> So, you are saying, the implementer of such a firewall thinks, it's a good > idea and a valid option, to tunnel all kinds of traffic through port 443? I > would like to talk to that person. Well, maybe better not... ;-)
Yes, we have had such solutions already in the past. Just because you have never seen such a situation, it does not mean it does not exist. Perhaps talking to such a person, and living in such a situation would widen your experience. In fact, the aforementioned Nokia was not opening ports up in certain departments either, but corkscrew, socat and other stuff were allowed... > That's why we all agreed, that the workaround should be established. What > confuses us is (well, me at least), that you seem to support these broken > policies. KDE, github or any some other projects require a port, but it is also possible to go through 443 as well. What if the company accepts the latter, and it works fine then? You would start fighting internally, you do need that port open instantly? Why would you? You should start at companies proposing the denial of corkscrew, socat and other things internally then, how broken they are in your book. They are not in my book by any means. Best Regards, Laszlo Papp _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
