[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /cyb/ - 35113



File: 1471063375267.png (18.62 KB, 300x162, freenet-bunny-with-name-flying.png)

No.35113

Just how secure is Freenet? Lately Tor and i2p seem to have gotten all the attention, but I've heard Freenet's security flaws have been fixed and the project seems active, so I'm thinking of trying it out.

  No.35114

it's a pretty different program with fairly different purposes to tor and i2p altogether

  No.35115

>>35114
I'm aware it differs in purpose but I'm wondering how it compares in the anonymity and security it provides.

  No.35116

>>35115
well less people use it, so it's less anonymous.

and if linus's law is true then presumably it's also less secure

when it comes to security software, a good rule of thumb is to use what everyone else is using.

tor and i2p have massive userbases that i'd bet dwarf freenet's userbase

  No.35117

OP there's no real reason to use freenet. It's not verifiably more secure than tor or i2p, and if you don't need it for its one particular usecase, then there's not really a reason for it.

  No.35118

>>35113
Tahoe-LFS or IPFS are probably better. Freenet is unlikely to be more secure and its interface is absolutely shit.

  No.35119

I wish there was actually something of interest on this P2P networks. Sure you can try and wade through all the shit but I'm not sure how much it's worth it in the end.

  No.35120

>>35118
Freenet is older, more studied and more secure than ipfs. For one, freenet also contains an anonymizing element which ipfs doesn't have. In ipfs anyone can see what you are seeding or leeching, in freenet it's harder as it uses hops like tor.

>interface is absolutely shit

lol

  No.35121

>>35120
>>35118
lots of people run tahoe-lafs over i2p

sure beats the shit out of freenet

  No.35629

Moved to >>>/sec/373.