I can't understand why som many are so locked into one public IP address
per home, when we at least can have 2^64 different addresses if we uses
IPv6. And with some sertificates we can even encrypt communication
between sites. We also doesn't need to handle NAT (in any other way but
to get out
Hi Anders,
In an ideal world, yes, but in order for the freedombox to be useful
for mainstream users, we have to be compatible with the current
situation of the world outside, which (still) involves IPv4, DNS,
browsers' white lists for CAs, etcetera.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:54:01AM +0200, Anders Jackson wrote:
And about certificates, there are not only StartSSL
(https://stratssk.com), which is good but we also have have CAcert
(https://CAcert.org/) which should be a good infrastructure for a
project like ours.
Using self-signed certs
i appreciate that we as power users can use those things, but our goal
with freedombox is to make something for 'normal' people. If you visit
https://g10code.com/steed.html using for instance Chrome, you get a
big page saying you are under attack and this domain is unsafe. In
Firefox it's grey,
On 10 July 2012 13:44, Michiel de Jong mich...@unhosted.org wrote:
i appreciate that we as power users can use those things, but our goal
with freedombox is to make something for 'normal' people. If you visit
https://g10code.com/steed.html using for instance Chrome, you get a
big page saying
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Michiel de Jong mich...@unhosted.org wrote:
i appreciate that we as power users can use those things, but our goal
with freedombox is to make something for 'normal' people. If you visit
https://g10code.com/steed.html using for instance Chrome, you get a
big
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Melvin Carvalho
melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 July 2012 13:44, Michiel de Jong mich...@unhosted.org wrote:
Sorry for being a bit slow, I'm trying to understand the pagekite proposal
better.
Please don't call it a pagekite proposal. The initiative
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Melvin Carvalho
melvincarva...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. In practical terms, where, typically
would/could this reverse proxy run?
There are a few options:
1) A commercial provider (e.g. my pagekite.net service)
2) A VPS or home server
Spoke with James and a few others here at the OpenITP event, notes and a
rought plan are below. Some of this feels like reinventing the wheel; a
future/mature implementation might use:
D-Bus for message passing, PolicyKit for access control, Augeas for
read/write
or
building off
Also, just to be explicit, this would provide process separation, but does
not address local user authentication or access control. Eg, in this
scheme plinth would have permissions to edit all configuration files and
would need to authenticate users for access control on it's own (it
doesn't
10 matches
Mail list logo
