Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Tue Nov 25 20:50:56 2008 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on merlot.usc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (bourbon.usc.edu [128.125.9.75]) by merlot.usc.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mAQ4ousX019633 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:50:56 -0800 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bourbon.usc.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mAQ4nisp016531 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:49:44 -0800 Message-Id: <200811260449.mAQ4nisp016531@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: Get Flood Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:49:44 -0800 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > In the specs, you have mentioned > > "Before you flood a GET message, you should use the FileID to determine if > the current node has the file.* If it does, you should not flood a GET > message*. In this case, if the existing file is in the cache space, its > status should be changed so that it is *"moved"* to the permanent space (you > should also do whatever adjustments that are necessary). " > > Isn't this a contradiction to what you mentioned ? Hmm... I don't see any contradiction. Could you elaborate? -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Bill Cheng wrote: > Someone wrote: > > > Can you explain what does plausible deniability mean? > > One important feature of the SERVANT network is that it > provides anonymity. It's not just about you cannot know > who initiate a STORE or who initiated a GET. You have > anonymity for all messages (except the ones that where > put in to allow grading). > > All messages are either flooded or forwarded. So, a node > can deny that it's the recipient of a message and claim > that it's only forwarding a message. Similarly, a node > can deny that it's the origin of a message and claim that > it's only forwarding a message. This way, unless the > authority can record most of the traffic in the SERVANT > network, it would be difficult for the authority to figure > out exactly who initiated a message and who was the intended > recipient of the message. > -- > Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu > > > > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Bill Cheng > wrote: > > Someone wrote: > > > > > When get message is flooded, suppose a node gets the message and > > > identifies the fileid and sha1 as being the ones that belong to a > file > > > it has, then should it send the get response and not flood the > request > > > or should it still flood the request message. > > > > It should continue to flood the GET request for the reason > > of plausible deniability. > > -- > > Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu http://merlot.usc.edu/william/usc/>