/gng/ - Gnunet General

"The Internet is broken, it's time to build a gnu one." Greetings my fellow lainons and lainaughts. It's come to my attention that the clearnet is fuarrrking lame, and something can be done about that. Decentralisation seems to be the way forward and in our world of corpo-run FAGMAN websites, darknets seems to be the last vestiges of the true online underground. So I thought it couldn't hurt to encourage some of you to hop on down the gnunet rabbithole and give it a try! This thread is for discussion relating to Gnunet, its use and development. >What is Gnunet? https://www.gnunet.org/en/ https://www.gnunet.org/en/about.html >GNUnet is an alternative network stack for building secure, decentralized and privacy-preserving distributed applications. Our goal is to replace the old insecure Internet protocol stack. Starting from an application for secure publication of files, it has grown to include all kinds of basic protocol components and applications towards the creation of a GNU internet. >The Gnunet handbook https://docs.gnunet.org/handbook/gnunet.html >Videos https://www.gnunet.org/en/video.html >Applications https://www.gnunet.org/en/applications.html https://www.gnunet.org/en/gns.html (DNS replacement) https://www.gnunet.org/en/use.html#fs (Filesharing) https://taler.net/ (privacy preserving electronic payment system utilising gnunet) https://secushare.org/ (gnunet social network running over gnunet) https://pep.foundation/ (encrypted email solution making use of gnunet to hide metadata) https://git.gnunet.org/groupchat.git/ (terminal based gnunet messaging system) >Install https://www.gnunet.org/en/install.html

>> 57066 I'd like to try it, but I can't find a reason to other than for privacy and decentralization Is there something interesting going on there? For example on zeronet we have various anime streaming zites and forums. Is there something to do in GNUnet? I really want it to go mainstream, but I'm not motivated enough.

>>57067 >I'd like to try it, but I can't find a reason to other than for privacy and decentralization >Is there something interesting going on there? For example on zeronet we have various anime streaming zites and forums. At the moment, it looks like a lot of open-space but that's fertile ground for original ideas as far as I see it! :D Zeronet is decentralised but it doesn't encrypt soykaf iirc. I have no idea why anyone would use it over Freenet rationally speaking, it does everything Zeronet does and more. Let's use this thread to brainstorm some ideas for projects or gnusites that could help our fellow lainaughts. I'd be tempted to start by figuring out how to route an IRC or XMPP server through Gnunet, but Groupchat seems to fill that niche somewhat. It'd be a fun project regardless. I like the idea of an anime streaming gnusite though :) GNUSITE IDEAS: >IRC/XMPP server >anime streaming gnusite >>57071 >No I will not go on the dark web. I will not use the pedophile Gnu/linuxnet network. n'aaaaawww, but lainon, we haz mudkips ont he daekwebz :3

this seems neat. might look into it later on.

>>57067 If you want to share something between two people this is the most secure/private

The problem resides at layer 8.

Call me when it can replace or handle Bittorrent.

>>57166 But it can replace bittorrent, that's the joke

This really sounds interesting. I'll definitely keep an eye on this project for the future.

>>57170 Does it? I see filesharing (replacing Soulseek, basically), but not distributed filesharing.

>>57218 Nevermind, the official doc wasn't clear but the Arch Wiki does say that it's distributed. It also implies that you store blocks for stuff you didn't even download, like Freenet, which the glowies will use to flood the network with CP. Wonder if an option to only store what you download/serve is possible. I'll probably join it once the "Known Issues" section becomes more acceptable.

>>57219 >I'll probably join it once the "Known Issues" section becomes more acceptable. Friend, you shall be waiting a long time.

>>57224 At least the first point: >There are known major design issues in the TRANSPORT, ATS and CORE subsystems which will need to be addressed in the future to achieve acceptable usability, performance and security.

>>57219 Firstly it's just one canonical example of a filesharing application over Gnunet. Others could be implemented without that issue. Secondly, is that really even a problem anyway? iirc Gnunet has mechanisms you can tune to ignore ignore l33ches and floods.

>>57228 >is that really even a problem anyway? If your application is automatically storing data on behalf of strangers and that data turns out to the illegal then you can get into trouble regardless of your intentions.

>>57242 You ignored the most important part of that line. > Secondly, is that really even a problem anyway? iirc Gnunet has mechanisms you can tune to ignore ignore l33ches and floods. Implying you might not even end-up storing much if any such data because they're likely to be misbehaving nodes that'll get autoignored by everyone. Additionally data you cannot decrypt is effectively indistinguishable from noise, much the same as if you recorded days worth of noise from a faulty radio receiver. This is only a problem in places where the UK, where you can be arrested for failing to decrypt even content they know from the start isn't encrypted and doesn't contain anything.

>>57254 >misbehaving nodes that'll get autoignored by everyone >data you cannot decrypt How do you know a node is sending illegal data if you can't decrypt it? Seems to me you're just making soykaf up because you're in love with this project and in full on denial about any potential issues.

>>57256 https://docs.gnunet.org/handbook/gnunet.html#Accounting-to-Encourage-Resource-Sharing I trust this is enough spoonfeeding for you?

Does anyone have experience with the GNUnet cadet system? Is it better than Jami?

>>57292 >I trust this is enough spoonfeeding for you? You made 2 contradictory statements. Explain which one is incorrect.

>>57537 There is no contradiction. Nodes that attempt flooding with anything will get ignored by other nodes unless they also route a similar amount of data to what they're trying to flood. It applies to CP as much as cat pictures or anything else. Did you read the manual page I linked?

>>57550 >Nodes that attempt flooding with anything will get ignored Why are you talking about flooding? >It applies to CP as much as cat pictures or anything else. So if someone sends CP without flooding there is no way to stop them? >Did you read the manual page I linked? Did you read the post you are responding to?

>>57554 >Why are you talking about flooding? >>57219 >which the glowies will use to flood the network with CP. >flood That's why. I don't think full files are ever stored on nodes unless you requested the file yourself. Presumably setting a low cache-size or rapid expiration would significantly diminish the likelihood of ever having any full files on your machines. With small-enough settings for both, it would be similar-enough to simply swapping... and of course there's no reason you can't simply mount a tmpfs on that cache location. But even so, I'm skeptical of the standard File Sharing protocol in GNUnet, as it is uncomfortably close to a reimplementation of Freenet's protocol, which has some notorious flaws that lead to content deanonymization and loss of privacy[1]. GNUnet has link-level encryption[2] which should mostly mitigate that (whereas the encrypted payload blocks are always visibly the same from outside in Freenet iirc), but that in turn depends on the quality of its anonymization code to not fall apart. I would need to look much deeper into it before entrusting it with my livelihood or life. >So if someone sends CP without flooding there is no way to stop them? Assuming everything works as intended, no. Doing anything else would require compromising the whole design. Apple had some idiotic ideas to do the same to their services recently, and it wasn't long before quite a few highlighted just how abusable it would be. >Did you read the post you are responding to? Obviously yes. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet#Vulnerabilities [2]: https://docs.gnunet.org/handbook/gnunet.html#Confidentiality

>>57668 cont > GNUnet has link-level encryption[2] which should mostly mitigate that (whereas the encrypted payload blocks are always visibly the same from outside in Freenet iirc), but that in turn depends on the quality of its anonymization code to not fall apart. I left unsaid that it would also depend on the encryption itself not being broken. Which obviously it does depend on that.