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.'"

21 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 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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!)

  5. 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.

  6. 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,
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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 .

  14. 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?
  15. 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