• ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    isn’t it less vulnerable, though?

    it has higher latency, even variable latency if you set up variable hops, and everyone routes the traffic of a lot of other users, so a lot of data they can gather from timing info is noise by default

    • ShortN0te@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yes it has better defenses against timing attacks. Just alone the fact that multiple packets are bundled together makes it harder to identify the route a single package used.

      Also, it seems that I2P is more vulnerable against deanonymization when leaving the hidden network, i think the official I2P faq has some info about that, but have not read up upon it myself.

      • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Also, it seems that I2P is more vulnerable against deanonymization when leaving the hidden network, i think the official I2P faq has some info about that, but have not read up upon it myself.

        on a quick look I did not find such a mention, but in any case in addition to that, I2P users often don’t have such a fortified browser as Tor users do, so that’s also something to count with.

        and maybe it’s not a good idea either to just reconfigure a Tor browser profile for I2P