ developer with experience in security software, you'd be fine, java is easy, although there are some more interesting bits.

    2. Re:The failure of Freenet by Sanity · · Score: 5, Informative

      In fact, if you bring it up with the Freenet developers they will gladly tell you this is intentional -- that they use security through obscurity to guard against someone finding a way to break the system.
      I'm the coordinator of the Freenet project and I'm calling bullshit on that one. I very much doubt any Freenet developer said that, and if they did, they weren't speaking on behalf of the project.

      Yes, Freenet's low-level protocols could be better documented, but they are a work in progress, and in almost constant flux.

      As for security through obscurity, we go to great lengths to explain to people how Freenet works, you can find a bunch of papers, and video lectures on our "Papers" page). Take a look at this video from three years ago explaining the 0.7 design before we'd even begun to code it.

      Yes it would be wonderful if every tiny detail could be documented meticulously, but before we document it we have to design and test our ideas, and that means developing and releasing the reference implementation.

  16. Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. by Hyppy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If I'm not mistaken, you could always load up freenet and use a Truecrypt drive as your "swap" space.

  17. Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX by evanbd · · Score: 4, Informative

    Freenet 0.7 is vastly faster than 0.4, though not as fast as bittorrent (obviously). Currently, all the good index sites have anti-CP policies. They'll happily link photos from Tibet, though, or wikileaks mirrors (both present). The current crop of index sites also tends to do a good job indexing things. Also, much of the content is centered around FMS and the (less functional) Frost messaging systems (broadly similar to usenet; FMS even operates as an NNTP gateway, allowing you to use your favorite newsreader). You'll get content posted to boards you subscribe to, which tends to be at least somewhat relevant (ie, the signal to noise ratio is probably better than /. ;) ). I'd encourage you to try it out again, if you're interested in privacy and an anonymous network, but not if all you're looking for is the next bittorrent (though you can find music, movies, etc on Freenet if you want).

  18. Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX by kdemetter · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem actually comes down to this :
    The are 2 ways to regard spread of information

    Either it should be possible to stop the spread of certain information , and that will put a stop to the abuses , but it will also make it possible for an authoritarian regime to silence any criticism , and will basically stop freedom of speech .

    The other way is to make it impossible to stop information from spreading , and that way you wil ensure freedom of speech , and anonymity to whistle blowers and criticism , but at the same time , abuses will be unstoppable .

    There is no midway to this , as it's about technical capabilities .

  19. Re:Exchanging gas ovens? by jesdynf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, I never thought about it before... but why is it necessary to compare "rape" and "murder" and decide which of the two are worse?

    Both are supremely unacceptable acts, full stop. The hypothetical question asked doesn't seem very realistic. "I would choose neither." "NO! What if you had to choose... because you're on a bus! And a madman would blow up the bus if you didn't choose, or it slowed down!" I'm not feeling it.

    I'm not prepared to agree that killing N people is better or worse than raping N people, and that's before I even GET to the part where we bring up the religion thing. What if you *raped* N people for religion, but then killed N others just because you're a jerk? How does that stack up? And what if you double-parked because you wanted to make it harder for someone to drive away, thereby increasing the energy they expended and hastening, ever so slightly, the end of the universe? And you just raped N people to produce delicious candy? Hard to call that one, I tell you.

    --
    Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
  20. Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom of Hosts by scruffy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am impressed by Freenet's devotion to freedom of speech, but if my computer is hosting content, I should have the freedom to choose what that content is. Freedom of speech does not mean I should have to provide any resources to help you. This is where Freenet goes overboard. Freedom of speech is not an absolute.

    1. Re:Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom of Hosts by Sanity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but if my computer is hosting content, I should have the freedom to choose what that content is
      If you have the ability to choose what you host or don't host, then you become responsible for it. Its a bit like the concept of a "common carrier" in US telecommunications law. Freenet gives you freedom by preventing you from censoring the content you host. Its a feature, not a bug.

      Freedom of speech is not an absolute
      If not, then who gets to choose what speech is permissible?
  21. Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX by evanbd · · Score: 4, Informative

    What main index pages? All the default bookmarks have anti-CP policies. This is not even a result of editing by the freenet devs; it's a result of community standards -- all the well-maintained and usable indexes have such policies. The devs have explicitly taken a content-agnostic approach to the default bookmarks, and said that anything useful and regularly updated is a candidate. The result is a set of indexes free of child pornography.

  22. Re:Seriously? by Sanity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have freedom of speech, but not freedom to make other's repeat your free speech.
    So you don't mind if your ISP blocks your access to websites they don't like, or drop emails they disagree with? Freenet users choose to give up the right to control your speech on Freenet. In doing so, they protect themselves from responsibility for what you say.

    Additionally, it's already been established that certain things (like the child porn example I used), are NOT protected by free speech.
    Yes, but what measures are tolerable to prevent it? Do you mind if all your mail is read by the government just in-case it contains child porn?

    The same goes for certain other types of expression such as yelling FIRE in a crowded theater when there is none.
    Common misconception, this is perfectly legal in the US ever since the Brandenburg v Ohio case in 1969.

    The founding fathers recognized this fact and realised that government was a necessary evil that by it's very definition restricts or moderates certain natural rights. In a total anarchy you would be absolutely correct, but we do not live in one.
    That is a Strawman argument. Just because I believe that governments shouldn't be permitted to monitor and control communication doesn't mean you believe we shouldn't have governments at all.
  23. Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. by Kjella · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually , that's incorrect : On freenet , you host what you viewed . So if you only visit free tibet pages , that will be the only thing you have to worry about ( if you happen to live in China).

    Many bad thing may be going on around there , but there's no need to spread FUD . In fact , that's exactly what caused this to happen in the fist place Wrong, wrong, wrong. Freenet will cache anything that happens to pass through your node. That means that if someone requests something and freenet happens to route it over your node (and hint: it doesn't determine that by qualities like being "free tibet" content) then it'll be in your node's store. It will be encrypted, so the only ones who could tell what it is would be someone with the decryption key, but it'll be there. Lies are a pretty lousy way to promote freenet.
    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  24. Re:Seriously? by Sanity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Talk about a strawman arguement! ISP's do not have the same rights as individuals.
    ISPs are corporations, and at least in the US, corporations do have the same rights as individuals. Anyway, you are missing my point. Common carrier status is a bargain, the ISPs give up the right to censor content, but in doing so they aren't held responsible for that content. Freenet users make the same bargain. If you don't like that bargain, don't use Freenet, but many people do like that bargain.

    I was pointing out that rights can be moderated by goverment, by design.
    Yes, but the founders recognized that speech was special, because speech is integral to the democratic process, and if a government can control speech, then they can manipulate the process through which they are regulated by the citizenry. We believe that governments should have no right to regulate speech because then they can short-circuit the democratic process.
  25. Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX by evanbd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You use it because you're curious, or want to support free speech. Adding to the userbase and content available helps the network grow, and helps those who actually need it. There are plenty of people who need it or think they need it even though their government isn't out to get them -- for example, there's at least one freesite by a victim of abuse who doesn't appear to be particularly comfortable talking about it in other forums. There are also plenty of conspiracy theorists who seem to think they need it -- I think they're wrong, but who knows? Not for me to judge. I'm sure there are some people using it as a route for "normal" copyright infringement that's secure from the RIAA et al, though that usage is discouraged.