From arachnid at notdot.net Mon Jan 5 07:04:10 2004 From: arachnid at notdot.net (Nick Johnson) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] Distributed censorship-resistant network proposal Message-ID: <3FF90C6A.70201@notdot.net> I realise this isn't peer-to-peer in the conventional sense, but given the nature of this idea, I'm hoping people in the list can contribute some ideas & opinions on it. This is not a complete proposal, but rather a work in progress. Many areas are undefined, and suggestions are appreciated. Summary: A design for a high reliability censor-resistant network, capable of providing high reliability retrieval of data, with censor-resistance, plausable deniability for server operators, easy access, and publisher anonymity as priorities. The same properties which confer censorship resistance should also be capable of providing high availability to resist factors such as the 'slashdot effect'. Design goals: 1) Censor resistant. The network must be able to withstand concerted attempts to remove data from the network, while continuing to provide it 2) Plausable deniability for server operators. Operators of the servers on this network must have the greatest degree of plausable deniability possible - it should not be obvious what data a server is storing. 3) Publisher Anonymity. To the greatest extent possible, the publisher of data to the network must be anonymous. This does not preclude the use of further anonymysing services where they are more suited, however. 4) Easy access. Many current censor-resistant networks are less useful than they might be because they require custom software to be downloaded and installed before the content on the network can even be viewed. This proposal aims to avoid that by using entirely standard protocols for the client end. 5) Data integrity verification. Servers (and clients, if they desire) must be able to verify the integrity of returned files. Proposal: ---------- Overview: The network consists of two main layers. Firstly, a redundant set of DNS servers provide round-robin name resolution of the domain name for the network for the second layer. The second layer consists of web servers which accept connections for that domain name, and provide appropriate responses to requests for data from the network. The network is designed to provide small files, in the region of <100kilobytes. Initial support should include at least text and hypertext formats, this could be extended to include other small content types such as XML, small images, etc. DNS Servers: Multiple redundant DNS servers provide round-robin name resolution for the servers on the HTTP layer. Servers are polled regularaly for availability. As an extension, servers should be able to provide weighting values to the DNS servers to indicate how often they want to appear in the round-robin. If this is implemented, code to detect a situation where total load exceeds the ideal load for all servers would be required. DNS servers should regularaly exchange information regarding which servers are available and what weighting values they have reported back. Adding or removing a server to or from the round-robin would require human intervention. This should prevent malicious servers automatically adding themselves just to poison the network, and provide some degree of (limited) trust. Web servers: Web servers form the upper, content-carrying layer of the network. Each server is configured to respond to requests for the domain the network uses. Ideally, the whole system should be able to be implemented through server-side scripting in a language such as PHP, or at the least through CGI without modifications to the web server itself. Architecture: From the user's perspective, data is structured into a two-level heirachy. All retrievable files are identified by a domain, which consists of a hexadecimal string (more later), and a key, which is a human readable text string. A domain corresponds to a public/private keypair. Any user who wishes to publish to the network can generate such a pair, and upload the public key to the network. The one-way hash of the public key (or a shortened version) then becomes the name of the domain. All files to be published to the domain must have a unique key name, and the data, including the key name and date of publication must be signed using the private key of the keypair, so it can be verified to be authored by the owner of that domain. Extended options could include setting a flag that prohibits modifying the file once published, so the data cannot be removed even if the user is coerced. If desired, the private key can be published to the domain, allowing anyone to change its contents in a wiki-like fashion. Server datastore: The structure of the datastore is important in preserving a number of properties of the network. In order for some level of plausable deniability to be maintained, all files should be encrypted with the hash of the full path (domain and key) of the file as the key, and stored with the filename or database primary key being the second hash of the full path. In this way, it is not possible to read data in the datastore, or identify what it is, without already knowing the full path of the data. As server operators cannot be expected to keep track of all possible domains and keys, this should provide some degree of legal protection and (ideally) common carrier status. To prevent easily identifying the same data by the same filename or database key, the hashes could be salted with a server-specific string to ensure the names are different on each server for the same data. This does not prevent server operators from being ordered to remove the file corresponding to a particular key, however - suggestions on how to do this are welcome. Requests: This is the part where the most significant and difficult aspects of p2p networking come in, and where suggestions are most needed. When a request is recieved for a particular domain and key, the server will first attempt to satisfy the request from its internal datastore. If successful, the request is dealt with trivially, and no interaction with other servers may be required. However, if the data is not found locally, or the local data has expired, the server needs to attempt to retrieve the data from one of its peer servers. How to select which server(s) to try, and how to know when the data simply does not exist on the network (or when to give up looking), are major issues. Suggestions on how to approach these are most welcome. A couple of simplistic approaches come to mind: 1) Simply randomly try servers until a result is found, possibly using the same mechanism clients use to request data. However, if some way is provided to request a file from a server without it also recursing, then it is possible to identify which servers have a file without triggering them to fetch it, a potential liability issue. Possibly a variable could be passed to the server indicating the desired probability of it recursing another level, within reasonable bounds. 2) Having servers exchange indexes of the hashes of the files they currently have. If lists are kept in sync and up-to-date, a server can immediately tell if a file is on the network, and where it should attempt to get it from. However, this causes the same problem outlined above, only more so. My thanks for reading through the whole proposal (assuming you did ;)), which turned out significantly longer than I anticipated. I'm hoping that with the aid of people on this list and elsewhere, I can develop this into a design for a robust high availability and censorship-resistant network. Your feedback would be much appreciated. -Nick Johnson From bkn3 at columbia.edu Mon Jan 5 08:30:50 2004 From: bkn3 at columbia.edu (Brad Neuberg) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] Distributed censorship-resistant network proposal In-Reply-To: <3FF90C6A.70201@notdot.net> References: <3FF90C6A.70201@notdot.net> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20040105002500.01ce3170@pop.mail.yahoo.com> Check out distributed hash tables (DHTs) for how to organize your network of storage nodes; different designs exist for how to organize DHTs, but in general they provide an effective and efficient way to route requests in a peer network. They can suffer from latency issues if care is not taken, however. If combined with simple replication, they are relatively good at dealing with benign node loss. Protecting against malicious nodes in a DHT in an efficient way is still an open issue, however. Brad Neuberg At 11:04 PM 1/4/2004, you wrote: >I realise this isn't peer-to-peer in the conventional sense, but given the >nature of this idea, I'm hoping people in the list can contribute some >ideas & opinions on it. > >This is not a complete proposal, but rather a work in progress. Many areas >are undefined, and suggestions are appreciated. > >Summary: A design for a high reliability censor-resistant network, capable >of providing high reliability retrieval of data, with censor-resistance, >plausable deniability for server operators, easy access, and publisher >anonymity as priorities. The same properties which confer censorship >resistance should also be capable of providing high availability to resist >factors such as the 'slashdot effect'. > >Design goals: >1) Censor resistant. The network must be able to withstand concerted >attempts to remove data from the network, while continuing to provide it >2) Plausable deniability for server operators. Operators of the servers on >this network must have the greatest degree of plausable deniability >possible - it should not be obvious what data a server is storing. >3) Publisher Anonymity. To the greatest extent possible, the publisher of >data to the network must be anonymous. This does not preclude the use of >further anonymysing services where they are more suited, however. >4) Easy access. Many current censor-resistant networks are less useful >than they might be because they require custom software to be downloaded >and installed before the content on the network can even be viewed. This >proposal aims to avoid that by using entirely standard protocols for the >client end. >5) Data integrity verification. Servers (and clients, if they desire) must >be able to verify the integrity of returned files. > >Proposal: >---------- >Overview: >The network consists of two main layers. Firstly, a redundant set of DNS >servers provide round-robin name resolution of the domain name for the >network for the second layer. The second layer consists of web servers >which accept connections for that domain name, and provide appropriate >responses to requests for data from the network. >The network is designed to provide small files, in the region of ><100kilobytes. Initial support should include at least text and hypertext >formats, this could be extended to include other small content types such >as XML, small images, etc. > >DNS Servers: >Multiple redundant DNS servers provide round-robin name resolution for the >servers on the HTTP layer. Servers are polled regularaly for availability. >As an extension, servers should be able to provide weighting values to the >DNS servers to indicate how often they want to appear in the round-robin. >If this is implemented, code to detect a situation where total load >exceeds the ideal load for all servers would be required. DNS servers >should regularaly exchange information regarding which servers are >available and what weighting values they have reported back. >Adding or removing a server to or from the round-robin would require human >intervention. This should prevent malicious servers automatically adding >themselves just to poison the network, and provide some degree of >(limited) trust. > >Web servers: >Web servers form the upper, content-carrying layer of the network. Each >server is configured to respond to requests for the domain the network >uses. Ideally, the whole system should be able to be implemented through >server-side scripting in a language such as PHP, or at the least through >CGI without modifications to the web server itself. > >Architecture: > From the user's perspective, data is structured into a two-level > heirachy. All retrievable files are identified by a domain, which > consists of a hexadecimal string (more later), and a key, which is a > human readable text string. >A domain corresponds to a public/private keypair. Any user who wishes to >publish to the network can generate such a pair, and upload the public key >to the network. The one-way hash of the public key (or a shortened >version) then becomes the name of the domain. All files to be published to >the domain must have a unique key name, and the data, including the key >name and date of publication must be signed using the private key of the >keypair, so it can be verified to be authored by the owner of that domain. >Extended options could include setting a flag that prohibits modifying the >file once published, so the data cannot be removed even if the user is >coerced. If desired, the private key can be published to the domain, >allowing anyone to change its contents in a wiki-like fashion. > >Server datastore: >The structure of the datastore is important in preserving a number of >properties of the network. In order for some level of plausable >deniability to be maintained, all files should be encrypted with the hash >of the full path (domain and key) of the file as the key, and stored with >the filename or database primary key being the second hash of the full >path. In this way, it is not possible to read data in the datastore, or >identify what it is, without already knowing the full path of the data. As >server operators cannot be expected to keep track of all possible domains >and keys, this should provide some degree of legal protection and >(ideally) common carrier status. To prevent easily identifying the same >data by the same filename or database key, the hashes could be salted with >a server-specific string to ensure the names are different on each server >for the same data. This does not prevent server operators from being >ordered to remove the file corresponding to a particular key, however - >suggestions on how to do this are welcome. > >Requests: >This is the part where the most significant and difficult aspects of p2p >networking come in, and where suggestions are most needed. When a request >is recieved for a particular domain and key, the server will first attempt >to satisfy the request from its internal datastore. If successful, the >request is dealt with trivially, and no interaction with other servers may >be required. However, if the data is not found locally, or the local data >has expired, the server needs to attempt to retrieve the data from one of >its peer servers. How to select which server(s) to try, and how to know >when the data simply does not exist on the network (or when to give up >looking), are major issues. Suggestions on how to approach these are most >welcome. >A couple of simplistic approaches come to mind: >1) Simply randomly try servers until a result is found, possibly using the >same mechanism clients use to request data. However, if some way is >provided to request a file from a server without it also recursing, then >it is possible to identify which servers have a file without triggering >them to fetch it, a potential liability issue. Possibly a variable could >be passed to the server indicating the desired probability of it recursing >another level, within reasonable bounds. >2) Having servers exchange indexes of the hashes of the files they >currently have. If lists are kept in sync and up-to-date, a server can >immediately tell if a file is on the network, and where it should attempt >to get it from. However, this causes the same problem outlined above, only >more so. > >My thanks for reading through the whole proposal (assuming you did ;)), >which turned out significantly longer than I anticipated. I'm hoping that >with the aid of people on this list and elsewhere, I can develop this into >a design for a robust high availability and censorship-resistant network. >Your feedback would be much appreciated. > >-Nick Johnson >_______________________________________________ >p2p-hackers mailing list >p2p-hackers@zgp.org >http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers >_______________________________________________ >Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences: >http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences From arma at mit.edu Tue Jan 6 09:52:29 2004 From: arma at mit.edu (Roger Dingledine) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] Distributed censorship-resistant network proposal In-Reply-To: <3FF90C6A.70201@notdot.net>; from arachnid@notdot.net on Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 08:04:10PM +1300 References: <3FF90C6A.70201@notdot.net> Message-ID: <20040106045229.H1856@moria.mit.edu> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 08:04:10PM +1300, Nick Johnson wrote: > Summary: A design for a high reliability censor-resistant network, > capable of providing high reliability retrieval of data, with > censor-resistance, What's your threat model? That is, what adversaries do you expect to resist, and what adversaries do you not expect to resist? Consider legal attacks, physical attacks, technical attacks, intimidation, etc. In particular, do you hope to resist a well-funded adversary who doesn't mind breaking laws? The answer to that question will dictate many of your design decisions. > plausable deniability for server operators, easy > access, and publisher anonymity as priorities. The same properties which > confer censorship resistance should also be capable of providing high > availability to resist factors such as the 'slashdot effect'. I wouldn't assume this. Censorship resistance and robustness to widespread blunt attacks are not necessarily equivalent, depending on how you get each. > Design goals: > 1) Censor resistant. The network must be able to withstand concerted > attempts to remove data from the network, while continuing to provide it > 2) Plausable deniability for server operators. Operators of the servers > on this network must have the greatest degree of plausable deniability > possible - it should not be obvious what data a server is storing. This requirement is hard to get along with requirement #4 below. If the users can't know who to ask, and the servers can't know who to ask either, and you want it to be fast, it seems you're pretty much screwed. > 3) Publisher Anonymity. To the greatest extent possible, the publisher > of data to the network must be anonymous. This does not preclude the use > of further anonymysing services where they are more suited, however. > 4) Easy access. Many current censor-resistant networks are less useful > than they might be because they require custom software to be downloaded > and installed before the content on the network can even be viewed. This > proposal aims to avoid that by using entirely standard protocols for the > client end. Many censorship-resistant systems aim for robustness and censorship-resistant and don't try to also solve easy of use. For example, consider assuming that there is an easier-to-use but less-robust network out there. Users query to it, and only if something falls out of that network does it need to be refetched from the more robust one. > that with the aid of people on this list and elsewhere, I can develop > this into a design for a robust high availability and > censorship-resistant network. Your feedback would be much appreciated. You should go read the related work now. In particular, I'd suggest reading each of http://freehaven.net/anonbib/topic.html#Anonymous_20publication and then the interesting cites from the bibliographies of those papers. --Roger From bkn3 at columbia.edu Tue Jan 6 10:03:32 2004 From: bkn3 at columbia.edu (Brad Neuberg) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] Seminal papers in P2P? In-Reply-To: <20040106045229.H1856@moria.mit.edu> References: <3FF90C6A.70201@notdot.net> <20040106045229.H1856@moria.mit.edu> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20040106020151.01dfd4d8@pop.mail.yahoo.com> I'm interested in hearing from the community what scientific papers or opinion pieces they feel are seminal to the P2P community? What papers are important both intellectually and historically in our field? Brad Neuberg bkn3@columbia.edu From arachnid at notdot.net Tue Jan 6 11:49:51 2004 From: arachnid at notdot.net (Nick Johnson) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] Distributed censorship-resistant network proposal In-Reply-To: <20040106045229.H1856@moria.mit.edu> References: <3FF90C6A.70201@notdot.net> <20040106045229.H1856@moria.mit.edu> Message-ID: <3FFAA0DF.6070807@notdot.net> Roger Dingledine wrote: >On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 08:04:10PM +1300, Nick Johnson wrote: > > >>Summary: A design for a high reliability censor-resistant network, >>capable of providing high reliability retrieval of data, with >>censor-resistance, >> >> >What's your threat model? That is, what adversaries do you expect to >resist, and what adversaries do you not expect to resist? Consider legal >attacks, physical attacks, technical attacks, intimidation, etc. > > I should've been more explicit here. Ideally, the network should be able to support legal, physical, or technical attacks taking down a substantial percentage of the nodes in the system. What percentage that is depends on how popular the data is and how long it has been in the network, and thus how many servers it's spread to. The possibility of attacks through compromised or malicious servers is one I haven't had a chance to consider in depth - the same applies to DDoS through insertion of data. Many of the issues that apply to networks such as Freenet probably apply here in those regards. DDoS through requests instead of insertions should be withstood to a reasonable degree through the distributed nature of the network. >In particular, do you hope to resist a well-funded adversary who doesn't >mind breaking laws? The answer to that question will dictate many of >your design decisions. > > That would be the ultimate aim. However, providing some degree of resistance while still providing a very usable system is the priority - current systems such as publishing data on one or a few servers are easily taken down, and my original aim (which I should've stated more clearly) was to try and design a system that retains usability while making it as hard as possible for that adversary to remove the information, either through legal means (hence the plausable deniability aim) or through direct attacks on the network or the physical structure it uses (servers, network links etc). >> plausable deniability for server operators, easy >>access, and publisher anonymity as priorities. The same properties which >>confer censorship resistance should also be capable of providing high >>availability to resist factors such as the 'slashdot effect'. >> >> > >I wouldn't assume this. Censorship resistance and robustness to widespread >blunt attacks are not necessarily equivalent, depending on how you >get each. > > > This was not so much assumed as inferred from the proposed network structure. The way the network would be organised, with multiple DNS servers offering round-robin resolution to multiple web servers, should provide both aims to a reasonable degree. Exactly what degree remains to be seen or worked out. >>2) Plausable deniability for server operators. Operators of the servers >>on this network must have the greatest degree of plausable deniability >>possible - it should not be obvious what data a server is storing. >> >> > >This requirement is hard to get along with requirement #4 below. If the >users can't know who to ask, and the servers can't know who to ask either, >and you want it to be fast, it seems you're pretty much screwed. > > > To clarify, I intended the plausable deniability to be mostly a server repository based feature. If data is stored encrypted with a hash of the key used to retrieve the data, and with a filename being another hash of that key, server operators cannot be reasonably expected to know what their server hosts without substantial effort. This could be a policy decision for each server host, however. >> >>4) Easy access. Many current censor-resistant networks are less useful >>than they might be because they require custom software to be downloaded >>and installed before the content on the network can even be viewed. This >>proposal aims to avoid that by using entirely standard protocols for the >>client end. >> >> > >Many censorship-resistant systems aim for robustness and >censorship-resistant and don't try to also solve easy of use. For example, >consider assuming that there is an easier-to-use but less-robust network >out there. Users query to it, and only if something falls out of that >network does it need to be refetched from the more robust one. > > > Usability was a priority for me because I believe it's something that's missing from many systems today. For example, Freenet admirably fulfills many of the goals of this system - far better than my proposal, in many areas, but at the cost of speed and ease of use. This design was more aimed at creating a system that is 'good enough', rather than being as perfectly secure and anonymous as human ingenuity can make it. As you point out, the network could always retrieve data from a lower level, more robust one one if needed. >You should go read the related work >now. In particular, I'd suggest reading each of >http://freehaven.net/anonbib/topic.html#Anonymous_20publication and then >the interesting cites from the bibliographies of those papers. > > Thanks for the reading material. -Nick From dm at cs.uml.edu Wed Jan 7 18:41:43 2004 From: dm at cs.uml.edu (David Martin) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] CFP: PET 2004 -- Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies Message-ID: <3FFC52E7.5040608@cs.uml.edu> Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies Toronto, Canada 26 - 28 May 2004 C A L L F O R P A P E R S Paper submission deadline: 26 January 2004 Notification of acceptance: 5 April 2004 Camera-ready copy for preproceedings: 3 May 2004 Camera-ready copy for proceedings: 28 June 2004 http://petworkshop.org/ Privacy and anonymity are increasingly important in the online world. Corporations and governments are starting to realize their power to track users and their behavior, and restrict the ability to publish or retrieve documents. Approaches to protecting individuals, groups, and even companies and governments from such profiling and censorship have included decentralization, encryption, and distributed trust. Building on the success of the previous workshops (held in Berkeley in July 2000, San Francisco in April 2002, and Dresden in March 2003), this workshop addresses the design and realization of such privacy and anti-censorship services for the Internet and other communication networks. These workshops bring together anonymity and privacy experts from around the world to discuss recent advances and new perspectives. The workshop seeks submissions from academia and industry presenting novel research on all theoretical and practical aspects of privacy technologies, as well as experimental studies of fielded systems. We encourage submissions from other communities such as law and business that present their perspectives on technological issues. As in past years, we will publish proceedings after the workshop in the Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science series (or similar). This year's workshop immediately follows the 6th Information Hiding Workshop, also hosted at the University of Toronto. Suggested topics include but are not restricted to: * Efficient (technically or economically) realization of privacy services * Techniques for censorship resistance * Anonymous communication systems (theory or practice) * Location privacy * Anonymous publishing systems (theory or practice) * Attacks on anonymity systems (e.g., traffic analysis) * New concepts in anonymity systems * Protocols that preserve anonymity/privacy * Models for anonymity and unobservability * Models for threats to privacy * Novel relations of payment mechanisms and anonymity * Privacy-preserving/protecting access control * Privacy-enhanced data authentication/certification * Profiling, data mining, and data protection technologies * Reliability, robustness, and attack resistance in privacy systems * Providing/funding privacy infrastructures (e.g., volunteer versus business) * Pseudonyms, identity, linkability, and reputation * Privacy and anonymity in peer-to-peer architectures * Usability issues and user interfaces for PETs * Policy, law, and human rights -- anonymous systems in practice * Incentive-compatible solutions to privacy protection * Economics of privacy systems * Fielded systems and techniques for enhancing privacy in existing systems General Chair: Richard Owens (richard.owens@utoronto.ca), University of Toronto, CA Program Chairs: David Martin (dm@cs.uml.edu), University of Massachusetts at Lowell, USA Andrei Serjantov (Andrei.Serjantov@cl.cam.ac.uk), University of Cambridge, UK Program Committee: Alessandro Acquisti, Heinz School, Carnegie Mellon University, USA Caspar Bowden, Microsoft EMEA, England Jean Camp, Kennedy School, Harvard University, USA Richard Clayton, University of Cambridge, England Lorrie Cranor, Carnegie Mellon University, USA George Danezis, University of Cambridge, England Roger Dingledine, The Free Haven Project, USA Hannes Federrath, Universit?t Regensburg, Germany Ian Goldberg, Zero Knowledge Systems, Canada Philippe Golle, Stanford University, USA Marit Hansen, Independent Centre for Privacy Protection Schleswig-Holstein, Germany Markus Jakobsson, RSA Laboratories, USA Dogan Kesdogan, Rheinisch-Westf?lische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Germany Brian Levine, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, USA David Martin, University of Massachusetts at Lowell, USA (program co-chair) Andreas Pfitzmann, Dresden University of Technology, Germany Matthias Schunter, IBM Zurich Research Lab, Switzerland Andrei Serjantov, University of Cambridge, England (program co-chair) Adam Shostack, Informed Security Inc., Canada Paul Syverson, Naval Research Lab, USA Submitted papers must not substantially overlap with papers that have been published or that are simultaneously submitted to a journal or a conference with proceedings. Papers should be at most 15 pages excluding the bibliography and well-marked appendices (using 11-point font and reasonable margins), and at most 20 pages total. Submission of shorter papers (from around 4 pages) is strongly encouraged whenever appropriate. Please check the final Call For Papers on the Workshop's Web site (http://petworkshop.org/) for other formatting requirements and up-to-date information. Committee members are not required to read the appendices and the paper should be intelligible without them. The paper should start with the title, names of authors and an abstract. The introduction should give some background and summarize the contributions of the paper at a level appropriate for a non-specialist reader. During the workshop preproceedings will be made available. Final versions are not due until after the workshop, giving the authors the opportunity to revise their papers based on discussions during the meeting. Submissions can be made in Postscript or PDF format. To submit a paper, send a plain ASCII text email to the program chairs (pet2004-submissions@petworkshop.org) containing the title and abstract of the paper, the authors' names, email and postal addresses, phone and fax numbers, and identification of the contact author. To the same message, attach your submission (as a MIME attachment). Papers must be received by 26 January 2004. If you do not receive a confirmation within a day or two, your submission was not received. Notification of acceptance or rejection will be sent to authors no later than 5 April 2004 and authors will have the opportunity to revise for the preproceedings version by May 3, 2004. Submission implies that, if accepted, the author(s) agree to publish in the proceedings and to sign a standard copyright release, and also that an author of the paper will present it at the workshop. We also invite proposals of up to 2 pages for panel discussions or other relevant presentations. In your proposal, (1) describe the nature of the presentation and why it is appropriate to the workshop, (2) suggest a duration for the presentation (ideally between 45 and 90 minutes), (3) give brief descriptions of the presenters, and (4) indicate which presenters have confirmed their availability for the presentation if it is scheduled. The program committee will consider presentation proposals along with other workshop events, and will respond by the paper decision date with individual reviewer comments and an indication of its interest in scheduling the event. The proceedings will contain abstracts of the presentations that take place at the workshop. From sam at neurogrid.com Thu Jan 8 05:26:09 2004 From: sam at neurogrid.com (Sam Joseph) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] Peer-to-Peer Journal (P2PJ) CFP In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20031203005658.00a011e0@pop.home.se> References: <5.0.2.1.1.20031203005658.00a011e0@pop.home.se> Message-ID: <3FFCE9F1.7060708@neurogrid.com> Hi David, I got a response from the P2PJ Editor after I forwarded your comments on to him (see below). Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. Ray's thoughts on this are not necessarily my own - feel free to email him directly on the matter. CHEERS> SAM --------------------------------------------------------- Regarding David's concern about P2PJ retaining copyright to articles, there is a very good reason. That is to encourage innovation instead of plagiarism, either other people's work or one's own. I have seen situations where one person publishes an identical article in multiple journals or magazines, word by word. That is not the right approach. Although that author may get credit for numbers, such an attitude does not constitute earnest work. I see P2PJ as a venue for people to express their creativity and publish their work results instead of a vehicle to build numbers for them. Normally, when an article gets published, the author can request citation of his/her article. Citing one's article is different from copying and pasting the entire article. Have you ever heard songs that feel so much alike that generate no enthusiasm? Do you feel inspired by that kind of composer? I hope that explains my way of thinking. Regards, -Ray --------------------------------------------------------- David G?thberg wrote: > >> CALL FOR PAPERS >> Peer-to-Peer Journal >> (http://p2pjournal.com) >> The Peer-to-Peer Journal (P2PJ) is a bi-monthly journal that serves >> as a forum to individuals and companies interested in applying, >> developing, educating, & advertising in the fields of Peer-to-Peer >> (P2P) and >> parallel computing. The P2P Journal is currently accepting >> submissions of articles, whitepapers, product reviews, discussions, >> and letters or short communications. > > >Sam Joseph, Editor > > Hey Sam. > I checked out your "writer's guidelines" and was somewhat shocked. > You state that after accepting submission of a paper to your journal, > the journal (that is Raymond F. Gao, Editor-in-Chief) gets the copyright > of the submitted text. > > That's pretty silly especially since you don't even pay for the work > and expect people to write about their inventions and research. > > When my mother hired an artist to do the pictures to her children's > books we used a much better way: We signed a contract stating a "split" > or "shared" copyright. That is, both the artist and my mother can do > what they want with the pictures. Thus both parties can reprint them, > sell them and use them in any way they see fit and booth are happy! > > I suggest you should do the same, or people like me will never bother > to write for your journal. Among other things, your "rule" makes it > impossible to send you texts that one has already published in other > places and your rule makes it impossible to reuse that material as > one sees fit. If I write about my inventions I of course want to be > able to reuse any text I write about them. But writing for you is > a one time thing and thus not worth the effort. > > And don't just say: "This is how it is normally done." Just because > it's common to do like that it doesn't make it right. > > But I do like the thought of a p2p journal! > > > Greetings from freezing Gothenburg, Sweden, Northern Europe, > > .../David > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > David G?thberg Email: david@pjort.com > http://www.david.pjort.com > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > p2p-hackers@zgp.org > http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > _______________________________________________ > Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences: > http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences > > From sam at neurogrid.com Thu Jan 8 05:27:43 2004 From: sam at neurogrid.com (Sam Joseph) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] New P2P Journal issue for January Message-ID: <3FFCEA4F.3030007@neurogrid.com> Hi All, Just in case you didn't see it already. http://p2pjournal.com/main/current_issue.htm CHEERS> SAM From arma at mit.edu Thu Jan 8 07:34:22 2004 From: arma at mit.edu (Roger Dingledine) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] CfP: Second Workshop on the Economics of Peer-to-Peer Systems Message-ID: <20040108023422.U3151@moria.mit.edu> [please forward widely -RD] Second Workshop on Economics of Peer-to-Peer Systems Harvard University, Cambridge, MA June 4-5, 2004 http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/p2pecon From file-sharing to distributed computation, from application layer overlays to mobile ad hoc networking, the ultimate success of a peer-to-peer system rests on the twin pillars of scalable and robust system design and alignment of economic interests among the participating peers. Following the success of the first workshop, the Second Workshop on Economics of Peer-to-Peer Systems will again bring together researchers and practitioners from multiple disciplines to discuss the economic characteristics of P2P systems, application of economic theories to P2P system design, and future directions and challenges in this area. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: - incentives and disincentives for cooperation - distributed algorithmic mechanism design - reputation and trust - reliability, identity, and attack resistance - network externalities and scale economies - public goods and club formation - accounting and settlement mechanisms - payment and currency systems - user behavior and system performance - measurement studies - leveraging heterogeneity without compromising anonymity - economic impact to network providers - interconnection of P2P networks The program of the workshop will be a combination of invited talks, paper presentations, and discussion. Workshop attendance will be limited to ensure a productive environment. Each potential participant should submit a position paper that expresses a novel or interesting problem, offers a specific solution, reports on actual experience, or advances a research agenda. Participants will be invited based on the originality, technical merit and topical relevance of their submissions, as well as the likelihood that the ideas expressed in their submissions will lead to insightful discussions at the workshop. Accepted papers will be published on the workshop website. Submission guidelines: Submissions of position papers are due April 1, 2004, and should not exceed 5 pages (excluding references and appendices). Two column papers are acceptable, but the font size should be no smaller than 10pt. Papers must be submitted electronically, preferably in PDF format, to . Important Dates : Submission due: April 1 Notification of acceptance: April 30 Revised version due: May 22 Workshop: June 4-5 Program Committee: Matthew Jackson, CalTech (co-chair) David Parkes, Harvard University (co-chair) Lawrence Ausubel, University of Maryland Sandeep Baliga, Northwestern University Estelle Cantillon, Harvard University John Chuang, UC Berkeley Costas Courcoubetis, Athens University of Economics and Business Peter Cramton, University of Maryland Roger Dingledine, The Free Haven Project John Douceur, Microsoft Research Eric Friedman, Cornell University Ramayya Krishnan, CMU John Ledyard, CalTech Paul Milgrom, Stanford University Brian Noble, University of Michigan Mema Roussopoulos, Harvard University Emin Gun Sirer, Cornell University Rann Smorodinsky, Technion Ion Stoica, UC Berkeley Rakesh Vohra, Northwestern University Dan Wallach, Rice University William Walsh, IBM Research Michael Wellman, University of Michigan Simon Wilkie, CalTech From dmarti at zgp.org Thu Jan 8 18:11:28 2004 From: dmarti at zgp.org (Don Marti) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] Peer-to-Peer Journal (P2PJ) CFP In-Reply-To: <3FFCE9F1.7060708@neurogrid.com> References: <5.0.2.1.1.20031203005658.00a011e0@pop.home.se> <3FFCE9F1.7060708@neurogrid.com> Message-ID: <20040108181128.GE9087@lycopodium> begin Sam Joseph quotation of Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:26:09PM +0900: > I got a response from the P2PJ Editor after I forwarded your comments on > to him (see below). ...snip... > Regarding David's concern about P2PJ retaining copyright to articles, there > is a very good reason. That is to encourage innovation instead of > plagiarism, either other people's work or one's own. I have seen situations > where one person publishes an identical article in multiple journals or > magazines, word by word. That is not the right approach. Although that > author may get credit for numbers, such an attitude does not constitute > earnest work. ...snip... > -Ray Speaking in my professional capacity as the editor in chief of Linux Journal, that is a load of crap and a rip-off. I work with quite a few authors who have gone on to use material from their Linux Journal articles in their own books, or on their own web sites. This is a good thing. The classic style of contract, which Linux Journal uses, is that the author retains copyright and the publication buys certain rights. There are always debates over what rights the publisher gets, and Linux Journal buys a good-sized package, including the rights to use articles online, on CD compilations, and in translation. But we would never ask the author to give up copyright, and I'm surprised that anyone else would. -- Don Marti Plain text email only, please. Editor in Chief dmarti@linuxjournal.com Linux Journal http://linuxjournal.com/ Linux Journal editorial office: 206-782-9011 From baford at mit.edu Thu Jan 8 21:51:54 2004 From: baford at mit.edu (Bryan Ford) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] New TR available on P2P Internet routing via topology-independent node identities (e.g., PK hashes) Message-ID: <200401081651.54737.baford@mit.edu> Hi folks, I've just released a technical report describing a project I'm currently working on, "Unmanaged Internet Protocol", whose goal is to create an IP-like network routing layer above IP that operates in completely decentralized (P2P) fashion without depending on administratively-assigned hierarchical node identities like IPv4 and IPv6 do. Please note that this paper describes a work in progress; there is still plenty more work to do before the system becomes usable. I wanted to release this preliminary (but I believe quite readable) paper to the P2P community as it is now in order to solicit comments and learn about other related projects that may be underway. The full technical report is available here: Scalable Internet Routing on Topology-Independent Node Identities http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/os/uip.pdf http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/os/uip.ps.gz This paper represents a somewhat more fleshed-out version of the position paper I presented recently at HotNets-II: Unmanaged Internet Protocol: Taming the Edge Network Management Crisis http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/os/uip-case.pdf http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/os/uip-case.ps.gz Thanks for your time! Bryan From wesley at felter.org Fri Jan 9 00:18:53 2004 From: wesley at felter.org (Wes Felter) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] New TR available on P2P Internet routing via topology-independent node identities (e.g., PK hashes) In-Reply-To: <200401081651.54737.baford@mit.edu> References: <200401081651.54737.baford@mit.edu> Message-ID: <682D4A82-4239-11D8-9ACF-000A95BA91EC@felter.org> On Jan 8, 2004, at 3:51 PM, Bryan Ford wrote: > I've just released a technical report describing a project I'm > currently > working on, "Unmanaged Internet Protocol", whose goal is to create an > IP-like > network routing layer above IP that operates in completely > decentralized > (P2P) fashion without depending on administratively-assigned > hierarchical > node identities like IPv4 and IPv6 do. Have you considered carving out part of the IPv6 address space and using it for your node identifiers? This would allow interop with native IPv6 and would allow completely unmodified applications to use UIP. You should compare UIP to Tapestry; it's one of the few DHTs that does provide message forwarding, and it is intended to solve some of the same problems as UIP. Wes Felter - wesley@felter.org - http://felter.org/wesley/ From mindaugas at infosistema.lt Fri Jan 9 07:06:35 2004 From: mindaugas at infosistema.lt (Mindaugas) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] RE: p2p-hackers Digest, Vol 6, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: <20040108200014.0F7B33FD03@capsicum.zgp.org> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: p2p-hackers-bounces@zgp.org [mailto:p2p-hackers-bounces@zgp.org]On Behalf Of p2p-hackers-request@zgp.org Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 9:00 PM To: p2p-hackers@zgp.org Subject: p2p-hackers Digest, Vol 6, Issue 4 Send p2p-hackers mailing list submissions to p2p-hackers@zgp.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to p2p-hackers-request@zgp.org You can reach the person managing the list at p2p-hackers-owner@zgp.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of p2p-hackers digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Peer-to-Peer Journal (P2PJ) CFP (Sam Joseph) 2. New P2P Journal issue for January (Sam Joseph) 3. CfP: Second Workshop on the Economics of Peer-to-Peer Systems (Roger Dingledine) 4. Re: Peer-to-Peer Journal (P2PJ) CFP (Don Marti) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:26:09 +0900 From: Sam Joseph Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] Peer-to-Peer Journal (P2PJ) CFP To: "Peer-to-peer development." Message-ID: <3FFCE9F1.7060708@neurogrid.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hi David, I got a response from the P2PJ Editor after I forwarded your comments on to him (see below). Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. Ray's thoughts on this are not necessarily my own - feel free to email him directly on the matter. CHEERS> SAM --------------------------------------------------------- Regarding David's concern about P2PJ retaining copyright to articles, there is a very good reason. That is to encourage innovation instead of plagiarism, either other people's work or one's own. I have seen situations where one person publishes an identical article in multiple journals or magazines, word by word. That is not the right approach. Although that author may get credit for numbers, such an attitude does not constitute earnest work. I see P2PJ as a venue for people to express their creativity and publish their work results instead of a vehicle to build numbers for them. Normally, when an article gets published, the author can request citation of his/her article. Citing one's article is different from copying and pasting the entire article. Have you ever heard songs that feel so much alike that generate no enthusiasm? Do you feel inspired by that kind of composer? I hope that explains my way of thinking. Regards, -Ray --------------------------------------------------------- David Gvthberg wrote: > >> CALL FOR PAPERS >> Peer-to-Peer Journal >> (http://p2pjournal.com) >> The Peer-to-Peer Journal (P2PJ) is a bi-monthly journal that serves >> as a forum to individuals and companies interested in applying, >> developing, educating, & advertising in the fields of Peer-to-Peer >> (P2P) and >> parallel computing. The P2P Journal is currently accepting >> submissions of articles, whitepapers, product reviews, discussions, >> and letters or short communications. > > >Sam Joseph, Editor > > Hey Sam. > I checked out your "writer's guidelines" and was somewhat shocked. > You state that after accepting submission of a paper to your journal, > the journal (that is Raymond F. Gao, Editor-in-Chief) gets the copyright > of the submitted text. > > That's pretty silly especially since you don't even pay for the work > and expect people to write about their inventions and research. > > When my mother hired an artist to do the pictures to her children's > books we used a much better way: We signed a contract stating a "split" > or "shared" copyright. That is, both the artist and my mother can do > what they want with the pictures. Thus both parties can reprint them, > sell them and use them in any way they see fit and booth are happy! > > I suggest you should do the same, or people like me will never bother > to write for your journal. Among other things, your "rule" makes it > impossible to send you texts that one has already published in other > places and your rule makes it impossible to reuse that material as > one sees fit. If I write about my inventions I of course want to be > able to reuse any text I write about them. But writing for you is > a one time thing and thus not worth the effort. > > And don't just say: "This is how it is normally done." Just because > it's common to do like that it doesn't make it right. > > But I do like the thought of a p2p journal! > > > Greetings from freezing Gothenburg, Sweden, Northern Europe, > > .../David > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > David Gvthberg Email: david@pjort.com > http://www.david.pjort.com > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > p2p-hackers@zgp.org > http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > _______________________________________________ > Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences: > http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences > > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:27:43 +0900 From: Sam Joseph Subject: [p2p-hackers] New P2P Journal issue for January To: "Peer-to-peer development." Message-ID: <3FFCEA4F.3030007@neurogrid.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Hi All, Just in case you didn't see it already. http://p2pjournal.com/main/current_issue.htm CHEERS> SAM ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 02:34:22 -0500 From: Roger Dingledine Subject: [p2p-hackers] CfP: Second Workshop on the Economics of Peer-to-Peer Systems To: p2p-hackers@zgp.org, freehaven-dev@freehaven.net Message-ID: <20040108023422.U3151@moria.mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii [please forward widely -RD] Second Workshop on Economics of Peer-to-Peer Systems Harvard University, Cambridge, MA June 4-5, 2004 http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/p2pecon From file-sharing to distributed computation, from application layer overlays to mobile ad hoc networking, the ultimate success of a peer-to-peer system rests on the twin pillars of scalable and robust system design and alignment of economic interests among the participating peers. Following the success of the first workshop, the Second Workshop on Economics of Peer-to-Peer Systems will again bring together researchers and practitioners from multiple disciplines to discuss the economic characteristics of P2P systems, application of economic theories to P2P system design, and future directions and challenges in this area. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: - incentives and disincentives for cooperation - distributed algorithmic mechanism design - reputation and trust - reliability, identity, and attack resistance - network externalities and scale economies - public goods and club formation - accounting and settlement mechanisms - payment and currency systems - user behavior and system performance - measurement studies - leveraging heterogeneity without compromising anonymity - economic impact to network providers - interconnection of P2P networks The program of the workshop will be a combination of invited talks, paper presentations, and discussion. Workshop attendance will be limited to ensure a productive environment. Each potential participant should submit a position paper that expresses a novel or interesting problem, offers a specific solution, reports on actual experience, or advances a research agenda. Participants will be invited based on the originality, technical merit and topical relevance of their submissions, as well as the likelihood that the ideas expressed in their submissions will lead to insightful discussions at the workshop. Accepted papers will be published on the workshop website. Submission guidelines: Submissions of position papers are due April 1, 2004, and should not exceed 5 pages (excluding references and appendices). Two column papers are acceptable, but the font size should be no smaller than 10pt. Papers must be submitted electronically, preferably in PDF format, to . Important Dates : Submission due: April 1 Notification of acceptance: April 30 Revised version due: May 22 Workshop: June 4-5 Program Committee: Matthew Jackson, CalTech (co-chair) David Parkes, Harvard University (co-chair) Lawrence Ausubel, University of Maryland Sandeep Baliga, Northwestern University Estelle Cantillon, Harvard University John Chuang, UC Berkeley Costas Courcoubetis, Athens University of Economics and Business Peter Cramton, University of Maryland Roger Dingledine, The Free Haven Project John Douceur, Microsoft Research Eric Friedman, Cornell University Ramayya Krishnan, CMU John Ledyard, CalTech Paul Milgrom, Stanford University Brian Noble, University of Michigan Mema Roussopoulos, Harvard University Emin Gun Sirer, Cornell University Rann Smorodinsky, Technion Ion Stoica, UC Berkeley Rakesh Vohra, Northwestern University Dan Wallach, Rice University William Walsh, IBM Research Michael Wellman, University of Michigan Simon Wilkie, CalTech ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:11:28 -0800 From: Don Marti Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] Peer-to-Peer Journal (P2PJ) CFP To: editor@p2pjournal.com, sam@neurogrid.com, "Peer-to-peer development." Message-ID: <20040108181128.GE9087@lycopodium> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii begin Sam Joseph quotation of Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:26:09PM +0900: > I got a response from the P2PJ Editor after I forwarded your comments on > to him (see below). ...snip... > Regarding David's concern about P2PJ retaining copyright to articles, there > is a very good reason. That is to encourage innovation instead of > plagiarism, either other people's work or one's own. I have seen situations > where one person publishes an identical article in multiple journals or > magazines, word by word. That is not the right approach. Although that > author may get credit for numbers, such an attitude does not constitute > earnest work. ...snip... > -Ray Speaking in my professional capacity as the editor in chief of Linux Journal, that is a load of crap and a rip-off. I work with quite a few authors who have gone on to use material from their Linux Journal articles in their own books, or on their own web sites. This is a good thing. The classic style of contract, which Linux Journal uses, is that the author retains copyright and the publication buys certain rights. There are always debates over what rights the publisher gets, and Linux Journal buys a good-sized package, including the rights to use articles online, on CD compilations, and in translation. But we would never ask the author to give up copyright, and I'm surprised that anyone else would. -- Don Marti Plain text email only, please. Editor in Chief dmarti@linuxjournal.com Linux Journal http://linuxjournal.com/ Linux Journal editorial office: 206-782-9011 ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@zgp.org http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers End of p2p-hackers Digest, Vol 6, Issue 4 ***************************************** --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 2004.01.02 From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jan 9 11:18:33 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] New TR available on P2P Internet routing via topology-independent node identities (e.g., PK hashes) In-Reply-To: <682D4A82-4239-11D8-9ACF-000A95BA91EC@felter.org> References: <200401081651.54737.baford@mit.edu> <682D4A82-4239-11D8-9ACF-000A95BA91EC@felter.org> Message-ID: <20040109111832.GY62@leitl.org> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:18:53PM -0600, Wes Felter wrote: > > Have you considered carving out part of the IPv6 address space and > using it for your node identifiers? This would allow interop with > native IPv6 and would allow completely unmodified applications to use > UIP. > > You should compare UIP to Tapestry; it's one of the few DHTs that does > provide message forwarding, and it is intended to solve some of the > same problems as UIP. There's value in a virtual network topology, given that due to admin traffic constraints only ~95% of the global network has global connectivity. There is every reason to suspect that the future protocol suite will use geographic local-knowledge routing. Wireless has intrinsic locality and mutual Time-of-Flight source of distance constraints (mutual "triangulation"), same applies to copper and fiber, which need to minimize distances due to economic reasons. A NIC MAC has enough bits to encode x, y, z, and with a proper network connectivity (high-dimensional analoga of a 3d grid, and Bresenhamish "routing") you can have loops, no MAC lookup table limitations, no admin traffic yet cut-trough relativistic routing on very large installations. (With enough bits and proper addressing for a hierarchy of spherical clouds as well as latency an vacuum as packet FIFO allowances you can also handle interplanets with the same routing protocol). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://zgp.org/pipermail/p2p-hackers/attachments/20040109/1f4471c4/attachment.pgp From anwitaman at hotmail.com Mon Jan 12 09:53:28 2004 From: anwitaman at hotmail.com (Anwitaman Datta) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] topology independent peer-id Message-ID: In that context, you may also find the following paper on handling identity in P2P systems useful. http://www.p-grid.org/Papers/TKDE2004.pdf - Anwitaman ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi folks, I've just released a technical report describing a project I'm currently working on, "Unmanaged Internet Protocol", whose goal is to create an IP-like network routing layer above IP that operates in completely decentralized (P2P) fashion without depending on administratively-assigned hierarchical node identities like IPv4 and IPv6 do. Please note that this paper describes a work in progress; there is still plenty more work to do before the system becomes usable. I wanted to release this preliminary (but I believe quite readable) paper to the P2P community as it is now in order to solicit comments and learn about other related projects that may be underway. The full technical report is available here: Scalable Internet Routing on Topology-Independent Node Identities http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/os/uip.pdf http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/os/uip.ps.gz This paper represents a somewhat more fleshed-out version of the position paper I presented recently at HotNets-II: Unmanaged Internet Protocol: Taming the Edge Network Management Crisis http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/os/uip-case.pdf http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/os/uip-case.ps.gz Thanks for your time! Bryan ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:18:53 -0600 From: Wes Felter Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] New TR available on P2P Internet routing via topology-independent node identities (e.g., PK hashes) To: "Peer-to-peer development." Message-ID: <682D4A82-4239-11D8-9ACF-000A95BA91EC@felter.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Jan 8, 2004, at 3:51 PM, Bryan Ford wrote: > I've just released a technical report describing a project I'm > currently > working on, "Unmanaged Internet Protocol", whose goal is to create an > IP-like > network routing layer above IP that operates in completely > decentralized > (P2P) fashion without depending on administratively-assigned > hierarchical > node identities like IPv4 and IPv6 do. Have you considered carving out part of the IPv6 address space and using it for your node identifiers? This would allow interop with native IPv6 and would allow completely unmodified applications to use UIP. You should compare UIP to Tapestry; it's one of the few DHTs that does provide message forwarding, and it is intended to solve some of the same problems as UIP. Wes Felter - wesley@felter.org - http://felter.org/wesley/ _________________________________________________________________ Free transactions in any ATM across India. http://server1.msn.co.in/msnleads/suvidha/dec03.asp?type=hottag Click here. From tutschku at informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de Mon Jan 19 21:26:54 2004 From: tutschku at informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de (Kurt Tutschku) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] CfP: ETT Special Issue on P2P Networking and P2P Services Message-ID: <002501c3ded2$f5f5c910$806abb84@musa> Please, accept our apologies if multiple copies are received. *********************************************************************** Deadline for paper submissions is March 31, 2004 *********************************************************************** CALL FOR PAPERS European Transactions on Telecommunications (ETT) (http://www.interscience.wiley.com/) Special Issue on P2P Networking and P2P Services Peer-to-peer (P2P) services have evolved to the most popular applications in today's Internet. Remarkably, only very simple protocols and almost no support by the transport network were needed to make these distributed services operable on a large scale in little time. P2P entails a highly attractive paradigm in distributed computing: P2P is based on communication between equals. The peers are highly autonomous. P2P services provide simple and efficient mechanisms to pool and share exchangeable resources like CPU cycles, disk space or content. These features allow that any peer can be removed without resulting in a complete loss of service, in contrast to the traditional client/server concept where a failure of the central entity may corrupt the service completely. A P2P mode of operation, however, also has some downsides. P2P protocols cause high traffic volumes, including data traffic as well as signaling traffic. P2P network topologies reveal a high variability and P2P traffic patterns of P2P applications fluctuate strongly in time and space. It is anticipated that traditional network design techniques and traffic engineering procedures may not longer be applicable. New methods are needed that maintain the autonomous and self-organizing characteristics of P2P in order to provide appropriate service stability, quality, and efficiency. The focus of the special issue of ETT will include (but is not limited to) the following topics (see also http://www-info3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/staff/tutschku/ETTCFPP2P.pd f ): - P2P applications and services - P2P protocols, algorithms, and infrastructures - Performance measurements and performance analysis of P2P networks - Security, privacy and accounting issues in P2P networks - Mobile P2P over different kinds of bearer services - Mobile P2P algorithms - Mobile P2P & operator/provider requirements - Business cases for P2P Electronic submission of pdf files or uuencoded gzipped postscript files is strongly encouraged. Please send your document to: tutschku@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de The following deadlines will apply: - Submission of manuscripts March 31, 2004 - Notification of acceptance June 15, 2004 - Submission of final manuscript July 15, 2004 - Publication 3rd quarter 2004 Kurt Tutschku (Coordinating guest editor) Depart. Distributed Systems, Institute of Computer Science, University of Wuerzburg, Germany. tutschku@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de Hermann de Meer Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Passau, Germany. demeer@fmi.uni-passau.de Frank-Uwe Andersen ICM - Future IP technologies - Siemens AG, Germany. Frank-Uwe.Andersen@siemens.com Konosuke Kawashima Dept. of Computer, Information and Communication Sciences Tokyo University of Agriculture & Technology, Japan. k-kawa@cc.tuat.ac.jp From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Tue Jan 20 07:01:28 2004 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] DotGNU in Software Development Times Message-ID: <400CD248.C8728179@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://sdtimes.com/news/094/story3.htm Taking on Microsoft ?Mano a Mano? DotGNU and Mono: .NET replacement projects coming By Edward J. Correia January 15, 2004 It looks like 2004 could be the year of .NET replacements. In 2003, two separate open-source projects aimed at compatibility with Microsoft?s application runtime reached significant milestones. Grabbing much of the spotlight was Mono. The ?.NET for Linux? project originated by open-source developer Miguel de Icaza gained headlines when host company Ximian was acquired by Novell Inc. A road map published in December promises a long list of major components to be released with Mono 1.0 by midyear, including a C# compiler, VM with JIT and precompilers and development and security tools. Analysts believe that Novell, which also acquired SUSE Linux last year, is now in a good position to regain mind and market share lost to Microsoft in the server and office productivity wars of the 1990s. Charlie Ungashick, Novell?s director of product management and marketing for Ximian Business Services, denies any anti-Microsoft strategy. ?Linux desktop adoption is still only around 1 percent and Microsoft is over 70 percent. So it?s not feasible for us to spend time figuring out how to get from 1 to 70 overnight. We need to build a solid foundation with Mono and the Ximian desktop and provide tools and technologies that get us to 5 and 10 percent quickly. We?re looking to get that right first.? Far less coy about its intentions is the Free Software Foundation and its DotGNU project, which is developing an open-source implementation of Microsoft?s Common Language Infrastructure intended as a replacement for Microsoft?s own. Among the motivations for the project posted on www.dotgnu.org is ?a desire to prevent Microsoft from achieving monopolistic control of ?webservices,? which might be similar to how around the end of the twentieth century they had effective control of ?the desktop.?? The group released DotGNU 0.1 in November 2003, including functional runtimes for Linux, Mac OS X, Unix and Windows. Among DotGNU?s leading contributors is Rhys Weatherley, who in January 2001 began development of Portable.NET, which merged with DotGNU in July of that year and is now one of its three primary projects. The DotGNU project also includes DGEE, a Web services execution environment; and phpGroupWare, a Web-based collaboration suite. Weatherley would not put a release date on a version 1.0, but did state his objectives for the coming year, which include completion of the runtime engine, C# libraries, compiler and build tools. ?My big goals for 2004 are to complete the fundamental infrastructure, System.Windows.Forms under Xwindows, and GNU Compact .NET Framework,? the latter of which he said is currently running well on Compaq?s iPAQ and Sharp?s Zaurus Linux-based handheld computers. Weatherley said Portable.NET would likely be updated to 0.6.2 this month, including ?significant improvements to System.Windows.Forms,? user interface classes. A RUNTIME IS A RUNTIME Despite their similarities?both are developing portable .NET replacements using CLI specifications submitted by Microsoft to ECMA, and both are intended to run .NET apps unchanged?DotGNU and Mono have differing objectives, insisted Bradley Kuhn, executive directory of the FSF. ?Mono was done by Ximian, which is now owned by Novell, so it has much more of a corporate flavor to it. They offer different projects with different goals and ways of getting things done. We?re making sure developers actually get a free replacement for C#,? he said. Ungashick would not comment on the possibility of fee-based versions of Mono down the road. ?Mono is an open-source project, and we haven?t made any public statements about what will happen in the future,? he said. Defending the corporate development methodology, he added, ?Developers need a road map that usually accompanies a commercial project that gives them a comfort level with how often the APIs will move and how stable the builds will be over time. Mono is pure open-source today, and people can download daily builds. But the road map gives developers certain points over the next 24 months [when] there will be stable builds that deliver key functionality with solid APIs.? Conversely, it was evident that Weatherley was free of such corporate demands when pressed for a release date. ?I?m notoriously bad at predicting timetables. It really depends on what users want. 1.0 will be the name of the most stable and complete release sometime in the future. It would be silly to put a date on it; it will be ready when it is ready.? He added that C# will be the first language supported, followed by C. ?Then probably JScript and finally [Visual Basic]. This order reflects my own personal interests.? The DotGNU and Mono projects also differ technically. According to Kuhn, de Icaza ?wrote Mono from the ground up in C#. That meant he had to bootstrap with Microsoft?s C# compiler system. DotGNU was written entirely in C. Developers who are used to C and the GNU toolchain can continue using them; they don?t have to learn C# to get involved in the project.? -- DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders! New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org [CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights. From sam at neurogrid.com Tue Jan 20 08:03:29 2004 From: sam at neurogrid.com (Sam Joseph) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] Peer-to-Peer Journal Copyright policy In-Reply-To: <20040108181128.GE9087@lycopodium> References: <5.0.2.1.1.20031203005658.00a011e0@pop.home.se> <3FFCE9F1.7060708@neurogrid.com> <20040108181128.GE9087@lycopodium> Message-ID: <400CE0D1.4030506@neurogrid.com> Hi Don (and other interested parties), Sorry to take so long to get back to you. I'm sorry you couldn't get back to me on my offline request for the text of the contracts used by LinuxJournal. The editors of the P2PJournal have been working on trying to formulate an appropriate copyright policy. I believe that Ray is sincere when he says that his objective is to avoid plagiarism. In fact the wording that he chose for the original copyright statement is a lot less severe than the copyright statement I find for a selection of academic journals I have looked at: http://www.acm.org/surveys/Authors.html c 200x by the Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. Permission to make digital/hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or direct commercial advantage and that copies show this notice on the first page or initial screen of a display along with the full citation. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. http://ipsapp007.kluweronline.com/ips/frames/static.asp?J=4628&S=34438&M=35977&N=InformationforAuthors&ADS=0&ST=2&ASP=static It is the policy of Kluwer Academic Publishers to own the copyright of all contributions it publishes. To comply with U.S. Copyright Law, authors are required to sign a copyright transfer form before publication. This form returns to authors and their employers full rights to reuse their material for their own purposes. Authors must submit a signed copy of this form with their manuscript. http://www.springeronline.com/sgw/cda/pageitems/document/cda_downloaddocument/0,10900,0-0-45-69724-0,00.pdf The copyright to this article is transferred to Springer-Verlag (respective to owner if other than Springer-Verlag and for U.S. government employees: to the extent transferable) effective if and when the article is accepted for publication.The copyright transfer covers the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the article, including reprints, translations, photographic reproductions, microform, elecronic form (offline, online) or any other reproductions of similar nature. An author may make his/her article published by Springer-Verlag available on his/her personal home page provided the source of the published article is cited and Springer-Verlag and/or other owner is mentioned as copyright owner.Authors are requested to create a link to the published article in Springer?s internet service.The link must be accompanied by the following text: ?The original publication is available at springerlink.com?. Please use the appropriate DOI for the article. Articles disseminated via SpringerLink are indexed, abstracted and referenced by many abstracting and information services, bibliographic networks, subscription agencies, library networks, and consortia. The author warrants that this contribution is orginal and that he/she has full power to make this grant.The author signs for and accepts responsibility for releasing this material on behalf of any and all co-authors. After submission of this agreement signed by the corresponding author, changes of authorship or in the order of the authors listed will not be accepted by Springer-Verlag. http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/about/documentation/copyright/IEEECForm121302pdf.pdf The undersigned hereby assigns to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Incorporated (the ?IEEE?) all rights under copyright that may exist in and to the above Work, and any revised or expanded derivative works submitted to the IEEE by the undersigned based on the Work. The undersigned hereby warrants that the Work is original and that he/she is the author of the Work; to the extent the Work incorporates text passages, figures, data or other material from the works of others, the undersigned has obtained any necessary permissions. I'm sorry to say I can't find any reference to which rights get transfered in the Linux Journal website - if you could point them out to me I would be very grateful. Now I'm not saying that the academic licenses above are necessarily the way things should be done, but I hope you will agree that journals asking for copyright of articles is not uncommon. Now personally I am very keen to try and come up with a copyright policy for P2PJ that will meet both the needs of the Journal to try and ensure it is publishing quality articles that are not published in other journals and also meet the needs of the author in terms of wanting to be able to make the work available on their website and also in subsequent compilations such as books. If you or anyone else could help us work towards this goal I would very much appreciate it. CHEERS> SAM Don Marti wrote: >begin Sam Joseph quotation of Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:26:09PM +0900: > > > >>I got a response from the P2PJ Editor after I forwarded your comments on >>to him (see below). >> >> > >...snip... > > > >>Regarding David's concern about P2PJ retaining copyright to articles, there >>is a very good reason. That is to encourage innovation instead of >>plagiarism, either other people's work or one's own. I have seen situations >>where one person publishes an identical article in multiple journals or >>magazines, word by word. That is not the right approach. Although that >>author may get credit for numbers, such an attitude does not constitute >>earnest work. >> >> > >...snip... > > > >>-Ray >> >> > >Speaking in my professional capacity as the editor in chief of Linux >Journal, that is a load of crap and a rip-off. I work with quite >a few authors who have gone on to use material from their Linux >Journal articles in their own books, or on their own web sites. >This is a good thing. > >The classic style of contract, which Linux Journal uses, is that >the author retains copyright and the publication buys certain rights. > >There are always debates over what rights the publisher gets, >and Linux Journal buys a good-sized package, including the rights >to use articles online, on CD compilations, and in translation. >But we would never ask the author to give up copyright, and I'm >surprised that anyone else would. > > > From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jan 20 11:50:31 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] DotGNU in Software Development Times In-Reply-To: <400CD248.C8728179@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> References: <400CD248.C8728179@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20040120115031.GB20636@leitl.org> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:01:28AM -0500, Seth Johnson wrote: > > > http://sdtimes.com/news/094/story3.htm > > > Taking on Microsoft ?Mano a Mano? > > DotGNU and Mono: .NET replacement projects coming Why willingly let yourself be trapped in a technology base with IP rights being owned by a company known to aggressively enforce them, and that is leading a war on open source? Have you actually tried to make .NET web services interoperate between Redmond and, say, Sun? It's supposed to work out of the box. In theory. (The person at the next table doesn't seem to agree). How about the future, though? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://zgp.org/pipermail/p2p-hackers/attachments/20040120/dd57e2cc/attachment.pgp From seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org Tue Jan 20 14:54:38 2004 From: seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] DotGNU in Software Development Times Message-ID: You're right, but from a particular standpoint. I think DotGNU is looking out to try to disrupt that technology base's attempt to lay "IP" rights on web services in general. Seth -----Original Message----- From: Eugen Leitl Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:50:31 +0100 Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] DotGNU in Software Development Times > On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:01:28AM -0500, Seth Johnson wrote: > > > > > http://sdtimes.com/news/094/story3.htm > > > > > > Taking on Microsoft ‘Mano a Mano’ > > > > DotGNU and Mono: .NET replacement projects coming > > Why willingly let yourself be trapped in a technology base with IP > rights > being owned by a company known to aggressively enforce them, and that > is > leading a war on open source? > > Have you actually tried to make .NET web services interoperate > between > Redmond and, say, Sun? It's supposed to work out of the box. In > theory. > (The person at the next table doesn't seem to agree). How about the > future, > though? > > -- Eugen* Leitl leitl > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net > From bram at gawth.com Thu Jan 22 05:01:28 2004 From: bram at gawth.com (Bram Cohen) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] CodeCon program announced, early registration deadline nearing Message-ID: The program for CodeCon 2004 has been announced. http://www.codecon.org/2004/program.html CodeCon is the premier showcase of active hacker projects. It is a workshop for developers of real-world applications with working code and active development projects. All presentations will given by one of the active developers, and accompanied by a functional demo. Highlights of CodeCon 2004 include: PGP Universal - Automatic, transparent email encryption with zero clicks Osiris - A free Host Integrity Monitor designed for large scale server deployments that require auditable security Tor - Second-generation Onion Routing: a TCP-based anonymizing overlay network Vesta - An advanced software configuration management system that handles both versioning source files and building PETmail - Permission-based anti-spam replacement for SMTP FunFS - Fast User Network File System - An advanced network file system designed as a successor for NFS Codeville - Distributed version control system Audacity - A cross-platform multi-track audio editor The third annual CodeCon takes place February 20 - 22, noon - 6pm, at Club NV (525 Howard Street) in San Francisco. CodeCon registration is $95; a $20 discount is available for attendees who register online prior to February 1, 2004. http://www.codecon.org/2004/registration.html -Bram Cohen "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" -- John Maynard Keynes From Yves.Roudier at eurecom.fr Wed Jan 28 16:15:58 2004 From: Yves.Roudier at eurecom.fr (Yves Roudier) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] CFP - ESORICS 2004 - Call for Papers Message-ID: <4017E03E.800B9B67@eurecom.fr> [Apologies for multiple copies of this announcement] CALL FOR PAPERS ESORICS 2004 9th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security Institut Eur?com, Sophia Antipolis, French Riviera, France September 13-15, 2004 http://esorics04.eurecom.fr ESORICS 2004 will be collocated with RAID 2004 Papers offering novel research contributions in any aspect of computer security are solicited for submission to the Ninth European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS 2004). Organized in a series of European countries, ESORICS is confirmed as the European research event in computer security. The symposium started in 1990 and has been held on alternate years in different European countries and attracts an international audience from both the academic and industrial communities. >From 2002 it will be held yearly. The Symposium has established itself as one of the premiere, international gatherings on Information Assurance. Papers may present theory, technique, applications, or practical experience on topics including: access control accountability anonymity applied cryptography authentication covert channels cryptographic protocols cybercrime data and application security data integrity denial of service attacks dependability digital right management firewalls formal methods in security identity management inference control information dissemination control information flow control information warfare intellectual property protection intrusion tolerance language-based security network security non-interference peer-to-peer security privacy-enhancing technology pseudonymity secure electronic commerce security administration security as quality of service security evaluation security management security models security requirements engineering security verification smartcards steganography subliminal channels survivability system security transaction management trust models and trust trustworthy user devices management policies The primary focus is on high-quality original unpublished research, case studies and implementation experiences. We encourage submissions of papers discussing industrial research and development. Proceedings will be published by Springer-Verlag in the Lecture Notes in Computer Science series. PAPER SUBMISSIONS Submitted papers must not substantially overlap papers that have been published or that are simultaneously submitted to a journal or a conference with proceedings. Papers should be at most 15 pages excluding the bibliography and well-marked appendices (using 11-point font), and at most 20 pages total. Committee members are not required to read the appendices, and so the paper should be intelligible without them. To submit a paper, send to esorics04@dti.unimi.it a plain ASCII text email containing the title and abstract of your paper, the authors? names, email and postal addresses, phone and fax numbers, and identification of the contact author. To the same message, attach your submission (as a MIME attachment) in PDF or portable postscript format. Do NOT send files formatted for word processing packages (e.g., Microsoft Word or WordPerfect files). Submissions not meeting these guidelines risk rejection without consideration of their merits. Submissions must be received by March 26, 2004 in order to be considered. Notification of acceptance or rejection will be sent to authors by May 30, 2004. Authors of accepted papers must be prepared to sign a copyright statement and must guarantee that their paper will be presented at the conference. Authors of accepted papers must follow the Springer Information for Authors? guidelines for the preparation of the manuscript and use the templates provided there. ORGANIZING COMMITTEE General Chair Refik Molva Institut Eur?com email: Refik.Molva@eurecom.fr Program Chairs Peter Ryan Pierangela Samarati University of Newcastle upon Tyne University of Milan email: Peter.Ryan@newcastle.ac.uk email: samarati@dti.unimi.it Publication Chair Publicity Chair Dieter Gollmann Yves Roudier TU Hamburg-Harburg Institut Eur?com email: diego@tuhh.de email: roudier@eurecom.fr Sponsoring Chair Marc Dacier Institut Eur?com email: dacier@eurecom.fr PROGRAM COMMITTEE Vijay Atluri, Rutgers University, USA Joachim Biskup, Universitaet Dortmund, Germany Jan Camenisch, IBM Research, Switzerland David Chadwick, University of Salford, UK Ernesto Damiani, University of Milan, Italy Sabrina De Capitani di Vimercati, University of Milan, Italy Yves Deswarte, LAAS-CNRS, France Alberto Escudero-Pascual, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden Simon Foley, University College Cork, Ireland Dieter Gollmann, TU Hamburg-Harburg, Germany Joshua D. Guttman, MITRE, USA Sushil Jajodia, George Mason University, USA Sokratis K. Katsikas, University of the Aegean, Greece Peng Liu, Pennsylvania State University, USA Javier Lopez, University of Malaga, Spain Roy Maxion, Carnegie Mellon University, USA Patrick McDaniel, AT&T Labs-Research, USA John McHugh, CERT/CC, USA Catherine A. Meadows, Naval Research Lab, USA Refik Molva, Institut Eur?com, France Peng Ning, NC State University, USA LouAnna Notargiacomo, The MITRE Corporation, USA Eiji Okamoto, University of Tsukuba, Japan Stefano Paraboschi, University of Bergamo, Italy Andreas Pfitzmann, TU Dresden, Germany Jean-Jacques Quisquater, Microelectronic laboratory, Belgium Steve Schneider, University of London, UK Christoph Schuba, Sun Microsystems, Inc., USA Michael Steiner, IBM T.J. Watson Research Laboratory, USA Paul Syverson, Naval Research Laboratory, USA Moti Yung, Columbia University, USA IMPORTANT DATES Paper Submission due: March 26, 2004 Acceptance notification: May 30, 2004 Final papers due: June 30, 2004 From Yves.Roudier at eurecom.fr Wed Jan 28 16:17:19 2004 From: Yves.Roudier at eurecom.fr (Yves Roudier) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] CFP - RAID 2004 - Call for Papers Message-ID: <4017E08F.B78F294D@eurecom.fr> [Apologies for multiple copies of this announcement] CALL FOR PAPERS RAID 2004 "Intrusion Detection and Society" Seventh International Symposium on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection Institut Eur?com, Sophia-Antipolis, French Riviera, France September 15-17, 2004 http://raid04.eurecom.fr RAID 2004 will be collocated with ESORICS 2004 This symposium, the seventh in an annual series, brings together leading researchers and practitioners from academia, government, and industry to discuss intrusion detection technologies and issues from the research and commercial perspectives. The RAID International Symposium series is intended to further advances in intrusion detection by promoting the exchange of ideas in a broad range of topics. For RAID 2004 there is a special theme: the interdependence between intrusion detection and society. Thus, we will also welcome papers that address issues that arise when studying intrusion detection, including information gathering and monitoring, as a part of a larger, not necessarily purely technical, perspective. For example, the implication of information gathering and detection technologies on enterprises, organisations and authorities, as well as legislative and governing bodies is within scope, but also the impact and restrictions from those bodies on the design and technology. This would include issues such as privacy, risk and emergency management, crisis management, security policies, standardisation and legal issues. An increasingly important dynamic is the strategic importance of protecting national information infrastructures, which is in some tension with the fact that much of this infrastructure is in the private sector. Related to this is the potential strategic impact of attacks at the intersection of information and physical infrastructure. The RAID 2004 program committee invites three types of submissions: - Full papers presenting mature research results. Papers accepted for presentation at the Symposium will be included in the RAID 2004 proceedings published by Springer Verlag in its Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) series. Full papers are limited to 20 pages when formatted according to the instructions provided by Springer Verlag. Papers must include an abstract and a list of keywords. - Practical experience reports describing a valuable experience or a case study, such as the design and deployment of a system or actual experience from intrusion detection or network monitoring. These reports are reviewed differently from full papers and do not necessarily include fundamental scientific contributions or new research ideas. Practical experience reports are limited to 12 pages when formatted according to the instructions provided by Springer Verlag. They must include an abstract and a list of keywords. - Panel proposals for presenting and discussing hot topics in the field of intrusion detection systems. The panel proposals should include both an outline of the format of the panel and a short rationale for the panel. Panels that include time for general discussion and questions/answers between the panelists and the Symposium attendees are preferred. All topics related to Intrusion Detection Systems and Technologies are within scope, including their design, use and maintenance, integration, correlation and self-protection, just to mention a few. With reference to this year's theme and extended scope we also invite papers on the following topics, which may not be in the mainstream of intrusion detection: Risk assessment and risk management Intrusion tolerance Deception systems and honeypots Privacy aspects Data mining techniques Visualization techniques Cognitive approaches Biological approaches Self-learning Case studies Legal issues Critical infrastucture protection (CIP) ORGANIZING COMMITTEE General Chair: Refik Molva Program Chairs: Erland Jonsson Alfonso Valdes Publication Chair: Magnus Almgren Publicity Chair: Yves Roudier Sponsor Chair: Marc Dacier PROGRAM COMMITTEE Tatsuya Baba (NTT Data, Japan) Lee Badger (DARPA, USA) Sungdeok Cha (KAIST, Korea) Steven Cheung (SRI International, USA) Herve Debar (France Telecom R&D, France) Simone Fischer-H?bner (Karlstad University, Sweden) Steven Furnell (University of Plymouth, UK) Bill Hutchinson (Edith Cowan University, Australia) Dogan Kesdogan (RWTH Aachen, Germany) Chris Kruegel (UCSB, USA) H?kan Kvarnstr?m (TeliaSonera R&D, Sweden) Wenke Lee (Georgia Tech, USA) Roy Maxion (Carnegie Mellon University, USA) John McHugh (CMU/SEI CERT, USA) Ludovic Me (Sup?lec, France) George Mohay (Queensland University of Technology, Australia) Vern Paxson (ICSI and LBNL, USA) Giovanni Vigna (UCSB, USA) Andreas Wespi (IBM Research, Switzerland) Felix Wu (UC Davis, USA) Diego Zamboni (IBM Research, Switzerland) IMPORTANT DATES Deadline for paper submission : March 31, 2004 Deadline for panel submission : April 30, 2004 Notification of acceptance or rejection : June 4, 2004 Final paper camera ready copy : July 2, 2004 RAID conference dates : September 15-17, 2004 SUBMISSIONS Submissions must not substantially duplicate work that any of the authors has published elsewhere or has submitted in parallel to any other conference or workshop with proceedings. The full papers must list all authors and their affiliations; in case of multiple authors, the contact author must be indicated (note that RAID does not require anonymized submissions). Authors are invited to submit their papers electronically. A detailed description of the electronic submission procedure will be made available at http://raid04.eurecom.fr by end of February 2004. Submissions must conform to this procedure and be received within the submission deadline in order to be considered. Each submission will be acknowledged by e-mail. If acknowledgment is not received within seven days, please contact Erland Jonsson All submissions and presentations must be in English. CORPORATE SPONSORS We solicit interested organizations to serve as sponsors for RAID 2004, particularly in sponsorship of student travel and other expenses for RAID. Please contact the Sponsor Chair, Marc Dacier , for information regarding corporate sponsorship of RAID 2004. REGISTRATION Detailed registration information (including fees, suggested hotels, and travel directions) will be provided at the RAID 2004 web site (http://raid04.eurecom.fr). PROCEEDINGS Accepted papers will be published by Springer Verlag in its Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) series. Instructions for authors will be provided at the RAID 2004 web site (http://raid04.eurecom.fr). STEERING COMMITTEE Chair: Marc Dacier (Eurecom, France) Herv? Debar (France Telecom R&D, France) Deborah Frincke (University of Idaho, USA) Huang Ming-Yuh (The Boeing Company, USA) Wenke Lee (Georgia Institute of Technology, USA) Ludovic M? (Sup?lec, France) S. Felix Wu (UC Davis, USA) Andreas Wespi (IBM Research, Switzerland) Giovanni Vigna (UCSB, USA) For further information, please contact the Program Chairs or the General Chair. From gbildson at limepeer.com Wed Jan 28 20:11:49 2004 From: gbildson at limepeer.com (Greg Bildson) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] LimeWire looking for great software developers Message-ID: Folks, LimeWire has a few openings for high quality software developers. We are looking for the usual rare suspects with good OOA/OOD skills, Java experience, networking, threads, etc. LimeWire is one of the few successful Java and P2P software shops so the work tends to be interesting. All amazing developers and P2P enthusiasts (combined) are very welcome! See here for more information: http://www.limewire.com/english/content/careers.shtml Bonus points for anyone involved in limewire.org. Apologies if I am breaking list etiquette; however, the P2P world is so small that I'm sure some members of the list (or their talented friends or colleagues) might be interested. Thanks -greg From sam at neurogrid.com Sat Jan 31 00:28:40 2004 From: sam at neurogrid.com (Sam Joseph) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] P2PJ Call For Papers Message-ID: <401AF6B8.6050902@neurogrid.com> ------------------------------------------------------------------ CALL FOR PAPERS Peer-to-Peer Journal (http://p2pjournal.com) ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Peer-to-Peer Journal (P2PJ) is a bi-monthly journal that serves as a forum to individuals and companies interested in applying, developing, educating, & advertising in the fields of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) and parallel computing. The P2P Journal is currently accepting submissions of articles, whitepapers, product reviews, discussions, and letters or short communications. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: Novel Peer-to-Peer applications and systems P2P simulation and network/traffic mapping/topology tools Instant Messaging (IM) Collaborative Computing FileSharing tools and protocols Content Distribution Networks (CDN) Parallel Computing Grid Networks Cluster Architectures For writer's guideline, see http://p2pjournal.com/main/p2p_writers_guideline.pdf Important Dates Submission Deadline for March Issue: 11th February 2004 Submission Deadline for May Issue: 11th April 2004 Please send submissions to editor@p2pjournal.com Best regards, Raymond F. Gao, Editor-in-Chief Daniel Brookshier, Editor Sam Joseph, Editor From dmarti at zgp.org Sat Jan 31 03:02:11 2004 From: dmarti at zgp.org (Don Marti) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] P2PJ Call For Papers In-Reply-To: <401AF6B8.6050902@neurogrid.com> References: <401AF6B8.6050902@neurogrid.com> Message-ID: <20040131030211.GF20611@lycopodium> begin Sam Joseph quotation of Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 09:28:40AM +0900: > http://p2pjournal.com/main/p2p_writers_guideline.pdf Will you _please_ stop peddling that "all your copyright are belong to us" crap on this list? It's offensive to people's intelligence. You obviously don't even edit the damn thing for grammar. So people are supposed to give their copyrights to you...why again? No, I won't write your copyright policy for you, by the way. -- Don Marti http://zgp.org/~dmarti Learn Linux and free software dmarti@zgp.org from the experts in California, USA http://freedomtechnologycenter.org/ From zooko at zooko.com Sat Jan 31 03:11:04 2004 From: zooko at zooko.com (Zooko O'Whielacronx) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] P2PJ Call For Papers In-Reply-To: Message from Don Marti of "Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:02:11 PST." <20040131030211.GF20611@lycopodium> References: <401AF6B8.6050902@neurogrid.com> <20040131030211.GF20611@lycopodium> Message-ID: Don Marti wrote: > > Will you _please_ stop peddling that "all your > copyright are belong to us" crap on this list? I assumet that Don was speaking as an aggrieved reader rather than as one of the two list moderators. The policy of this list is to allow such announcements and solicitations, provided that they are posted by list subscribers and are relevant to the list topic. Regards, Zooko, the other list moderator From sam at neurogrid.com Sat Jan 31 03:36:26 2004 From: sam at neurogrid.com (Sam Joseph) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] P2PJ Call For Papers In-Reply-To: <20040131030211.GF20611@lycopodium> References: <401AF6B8.6050902@neurogrid.com> <20040131030211.GF20611@lycopodium> Message-ID: <401B22BA.8010005@neurogrid.com> Don, We are trying to adjust our copyright policy to make everyone happy. We are in the process of trying to improve the wording of the policy, and I don't understand why you don't want to help us. I am not asking you to *write* our copyright policy for us. I am asking you to *show* us the copyright policy that you use. Or "partial rights transfer" policy or whatever you call it. That doesn't seem too much to ask. In the meantime I am hoping that people will still submit contributions to us. I'm very sorry if you find this offensive. In fact here is the latest version of the copyright policy "P2PJ wants to find a balance between author?s copyright and ensuring articles in P2PJ are unique. P2PJ prefers original, quality articles. Quality is more important than quantity. By submitting the article to P2PJ, the author grants P2PJ and its affiliated organizations and entities, perpetual, royalty-free, worldwide licenses for both electronic and print formats. Authors are granted rights to reproduce their articles provided that they include a prominent statement: 'The piece originally appeared in P2P Journal'. A clearly visible link to http://p2pjournal.com must also be made. Please obtain all copyright releases before sending us any material, such as from an employer, a publishing company, or any other source. Re-submission of a previous published article or translation must be accompanied with a written permission from the original publisher. " Now, instead of just attacking us, why don't you help us remove the source of your greivance by showing us the policy you use? As for grammar issues - you have a problem with some of our staff being non-native speakers? Well I'm sorry, we're all doing this on a volunteer basis, and grammar checking is being gradually worked on. Sam on Marti wrote: >begin Sam Joseph quotation of Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 09:28:40AM +0900: > > > >>http://p2pjournal.com/main/p2p_writers_guideline.pdf >> >> > >Will you _please_ stop peddling that "all your >copyright are belong to us" crap on this list? >It's offensive to people's intelligence. > >You obviously don't even edit the damn thing for >grammar. So people are supposed to give their >copyrights to you...why again? > >No, I won't write your copyright policy for you, >by the way. > > > From dmarti at zgp.org Sat Jan 31 03:57:23 2004 From: dmarti at zgp.org (Don Marti) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] P2PJ Call For Papers In-Reply-To: <401B22BA.8010005@neurogrid.com> References: <401AF6B8.6050902@neurogrid.com> <20040131030211.GF20611@lycopodium> <401B22BA.8010005@neurogrid.com> Message-ID: <20040131035723.GH20611@lycopodium> begin Sam Joseph quotation of Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 12:36:26PM +0900: > In fact here is the latest version of the copyright policy That's better -- but a few hours ago you posted http://p2pjournal.com/main/p2p_writers_guideline.pdf which is dated June 203 and still on your site, and still has the "copyright transfer to P2P Journal" policy. It's important to check the content of URLs in an announcement before you send it. -- Don Marti http://zgp.org/~dmarti Learn Linux and free software dmarti@zgp.org from the experts in California, USA http://freedomtechnologycenter.org/ From sam at neurogrid.com Sat Jan 31 04:11:55 2004 From: sam at neurogrid.com (Sam Joseph) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] P2PJ Call For Papers In-Reply-To: <20040131035723.GH20611@lycopodium> References: <401AF6B8.6050902@neurogrid.com> <20040131030211.GF20611@lycopodium> <401B22BA.8010005@neurogrid.com> <20040131035723.GH20611@lycopodium> Message-ID: <401B2B0B.8020309@neurogrid.com> Don Don Marti wrote: >That's better -- but a few hours ago you posted >http://p2pjournal.com/main/p2p_writers_guideline.pdf >which is dated June 203 and still on your site, and >still has the "copyright transfer to P2P Journal" >policy. > >It's important to check the content of URLs in an >announcement before you send it. > That's true. Although I had put off updating the document until I had seen your own policy. I'm still somewhat confused that you are not willing to show us the policy wording for your own magazine. I mean I would have thought that it would be available in a prominent place on your web pages, and I have so far been unable to find it. As you will remember from my previous post I easily found statements from many other magazines/journals: http://www.acm.org/surveys/Authors.html http://ipsapp007.kluweronline.com/ips/frames/static.asp?J=4628&S=34438&M=35977&N=InformationforAuthors&ADS=0&ST=2&ASP=static http://www.springeronline.com/sgw/cda/pageitems/document/cda_downloaddocument/0,10900,0-0-45-69724-0,00.pdf http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/about/documentation/copyright/IEEECForm121302pdf.pdf Is the reason that you are unwilling to show us your own policy is that you are concerned that it might not stand up to close scrutiny? If you are claiming to have an author friendly policy I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is and post it to this list Sam From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Sat Jan 31 17:55:54 2004 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Sat Dec 9 22:12:37 2006 Subject: [p2p-hackers] P2PJ Call For Papers References: <401AF6B8.6050902@neurogrid.com> <20040131030211.GF20611@lycopodium> <401B22BA.8010005@neurogrid.com> <20040131035723.GH20611@lycopodium> <401B2B0B.8020309@neurogrid.com> Message-ID: <401BEC2A.D3BC4C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> I asked Peter Suber of the Free Online Scholarship blog for input, and the following are his comments. I thought you might consider that scientific research is increasingly going in this direction. See: > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ Seth Johnson Peter Suber wrote: > > Seth, > The legal basis for open access can lie in (1) the public domain, in > which all rights have either expired or been waived by the copyright > holder or (2) consent of the copyright holder to waive certain key rights > even if other rights are retained. > All OA journals today use the second method. The Public Library of > Science journals use the Creative Commons Attribution license. Details > here, . I use the same license > for my newsletter on open access; see the last lines of any recent issue, > . Not only is > it legally sufficient, but it has a boilerplate version written by lawyers > for lawyers, a lay version for lay users who want to know what they can do > with the work, and a machine-readable version e.g. for suitably juiced up > search engines that want to give you the option to find works that you can > use without further permission. > When I write about what kind of copyright-holder consent will suffice > for open access, I usually say that the rights holder (1) should consent > to "unrestricted reading, downloading, copying, sharing, storing, > printing, searching, linking, and crawling", but (2) may retain the right > to block the distribution of mangled or misattributed copies of his/her > work. For example, this is how I put it here, > . > Feel free to share this with anyone who might find it useful. > > Best, > Peter > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Suber > Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College > Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge > Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter > Editor, Open Access News blog > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ > peter.suber@earlham.edu Sam Joseph wrote: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > CALL FOR PAPERS > > Peer-to-Peer Journal > > (http://p2pjournal.com) > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Peer-to-Peer Journal (P2PJ) is a bi-monthly journal that serves as > a forum to individuals and companies interested in applying, developing, > educating, & advertising in the fields of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) and > parallel computing. The P2P Journal is currently accepting submissions > of articles, whitepapers, product reviews, discussions, and letters or > short communications. > > Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: > > Novel Peer-to-Peer applications and systems > P2P simulation and network/traffic mapping/topology tools > Instant Messaging (IM) > Collaborative Computing > FileSharing tools and protocols > Content Distribution Networks (CDN) > Parallel Computing > Grid Networks > Cluster Architectures > > For writer's guideline, see http://p2pjournal.com/main/p2p_writers_guideline.pdf > > Important Dates > Submission Deadline for March Issue: 11th February 2004 > Submission Deadline for May Issue: 11th April 2004 > > Please send submissions to editor@p2pjournal.com > > Best regards, > Raymond F. Gao, Editor-in-Chief > Daniel Brookshier, Editor > Sam Joseph, Editor > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > p2p-hackers@zgp.org > http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > _______________________________________________ > Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences: > http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences