Re: [freenet-devl] ok, seriously folks, about fproxy and 0.4

[Ian Clarke]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 07:28:31PM +0100, Adam Langley wrote:
> Current plans for whiterose are that the FCP interface accepts FNP
> encrypted connections and allows extra admin commands to be sent if
> the fingerprint is good.

FCP is definitely a desirable choice for this, however I think that
requiring FNP encrypted connections (rather than a simple password) will
negate many of the advantages of FCP in-terms of ease of client-side
implementation.  If we mandate a local connection (the default) *and* a
password it is difficult to see how the admin interface could be
attacked.

Ian.

PGP signature