Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Privacy Encryption Security The Internet Your Rights Online

Anonymous Network I2P 0.7.2 Released 231

Mathiasdm writes "The Invisible Internet Project, also known as I2P, has seen its 0.7.2 release (download). I2P uses multiple encryption layers, and routing through several other computers to hide both sender and receiver of messages. On top of the network, regular services such as mail, browsing, file sharing and chatting are supported. This release (and all of the releases since 0.7) is at the start of a new development period, in which the I2P developers wish to spread the word about the secure network. This new release includes performance improvements, a first edition of an experimental new desktop interface and security improvements (by limiting the number of tunnels a single peer can participate in)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous Network I2P 0.7.2 Released

Comments Filter:
  • by c0d3g33k ( 102699 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @06:08PM (#27639883)

    The question should be how slow is it compared to the speed experienced after the ISP shuts you off (or the authorities confiscate computing equipment) due to an accusation of illegal activity by the *IAA. The performance hit may seem painfully slow until compared to the slowness of 0 bps. In fact, such a system IMHO should have an easy to use toggle (desktop widget, browser plugin) so that "normal browsing" goes through the usual channels and only the limited periods of "private browsing" are experienced with full protection on. Blend in with the crowd by default and leave the security for when you really need it.

  • by tpwch ( 748980 ) <> on Sunday April 19, 2009 @06:11PM (#27639899) Homepage

    Maybe it is slow, but currently that is the price for anonymity. If you don't think waiting a few seconds here and there is worth it for being anonymous then don't use services like this. There are plenty of people who think anonymity is worth a lot more than that. If you only want to be anonymous if its convenient and without negative side effects then you are probably not one of the ones who need to be anonymous.

  • by CarpetShark ( 865376 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @06:17PM (#27639945)

    I find "I2P" quite recognisable as a "trademark", and more importantly, quite googleable, since it doesn't share namespace with myriad corporate TLAs. Works for me.

  • by MrMista_B ( 891430 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @06:20PM (#27639967)

    Yeah, I know how this is gonna be received:

    "Shit, the people of our country might be able to share free and uncensored speech and information among themselves.

    Wait, I know how to fix this! Headlines! "OMG Secret Pedophile and Terrorist Network" - anyone who wants to be anonymous on the internet /must/ be a pedohile or a terrorist. If you have no pedophilia or terrorism plots to hide, you have nothing to hide!"

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @06:26PM (#27640027)

    By that logic, any encrypted traffic instantly becomes "interesting".

    Instead I'd recommend encrypting as much as possible. The more noise, the better.

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @06:28PM (#27640037)


    With data retention becoming reality in Europe, it's only a small step until employers become interested in the data. Why did my employees gather information about certain diseases? Why are they looking at job pages? Why are they looking at my competitor's page or even exchange information with him?

    As soon as data is gathered, its abuse is not far behind.

  • by c0d3g33k ( 102699 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @06:29PM (#27640043)

    Indeed. All viable options. Until you want to connect to a personal service (email, webserver, bank, TPB etc.) on an open and untrusted network. Then your anonymity can be compromised by any enterprising kiddie monitoring the network. It's not about being anonymous via connecting from a network other than the home account, it's about being anonymous by going into stealth-mode so it's hard to determine who you are and what you are up to regardless of where you are connecting from.

  • by gringofrijolero ( 1489395 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @06:57PM (#27640199) Journal

    Any attempt at obfuscation will draw the attention of interested parties. A change from "normal" to "private" will be noticeable. Blending in means acting normal, not suddenly pulling a ski mask over your face when you're about to pull a heist.

  • by Nursie ( 632944 ) on Sunday April 19, 2009 @08:15PM (#27640657)

    There is, unfortunately, a nugget of truth in there somewhere.

    None of these sorts of things, AFAICT, let you monitor what's going through your node. And that's important to me. Whilst I support free speech and the rights of people to communicate without government interference, I'm damned if my resources are going to be used to propagate child pr0n.

  • No HTTPS support (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thasmudyan ( 460603 ) <thasmudyan@openfu.cAUDENom minus poet> on Sunday April 19, 2009 @08:16PM (#27640663)

    From their FAQ:

    Within I2P, there is no need for HTTPS, as all traffic is encrypted end-to-end.

    Sorry, I had to laugh a bit there. That's VERY naive. In anonymizing networks, HTTPS is the only thing that protects you from possibly corrupt exit nodes by encrypting the traffic between your browser and the destination webserver. To claim I2P doesn't need HTTPS support is misleading or at least ill-phrased.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20, 2009 @12:01AM (#27641803)

    Comparing I2P, Tor, and Gnunet/Freenet (so not exactly what you're asking), in order of most to least specialized:

    Gnunet and Freenet are high-latency networks set up to share files redundantly and anonymously.

    Tor is a low-latency network, which works by creating encrypted tunnels through a series of servers to proxy your internet connection anonymously. Also, there exist "hidden servers" on Tor which can only be accessed from the Tor network. They allow servers to be anonymous too. Tor can't run BitTorrent efficiently, as all connections are proxied to the normal internet, don't allow incoming connections from the normal internet, and using Tor's circuit-switched network for the many connections needed to file-share is horribly inefficient. Tor is really built for the client/server model of traditional internet browsing/hosting.

    I2P is a more generic low-latency anonymous network. Its nodes can talk to each other anonymously, and it allows other specialized applications to run over it. There is a set of applications for it to make it function similar to Tor and proxy your internet. BitTorrent can also be run on it efficiently to share between I2P users.

    Closer comparisons between I2P and Tor:
    Tor builds circuits between servers which hold whole connections. I2P packet-switches allowing each packet to find an efficient path (its own circuit in Tor-speak). So I'd guess that I2P would be quicker than Tor in many cases, by utilizing more paths efficiently.

    Personally, I'm more confident in Tor's anonymity and network, and would use where anonymity was the #1 priority. Tor is tried-and-true, was originally researched by the US Navy, and has ties with the EFF, while I2P is "still a work in progress, and should only be used for testing or development purposes prior to the 1.0 release".

  • Re:I2P vs TOR (Score:4, Insightful)

    by paganizer ( 566360 ) <[thegrove1] [at] []> on Monday April 20, 2009 @02:59AM (#27642457) Homepage Journal

    Both TOR and I2P have hidden networks only accessible if you are using the client. Interestingly, they both also have Freenet 0.5 gateways.
    When it looked like Freenet 0.5 was going to die (which it's not, people are going back to it from 0.7 in droves), I did quite a bit of testing on both TOR & I2P; I2P is MUCH more anonymous than TOR, in default configuration.

  • Re:First post? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mathiasdm ( 803983 ) on Monday April 20, 2009 @03:18AM (#27642527) Homepage
    Unlike with Tor, each user is a router (especially true for high-bandwidth users). Obviously people are not a router to the regular net (as that could get people in trouble), but all users route data through the I2P network itself.
    In other words, if you want high-bandwidth bittorrenting, it helps a lot to contribute bandwidth yourself (makes you well-integrated). This keeps leechers to a slightly lower level.
    Secondly, as torrents consume a lot of bandwidth, they also provide cover traffic for other people who might not more anonymity.
  • by Znork ( 31774 ) on Monday April 20, 2009 @04:56AM (#27642971)

    Even better, don't only encrypt things you want encrypted. Add encrypted true random data to any mails you send, to web pages, etc. As the encrypted random data will be largely indistinguishable from actual content but impossible to decrypt it'll clog any listeners decryption capabilities, forcing them to either white list you or be stuck with a huge pile of largely undecipherable junk which may or may not contain something they might want to attempt to decrypt.

    The desire of our dear leaders to expand surveillance to everyone everywhere and take the authoritarian road is, perhaps, unstoppable, but fortunately it also creates a huge funnel collecting sand for the machinery.

  • by MartinSchou ( 1360093 ) on Monday April 20, 2009 @07:52AM (#27643775)

    I'm damned if my resources are going to be used to propagate child pr0n.

    You do realise that your taxes are being used to build and maintain roads? How do you think these people manage to get children, rapists and recording equipment together in the same location? At some point a car is very very likely to be involved.

  • by MartinSchou ( 1360093 ) on Monday April 20, 2009 @09:20AM (#27644539)

    So what you're saying is that the people who do road works are taking an active role in child pornography because they helped build the roads? Or that Al Gore is responsible for the child pornography being spread via the internet? He had an active role in having the thing built (by varying degrees of 'built').

    Just because something can be abused for bad things, doesn't mean everyone involved in its creation are responsible for those bad things.

You will never amount to much. -- Munich Schoolmaster, to Albert Einstein, age 10