[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Anonymous flooding
[email protected] says:
> I wonder if full crypto anonymity as we envision it will be stable?
> I'm very concerned about the problem of anonymous users intentionally
> flooding the network with garbage in order to bring it to its knees.
> Current practice, in the non-anonymous world, is to trace excess
> traffic to its source and stop it from being generated. This will no
> longer be possible when true anonymity is available.
Yes, this is a REAL danger. But if the network providers will
charge per-packet fee (what an ugly idea :-), and no packet
will be moved without being "taxed" (:-) - i.e. some
digital cash removed from it's header (:-) - well,
I see no reason, why somebody can't invest his
$1,000,000 in shutting y'all up for a day (:-).
> This would particularly be a problem if a remailer is willing to forward
> an incoming message to more than one destination. In that case, by sending a
> single anonymous message, a saboteur could generate an exponential amount
> of net traffic. This would be bad.
It only depends on who pays for each packet (:-).
> However, I still have some fundamental concerns that an anonymity-based
> system is vulnerable to flooding and denial of service by the bad guys,
> including Big Brother, who may wish to prevent effective use of such
> systems. This may make operating a remailer a difficult proposition.
Yeah, THIS can be a problem: our Big Brother has enough
money to do all the smelly things we discussed above...
And if not - he'll tax us more...
> I'm discouraged. Any thoughts?
There's no way to limit Big Brother's power, except
for getting rid of him altogether, I'm afraid...
--
Regards,
Uri [email protected] scifi!angmar!uri N2RIU
-----------
<Disclamer>