Re: [tor-talk] Freenet and hidden services

[mirimir <mirimir@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/06/2013 08:39 PM, adrelanos wrote:

> It's Good to be Alive:

True :)

>> Hi,
>>   I'm fairly new at Tor, and this is my first time on a mailing list,
>> so if there's a better place to ask, let me know.  Are there any
>> plans, long-term or short, for augmenting Tor with Freenet-style
>> resilient, distributed, encrypted hosting in place of the current
>> hidden-service model?  I understand that they are different projects
>> with different goals, but in the wake of the Freedom Hosting fiasco it
>> seems that the idea has merit.  Certainly both sides would benefit?
>> Freenet is not always anonymous, and hidden services are not always
>> resilient, but together...  What are the pros and cons of this idea,
>> and what stands in the way of implementing it?  Just curious.
>>   Cheers!  Thanks for your time.

I see much potential for using "resilient, distributed, encrypted" (and
better yet, hidden) storage backends for hidden services. Freenet is one
possibility. Tahoe-LAFS is another. Cleversafe would have been another,
had it stayed open-source.

I'm imagining a system where each storage node is a hidden service.
Nodes would link via VPN tunnels through Tor. Nodes would either have
local storage, or securely access various cloud storage services. Given
that nodes would only be storing splits of encrypted data, cloud storage
is safe enough.

Servers accessible to users would be diskless reverse proxies, via VPN
through Tor, for servers running hidden services. Those servers would
also be diskless, pulling hidden service credentials and content from
backend storage grids via VPN through Tor.

> See also:
> https://blog.torproject.org/blog/hidden-services-need-some-love
> 

-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsusbscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk