From a796ae5d0405c052409a7c6034937dade8102e82 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: str4d Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:42:23 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Added translation tags to comparison/* --- i2p2www/pages/site/comparison/freenet.html | 20 +- i2p2www/pages/site/comparison/index.html | 20 +- .../pages/site/comparison/other-networks.html | 78 +++-- i2p2www/pages/site/comparison/tor.html | 274 ++++++++++++------ 4 files changed, 247 insertions(+), 145 deletions(-) diff --git a/i2p2www/pages/site/comparison/freenet.html b/i2p2www/pages/site/comparison/freenet.html index 0affc7f1..1597cf79 100644 --- a/i2p2www/pages/site/comparison/freenet.html +++ b/i2p2www/pages/site/comparison/freenet.html @@ -1,17 +1,20 @@ {% extends "global/layout.html" %} -{% block title %}I2P Compared to Freenet{% endblock %} +{% block title %}{{ _('I2P Compared to Freenet') }}{% endblock %} {% block content %}

Freenet

[Freenet] -

Freenet is a fully distributed, peer to peer anonymous publishing network, offering +

{% trans -%} +Freenet is a fully distributed, peer to peer anonymous publishing network, offering secure ways to store data, as well as some approaches attempting to address the loads of a flash flood. While Freenet is designed as a distributed data store, people have built applications on top of it to do more generic anonymous communication, such as -static websites and message boards.

+static websites and message boards. +{%- endtrans %}

-

Compared to I2P, Freenet offers some substantial benefits - it is a distributed data +

{% trans -%} +Compared to I2P, Freenet offers some substantial benefits - it is a distributed data store, while I2P is not, allowing people to retrieve the content published by others even when the publisher is no longer online. In addition, it should be able to distribute popular data fairly efficiently. I2P itself does not and will not provide @@ -20,15 +23,18 @@ communicate with each other anonymously through websites, message boards, file s programs, etc. There have also been some attempts to develop a distributed data store to run on top of I2P, (most recently a port of Tahoe-LAFS) -but nothing is yet ready for general use.

+but nothing is yet ready for general use. +{%- endtrans %}

-

However, even ignoring any implementations issues, there are some concerns +

{% trans -%} +However, even ignoring any implementations issues, there are some concerns about Freenet's algorithms from both a scalability and anonymity perspective, owing largely to Freenet's heuristic driven routing. The interactions of various techniques certainly may successfully deter various attacks, and perhaps some aspects of the routing algorithms will provide the hoped for scalability. Unfortunately, not much analysis of the algorithms involved has resulted in positive results, but there is still hope. At the very least, Freenet does provide substantial anonymity against an attacker -who does not have the resources necessary to analyze it further.

+who does not have the resources necessary to analyze it further. +{%- endtrans %}

{% endblock %} diff --git a/i2p2www/pages/site/comparison/index.html b/i2p2www/pages/site/comparison/index.html index 79523633..f87651a5 100644 --- a/i2p2www/pages/site/comparison/index.html +++ b/i2p2www/pages/site/comparison/index.html @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ {% extends "global/layout.html" %} -{% block title %}Comparing I2P to other projects{% endblock %} +{% block title %}{{ _('Comparing I2P to other projects') }}{% endblock %} {% block content %} -

+

{% trans -%} There are a great many other applications and projects working on anonymous communication and I2P has been inspired by much of their efforts. This is not a comprehensive list of anonymity resources - both freehaven's @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ a comprehensive list of anonymity resources - both freehaven's and GNUnet's related projects serve that purpose well. That said, a few systems stand out for further comparison. The following have individual comparison pages: -

+{%- endtrans %}

-

-The following are discussed on the other networks page: -

+

{% trans othernetworks=site_url('comparison/other-networks') -%} +The following are discussed on the other networks page: +{%- endtrans %}

-

+

{% trans trac=i2pconv('trac.i2p2.i2p') -%} The content of this page is subject to update, discussion and dispute, and we welcome comments and additions. -You may contribute an analysis by entering a new ticket on Trac. -

+You may contribute an analysis by entering a new ticket on Trac. +{%- endtrans %}

{% endblock %} diff --git a/i2p2www/pages/site/comparison/other-networks.html b/i2p2www/pages/site/comparison/other-networks.html index 794aeb77..a8040c4e 100644 --- a/i2p2www/pages/site/comparison/other-networks.html +++ b/i2p2www/pages/site/comparison/other-networks.html @@ -1,38 +1,42 @@ {% extends "global/layout.html" %} -{% block title %}I2P Compared to Other Anonymous Networks{% endblock %} +{% block title %}{{ _('I2P Compared to Other Anonymous Networks') }}{% endblock %} {% block content %} -

The following networks are discussed on this page. -

+

{% trans -%} +The following networks are discussed on this page. +{%- endtrans %}

-

Most of the following sections are fairly old, and may not be accurate. +

{% trans comparison=site_url('comparison'), trac=i2pconv('trac.i2p2.i2p') -%} +Most of the following sections are fairly old, and may not be accurate. For an overview of available comparisons, see the -main network comparisons page. +main network comparisons page. You may contribute an analysis by entering a -new ticket on trac.i2p2.de. -

+new ticket on {{ trac }}. +{%- endtrans %}

-

Morphmix and Tarzan

+

Morphmix / Tarzan

[Morphmix] [Tarzan] -

Morphmix and Tarzan are both fully distributed, peer to peer networks of +

{% trans threatmodel=site_url('docs/how/threat-model') -%} +Morphmix and Tarzan are both fully distributed, peer to peer networks of anonymizing proxies, allowing people to tunnel out through the low latency mix network. Morphmix includes some very interesting collusion detection algorithms and Sybil defenses, while Tarzan makes use of the scarcity of IP addresses to accomplish the same. The two primary differences between -these systems and I2P are related to I2P's threat model +these systems and I2P are related to I2P's threat model and their out-proxy design (as opposed to providing both sender and receiver anonymity). There is source code available to both systems, but we are not aware -of their use outside of academic environments.

+of their use outside of academic environments. +{%- endtrans %}

-

Comparison of Tor and I2P Terminology

+

{{ _('Comparison of Tor and I2P Terminology') }}

+

{% trans -%} While Tor and I2P are similar in many ways, much of the terminology is different. +{%- endtrans %}

TorI2P -
CellMessage -
ClientRouter or Client -
CircuitTunnel -
DirectoryNetDb -
Directory ServerFloodfill Router -
Entry GuardsFast Peers -
Entry NodeInproxy -
Exit NodeOutproxy -
Hidden ServiceEepsite or Destination -
Hidden Service DescriptorLeaseSet -
Introduction pointInbound Gateway -
NodeRouter -
Onion ProxyI2PTunnel Client (more or less) -
RelayRouter -
Rendezvous Pointsomewhat like Inbound Gateway + Outbound Endpoint -
Router DescriptorRouterInfo -
ServerRouter +
{{ _('Cell') }}{{ _('Message') }} +
{{ _('Client') }}{{ _('Router or Client') }} +
{{ _('Circuit') }}{{ _('Tunnel') }} +
{{ _('Directory') }}{{ _('NetDb') }} +
{{ _('Directory Server') }}{{ _('Floodfill Router') }} +
{{ _('Entry Guards') }}{{ _('Fast Peers') }} +
{{ _('Entry Node') }}{{ _('Inproxy') }} +
{{ _('Exit Node') }}{{ _('Outproxy') }} +
{{ _('Hidden Service') }}{{ _('Eepsite or Destination') }} +
{{ _('Hidden Service Descriptor') }}{{ _('LeaseSet') }} +
{{ _('Introduction point') }}{{ _('Inbound Gateway') }} +
{{ _('Node') }}{{ _('Router') }} +
{{ _('Onion Proxy') }}{{ _('I2PTunnel Client (more or less)') }} +
{{ _('Relay') }}{{ _('Router') }} +
{{ _('Rendezvous Point') }}{{ _('somewhat like Inbound Gateway + Outbound Endpoint') }} +
{{ _('Router Descriptor') }}{{ _('RouterInfo') }} +
{{ _('Server') }}{{ _('Router') }}
-

Benefits of Tor over I2P

+

{{ _('Benefits of Tor over I2P') }}

-

Benefits of I2P over Tor

+

{{ _('Benefits of I2P over Tor') }}

+ +
  • +{% trans -%} +Unidirectional tunnels instead of bidirectional +circuits, doubling the number of nodes a peer has to +compromise to get the same information. +{%- endtrans %} +
    • +
  • +{% trans -%} +Protection against detecting client activity, even +when an attacker is participating in the tunnel, as +tunnels are used for more than simply passing end +to end messages (e.g. netDb, tunnel management, +tunnel testing) +{%- endtrans %} +
    • +
  • +{% trans -%} +Tunnels in I2P are short lived, decreasing the number +of samples that an attacker can use to mount an +active attack with, unlike circuits in Tor, which are +typically long lived. +{%- endtrans %} +
    • +
  • +{% trans -%} +I2P APIs are designed specifically for anonymity and +security, while SOCKS is designed for functionality. +{%- endtrans %} +
    • +
  • {% trans %}Essentially all peers participate in routing for others{% endtrans %}
    • +
  • +{% trans -%} +The bandwidth overhead of being a full peer is low, +while in Tor, while client nodes don't require much +bandwidth, they don't fully participate in the mixnet. +{%- endtrans %} +
    • +
  • {% trans %}Integrated automatic update mechanism{% endtrans %}
    • +
  • {% trans %}Both TCP and UDP transports{% endtrans %}
    • +
  • {% trans %}Java, not C (ewww){% endtrans %}
    • -

    Other potential benefits of I2P but not yet implemented

    -

    ...and may never be implemented, so don't count on them!

    +

    {{ _('Other potential benefits of I2P but not yet implemented') }}

    +

    {% trans %}...and may never be implemented, so don't count on them!{% endtrans %}

    {% endblock %}