|
|
HP researchers create browser-based darknet
Author: Gareth HalfacreePublished: 28th July 2009
The browser-based darknet system - dubbed Veiled - has been developed by HP security researchers Billy Hoffman and Matt Wood.
The so-called 'darknet' – a private network for file sharing and communication – is the brainchild of Hewlett-Packard security researchers Billy Hoffman and Matt Wood, according to eWeek.
Unlike existing darknet systems – such as the Freenet – Hoffman and Wood's creation, dubbed 'Veiled' requires no technical knowledge for participation, and neither does it require the installation of a client. Instead, the darknet relies on advances in browser technology to participate in the network – meaning that anyone with an HTML 5-capable browser can make use of the encrypted, anonymous network.
Coupled with the 'private browsing' functionality that is present in modern browsers – including Mozilla's Firefox and Microsoft's Internet Explorer 8 – the system would allow for use with zero footprint on the host PC, meaning that there would be no evidence that the darknet has ever been used.
Files being shared across the system – which could even be accessible from smartphone devices, so long as the browser is up to the task – are fragmented and stored across multiple members of the darknet, and are encrypted to provide a layer of protection against snooping. The system even supports the hosting of entire websites, with fully operational hyperlinks to other documents hosted on the system.
The main aim for the project – aside from lowering the barriers to entry for darknet use – is to allow easy anonymous file distribution and storage. Wood claims that the system will allow a user to “join the darknet, upload the file and then close his browser and never be associated with that file again.”
While Veiled clearly has a number of uses that will make the RIAA et al squirm, Hoffman and Wood believe that it serves a legitimate purpose too: human rights organisations and government whistleblowers who need to get some form of secret document out there without compromising themselves could easily make use of the system without putting themselves at risk.
The pair are expected to give a talk on Veiled on the 29th of July at the Black Hat conference in Las Vegas.
Does the idea of a truly anonymous browser-based darknet fill you with joy, or are you concerned about the uses criminal types could find for the technology? Share your thoughts over in the forums.
Related
Comments (21)- Site Links:
- About
- Email Editor
- Newsletter
- Privacy
- RSS
- Score Guide
- Our Other Websites:
- Auto Express
- Channel Pro
- Computer Buyer
- Computer Shopper
- Den of Geek
All content © bit-tech.net 2000-2010
© Copyright Dennis Publishing Limited licensed by Felden
Peer sharing will never be defeated, set sail fellow "Sharers!"
Or, perhaps some albums and films will be downloaded to a computer in someone's bedroom. Just maybe people will still occasionally turn off the screen, leave the house and pay to see bands and films they like and have real experiences with other people.
And likely fail.
Oh but the RIAA will succeed in bringing down this new tech due to Elton John needing a bigger mansion.
All the negative uses people describe happen already anyway.
Its not hard to share stuff with other people in a secure way.
This just makes it easier.
Its not like banning this tech will stop the kiddie-fiddlers in their tracks.
That's like saying banning violent games will stop kids doing school-shootings etc.
Here is my answer from Tennyson...
Come, my friends,
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
Yours in Cryptic Plasma,
Star*Dagger
I'm hoping this will bring change to some of the more oppressive governments, cut the kind of corruption we have seen (UK MP Expenses scandal, China/North Korea censorship/corruption, to name a few) around the world. If this could bring about some transparency in the governments and institutions, perhaps we will see that some governments will once again work for the interests of the whole and not the select few.
Granted if people want to share media or use it for bad things, there will always be a way to do it, perhaps this tech is more than that.
The legitimate uses of something will always be accompanied by the illegal uses, but the legitimate uses will always vastly outweigh them. Think of it this way, Karl Friedrich Benz didn't fret and worry that "Auchtung, the horseless carriage will only be used to get away from police and carry children over state lines!" (I totally just heard that in Jeremy Clarkson's voice, by the way. :D)
But yes. Even if 98% of the use of this system would be for music, movies, and porn; and only 1% for humanitarian uses like Chinese/Iranian dissidants -- then I can live with the inevitable 1% of child porn ****ups. (That get themselves arrested for it, hopefully.)
Are you sure people won't just hide behind their computers downloading p0rn and movies?
What if the privacy revolution from HP were to breed discontent in the populace due to information freedom and anonymity?
I don't think governments will allow their citizens too much freedom somehow ...
What's the bet, however, this will be a pay service?
I think people will definately use this tech in ways that it was not originally intended (newsgroups, p2p), such as hiding behind their computers to look at people fornicating (preferably with consenting adults), which is something we are very good at and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Though I do not quite understand your second question, how do you breed discontent by increasing information freedom? I can only see discontent in the bureacracy. I believe transparency will stop people in authority hiding behind form xyz and zxy and procedures, then are held more accountable for the decisions they make for the people they are serving. I imagine that if more people could see the intellegence documents about the weapons of mass distruction will probably have found holes and questioned this. Perhaps that war could of been avoided. Maybe you can give an example? So far I have only seen examples of discontent because of the lack of freedom of information.
To your comments about governments not "allowing" too much freedom, in most European countries you are allowed to have a voice, by voice I mean you are free to vote, free to petition your politicians and make a lot of noise with demonstrations. It is only when you do nothing, you let other people decide for you. Remember, governments are formed by the people (you and me) in the physical boundaries and in most countries you do have a say.
I think the only way forward is when we know something is not quite right and find ways to correct it, it is difficult to move on when we stay ignorant of facts.
No, it was always going to happen.