Topic: GLBSE darknet mirror. - page 3. (Read 4245 times)

Yeah but freenet "sites" are just static files of images and HTML being served to you from the distributed data store. It doesn't handle dynamic content. It does what it does very VERY well (pedo sites on there that can't actually be removed, whether you agree with this or not it does show how resilient Freenet is).

Adding darknet mirrors would be difficult.

Difficult in that if done correctly would require a hot backup to GLBSE running in the darknet, it would cause a lot of sync problems with the darknet mirror and the www site.

I suppose it could be done, just would take some time to develop and set up.

I see you point totally with the new GLBSE .onion site being within the darknet the "Exit node" issue I don't like wouldn't even come in to it.  Like I said in a previous post I did say you probably new a lot more about Tor than me.  Just the couple of experts I spoke to said I2P was a more secure design but currently more vulnerable than Tor to attack due to Tor being a bigger network.  Like I said before I was also in favour of a .onion site as well.  Sorry for the confusion can we stay on topic.

You can have FREENET sites and its very secure.  Is there any chance we could have TOR and I2P mirrors Nefario.  It may attract more users due to them having better Anonymity and also means the GLBSE could still operate if the www version was attacked by hackers or governments.

you don't read what i write, and your posts shows lack of knowledge, please educate yourself on the inner workings of tor before you continue the discussion.
EXIT-NODES ARE NOT USED FOR TOR'S INTERNAL .ONION ROUTING, EXIT-NODES ARE ONLY USED TO ACCESS THE NORMAL INTERNET

you can't access the normal internet from within I2P(without some none-standard vpn application). it was not what it was designed for.

Freenet is a distributed data store that users a lot of encryption to protect it's users, I don't think it could really be called a darknet.

.onion services reside inside the tor network and traffic destined for them never leaves the tor network, therefor never goes through any exit nodes.

I2P does not have exit nodes built into the system ,but some people do provide this service. Generally while most people use Tor to browser the internet with some anonymity, I2P users tend to have various services that run over I2P (such as file sharing).

Both Tor and I2P support hidden services(Tor), or eepsites(I2P) which are essentially websites which are hidden inside either the Tor or I2P network, if done correctly (not the easiest thing to do) it makes it very difficult to find the physical location of the server that the website is running from.

This is why TheSilkRoad is still able to operate despite being a fairly high profile target for the DOJ.

Which is more secure, Tor or I2P? I don't know, with regard to hidden services/eepsites they both work more or less in a similar manner, however I've not heard of any sites like SR on I2P, and therefor the I2P network has not been as tested as much (in terms of law enforcement trying to catch site operators).

Code wise, I2P is written in Java, Tor is written in C (I think), I don't think it makes much of a difference, both are already fairly mature systems.

Possibly the size of the network may also be taken into account, a larger network means more security if you're trying to hide in the crowd. If this is the case the Tor is more secure simply because more people use it.

Anyway you probably do know a lot more about Tor than me and I'm also for a .onion site can we please stay on topic.

Internal traffic from Tor is feed to end users via exit nodes.  That's why there is a warning when you set up a exit node that the traffic your relying could be illegal and get you in trouble.  There is no such problem with I2P and FREENET while being a lot slower looks the most secure option.

I am not a software or network security expert by no means but I spoke to a couple and they both said I2P is more secure than Tor but smaller so more vulnerable to attack at the moment.  I only studied C, Assembler, VHDL and Verilog at a basic level but the fact Tor relies on a set number of known exit relays shows me they could all be easily monitored and/or blocked.

exit-nodes have nothing to do with the internal .onion.
exit-nodes are only used when you are accessing the normal internet, and are therefor not used in the tor darknet.
your argument is irrelevant, to the darknet part of tor.

but did you read the code? i have not studied shit, but IMHO tor are the most secure, because it have the most clean and stable code.
and also as nafario said, freenet is just a anonymous and secure distributed data store, and would therefor not be the best choice for a request-response based system.

Yeah it would offer users better anonymity using the site to make sure you aren't being monitored and would be a very good secret back up in case of attack ect.

I do honestly believe every Tor exit node could be monitored by "Echelon" I2P doesn't use exit nodes in the same way and if you look at FREENET that is a much more secure darknet than Tor.  My two satoshi worth anyway.

I don't know about freenet (which is a distributed data store), but Tor has lower bandwidth capacities than I2P.

There wouldn't be any point in offering I2P or Tor access except to allow users to access via those networks.

Maybe use it as a secret backup option?

I'm no whitehat hacker but I've studied Software and hardware engineering as a undergraduate.

and i think you don't know anything about it...

I think I2P and FREENET are more secure but wouldn't hurt to have a mirror on all three?

why not .onion (Tor)?

Who else thinks its a good idea to have a darknet (I2P or FREENET) mirror of the GLBSE?