> Closing down ports for security reasons can only be a short term > emergency measure. Doing it in general does not increase security in the > medium term, since the Bad Guys are now using 443 anyway (like everybody > else).
Yeah, the desperate ones who have not lost their sake yet... You are proposing, not increase the factor, if possible? Surely, your bicycle can be stolen with 2 u-locks as well, but more factor, ergo more difficult... > This whole blocking of ports caused a "port-80-fication" of net > services which almost killed for what ports where invented in the first > place: service discrimination. Now we have to use whole IPs for that > discrimination (like the workaround proposed in this case) or put > another addressing-layer into the HTTP content. Complete waste of time > and energy in my opinion, because in the end security has not been > increased. There is no any waste of time, if a company does not wanna change things upside down, just accept that the contribution will be pushed against the Qt Project through 443. It is actually way more time waste and energy at times to put pressure onto the IT department or supervisor shoulders (or even managers). Let us leave to the common sense which works better in an actual situation for a company without dictating something for each of them. I do not think we can make universal rules... This is a simple fix in the qt project without any modification anywhere else. Not to mention the fact, even if there was a super tool (similar to socat, corkscrew or whatever) which would actually work, we would still need to get those working on Windows, or look for alternative solutions which brings more diversion instead of just accepting on company level: "Hey, the Qt Project can handle this over 443, so let us just do it so." Best Regards, Laszlo Papp _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
