Re: Re: Secure Channels: Disappointed.
 

Yes,

the most of the other developers don´t visit bearshare.net I ask me why? Do they really don´t care? Or are they really fearing a possible split?

Btw, not only you get a TROLL status, but I don´t care what Vinnie and some of his knights say, the most people are with us but they are to lazy to fight!

This sucks!

Morgwen

Re: Re: Secure Channels: Disappointed.
 

It doesn't have to be. Since there are gnutella nodes located in the U.S. you can sue an entity that reversely engineered an authentication handshake in the U.S. although the entity might originally be located in Europe.

Re: Re: Re: Secure Channels: Disappointed.
 

In any event, reverse engineering or not, there are plenty of landmines and obfuscation techniques that will buy us many months of time before the security is compromised (even if it is illegally compromised).

There are encrypted portions of code which will be in the final release that aren't even going to get used for quite some time, we will be activating these additional security methods as the existing ones get broken.

True, even these additional hidden techniques will eventually be broken, but I have planned for that, instead of assuming that the protection methods are unstoppable.

Fortunately, with peer to peer software, frequent updates ensure that we will be able to combat the evils of corporate hacking as they appear.

Re: Re: Secure Channels: Disappointed.
 

Eh? Is Morpheus being "fair" by releasing millions of buggy servents?

Probably not, but you complaining about it isn't likely to change anything.

Re: Re: Re: Secure Channels: Disappointed.
 

good point... against bearshare

Re: Re: Re: Secure Channels: Disappointed.
 

Its nice that you show your true face... the next time one of your knights will tell me something about fair competition will see a link to this thread here!

And don´t point to Morpheus, you are not a better guy because some other are bad too...

And I hope that some people wake up know!

Morgwen

Re: Re: Re: Re: Secure Channels: Disappointed.
 

Alright im upgraded to "knight" They are better looking, get armor and a nice sword, a stead and all the wenches they want so i cant complain..

Fair competition why dont you do gnutella and p2p a favor and explain that to the trade groups!

They are the ones who are trying to get rid of P2P by hiring firms to monitor and spam gnutella, send automated notices to users to weaken and eventually shut down the network. Making security related features needed in the first place. They are the ones who are continuing to sure programs and are now trying various ways through legislation to stop P2P. While this is happening how can there be fair competition when someone else is trying to destroy you can the competition?

Should they be allowed to send fake data, target users and target users? No of course not but how do you prevent it without losing the "open network" if it truely is a open network shouldnt they also be entitiled to know about whatever security plan is implemented to stop them or have it be compromised? That is the million dollar question..

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Secure Channels: Disappointed.
 

Yes of course and now ALL developers should fight also instead of solving the problems together...

Ah I forget Vinnie need some features that others don´t have, he has to sell his $19,95 client - and don´t tell me now anything about the Spyware version...

Do you think the open source clients, or the non-commercial clients will act this way?

What do you think will happen if Vinnie proceed this way? I think the commercial clients will start to block each other, this will destroy the Gnutella net, nice future!

Vinnie has proven here that he don´t want to work with other developers together , he ONLY wants to earn money...

Morgwen

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Secure Channels: Disappointed.
 

You mean the one where everything is opt-out?

While I admire open source, and while I firmly believe that BearShare will be open source in the not too distant future (after some rather challenging problems that have been pointed out get solved), it is unfortunate that open-source Gnutella servents have a critical vulnerability - they cannot implement secure security features.

Not to worry - if the situation gets out of control we will move the secured features to a second, parallel private Gnutella network and give users the option of operating on either one. The "regular" Gnutella network (open source, vulnerable to spammers) will be freely supported by our public.bearshare.net host cache, and the "secure" Gnutella network (read: proprietary BearShare network until we can figure out how to open it up without allowing it to be attacked) supported by a private anchor server which accepts no incoming connections and cannot be attacked.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Secure Channels: Disappointed.
 

Of course ssh, SSL, PGP and all good commonly used secure protocols or hashs are available as open source.

So why security by obscurity? Instead of working on a better protocol, Bearshare tries (again) to get an advantage from proprietray extensions. Needless to say what's good for Bearshare isn't automatically good for Gnutella.