[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: I2P (was Re: Psiphon (Was: Bootstraping Tor manually to get past the Great Firewall))
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> The I2P design subscribes to same design approach as Freenet:
> "add complexity until it's secure."
Or perhaps "until the performance characteristics are sufficient, all
security aspects are both in flux and irrelevent", and as long as that
is the case, in my view rigorous documentation and security review is
futile, given the size of I2P's development team.
Of course, during revamps and redesigns (such as trying to work around
the packet counting problems Tor has ), I've written up small
descriptive docs for the relevent bits . Most of the design
discussion occurs on IRC, summarized in the weekly status notes, and
reviewed or expanded upon during our weekly development meetings .
(if you had followed the development of I2P in the last year, you'd see
that we've been doing anything but adding complexity - instead, we've been
stripping out and simplifying components for the transport and netdb
[directory]. lately though, most of the work has been aimed at one of the
I2P and Tor share some goals, and over the last 3-4 years the I2P network
has come closer to Tor and the Tor network has come closer to I2P. Still,
I'm not recommending people use I2P as a replacement for Tor, or even
necessary use I2P at all, but we are using what we feel are sound engineering
techniques to move I2P forward, even if you may happen to disagree with one
or more of the choices we have made.
Of course, if you are interested in more details, I'm always glad to
discuss them 
 irc://irc.freenode.net/#i2p | http://forum.i2p.net/ | jrandom@xxxxxxx
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----