Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Network I2P 0.7.2 Released

Posted by timothy on from the layers-and-layers dept.

Mathiasdm writes "The Invisible Internet Project, also known as I2P, has seen its 0.7.2 release (download). I2P uses multiple encryption layers, and routing through several other computers to hide both sender and receiver of messages. On top of the network, regular services such as mail, browsing, file sharing and chatting are supported. This release (and all of the releases since 0.7) is at the start of a new development period, in which the I2P developers wish to spread the word about the secure network. This new release includes performance improvements, a first edition of an experimental new desktop interface and security improvements (by limiting the number of tunnels a single peer can participate in)."

14 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. I2P vs TOR by areusche · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm in a bit of a rush but how is this any different then say TOR? I read over the about I2P page and it sounds like a similar setup. If I'm wrong (which I most likely am) please correct me.

    1. Re:I2P vs TOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I suspect I2P is also more tolerant of P2P. Tor has been suffering massive speed hits due to arseholes using P2P over it.

    2. Re:I2P vs TOR by rafa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I believe .onion services can be created using tor as well, providing a similar service - but it's been a while since I last read about them.

      --
      [Science] is one of the very few things that raises human life a little above farce and gives it the grace of tragedy.
  2. Slow as usual... by blahbooboo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is far from the first P2P to attempt hiding IP etc. I have not used this system, but all the others that have done (and do) the same thing end up with the same problem -- the system ends up being painfully slow to use.

    Oh well, maybe THIS one will not be?

    1. Re:Slow as usual... by blahbooboo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The question should be how slow is it compared to the speed experienced after the ISP shuts you off (or the authorities confiscate computing equipment) due to an accusation of illegal activity by the *IAA. The performance hit may seem painfully slow until compared to the slowness of 0 bps. In fact, such a system IMHO should have an easy to use toggle (desktop widget, browser plugin) so that "normal browsing" goes through the usual channels and only the limited periods of "private browsing" are experienced with full protection on. Blend in with the crowd by default and leave the security for when you really need it.

      How about anonymous by using an open wireless network? Or use the coffee shop wireless network down the street? Or go to a library? There are many better options for being anonymous if you choose...

    2. Re:Slow as usual... by Kotoku · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speed Cost Privacy Pick two. Currently privacy requires a bandwidth overheads to hide the traffic. You can pay companies for private VPN's in other countries that won't give you up, and avoid some speed hits. For most of us though we're stuck with masking our traffic on the cheap end.

      --
      AnimePapers.org: Anime Wallpapers Handled With Care
    3. Re:Slow as usual... by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But assuming you are transmitting all needed information over HTTPS, there really isn't that much that can be detected from the script kiddy with a packet sniffer.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  3. A few more features they could add by presidenteloco · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I designed one of these about a decade ago and did some prototyping. Since I don't seem to have the time to realize it, here are a few extra features that could be added (if i2p does not already include these).

    Encrypted-file-fragmenting, auto-globally-migrating, auto-redundant replicating "virtual" data store layer. Stored files automatically seek to be replicated enough times to be guaranteed perpetually persistent, and also seek to move to newer and better physical storage sites, and to globally distribute themselves, and auto-cache near user when needed.

    With this addition, we may have the basis for, for example, a Facebook-like on-line identity avatar which is not owned by a single company like Facebook but just floats around all over the P2P network, and is truly owned by the person who it is about.

    With that freeing up of the online identity from external control, we could extend it to include important identity information needed for the citizen to function in society. Medical records, different identity numbers for different government agencies, your real-world address, etc. All of these properties about you could be placed online by you following standard protocols and placed only onto a secure virtual site in the i2. Permission model would of course be default no permission, opened incrementally to authorized and authenticated other parties.

    If we had this, the onus could now be placed on governments, medical systems, post offices, etc. to come to your avatar and request permission to know your address, or your medical number etc. No more change of address rigamerole. No more problems in your paperwork or medical history maintenance because you happen to move to another state or country.
    etc.

    It all relies on the open standards for the info and privacy protocols, and on the confidence of the person to put their info into a secure, encrypted, and non-owned virtual internet location.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:A few more features they could add by cryptoluddite · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I designed one of these about a decade ago and did some prototyping. Since I don't seem to have the time to realize it, here are a few extra features that could be added (if i2p does not already include these).

      Here's a tip for anybody thinking of implementing something like i2p, tor, freenet, etc: if the user has to do anything and if it impacts performance it's not worth doing.

      What's needed is something simple and pervasive:

      1) compatible with regular TCP
      2) optional so it is only in effect when both the source and destination support it
      3) 'weak' so that there is not much performance impact, so there is no reason to disable it

      For sake of example, half of an xtea key can be sent by the SYN using the TCP options field and the other half provided by the server in the ACK. If the server doesn't return its half then no encryption takes place. The key is permuted by the data sent/received.

      This simple scheme provides that anybody examining the TCP steam must have seen the first packets and must have followed the entire conversation, decrypting it along the way. There is no extra step involved that could introduce delays, and the state and CPU time is small enough to be not important to the end user or server. However, for anybody to wholesale monitor traffic, for whatever reason, it means they need a lot of expensive hardware. What ends up as 1% of your CPU time to decrypt a torrent requires a warehouse of servers to decrypt everybody's torrents.

      A system like this has a huge advantage over tor, freenet, etc, in that everyday normal people can have it enabled by default, especially for open-source linux, *bsd distros. The actual anonymizing networks are worthless because only those with something to hide use them, or people who are hard-core idealists (which probably also gets you on some kind of 'watch list'). Ironically, this kind of system will raise the overall cost of monitoring to a point where tor, freenet, i2p, etc become viable.

    2. Re:A few more features they could add by Vu1turEMaN · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most of the names in Eureka Seven were mash-ups of famous musical artists or scientists, so I assumed that when they used Greg Egan it was another mashup. Apparently the real Greg Egan had some input into the storyline of the anime when it came to theories of the end of the world.

      And while I'm not a lunatic when it comes to watching anime, currently there are quite a few shows that have higher quality storylines and characters than the normal slop they throw on TV in the US. The mainstream stuff is usually bad, and it gives the genre in general a bad stereotype, so it always pays to find something good.

  4. Re:Wow, way to abbreviate there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can anyone compare this I2P, Invisible IRC, and Tor, etc?

    I'm just curious as to how they all differ.. and if any have any REAL usable performance.

  5. Re:First post? by CarpetShark · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Doesn't sound half bad when you put it like that :)

  6. Re:No HTTPS support by thasmudyan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Methinks you are a bit confused, unfortunately. As sibling posters have said, I2P has no exit nodes as Tor does.

    It's not me who's confused, and sometimes it doesn't matter how many people keep insisting on wrong things, they are still wrong. Reality is not democratic.

    As sibling posters have said, I2P has no exit nodes as Tor does.

    Yes, it does. Do me a favor. Install I2P, change the proxy settings of your browser to localhost:4444 or whatever is configured after you start the service. You'll notice that you can, via randomly chosen exit nodes, access any HTTP URL. Now do a remote host lookup to confirm where your exit node is. This will be the moment you realize that you're wrong.

    HTTPS/SSL also fails with Tor's exit nodes

    No, it does not. In fact, the text you quoted proves you wrong right here: "any exit node is in a position to capture any traffic passing through it which does not use end-to-end encryption, e.g. SSL."

    See, Tor can (and does) route SSL traffic transparently between your target webserver and your browser. There is no technical reason I2P cannot do the same and I'm guessing that they simply haven't gotten around to coding that feature yet.

  7. Re:First post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Is I2P meant for using with torrents? I know with TOR, the majority of users hate people using it for torrents because it bogs down the network. Is this not the case with I2P?