On the other hand ssh tunnels work fine. There is a good windows ssh client called pussh. Just forward the ports you need and all is well.
Ed Tomlinson On October 4, 2002 03:08 am, Marco A. Calamari wrote: > At 21.21 03/10/02 +0100, you wrote: > > ... > > >> Just this; is fproxy usable via SSL tunnel ? > >>=20 > >> This is probably trivial from a software point of view, but > >> mandatory from an application security point of view. > >>=20 > >> If we are concerned about people using IE to browse Freenet with fproxy, > >> we must have a bigger concern for people doing it using http and not > >> https. > >>=20 > >> Maybe a good idea will be put the same kind of warning message when > >> fproxy is used via http. > >>=20 > >> This is the only doubt I have; I'll not have time to check=20 > >> this myself until next week. > > > >Eh? People will run a node locally. If they don't run a permanent node > >locally they have no security anyway. So what's the point of SSL? > > I was unable to well explain my point. > > Or maybe you was unable to understand it because, as most of > freenetters, you are unfamiliar with a freenet *user* point of view > > Not all people that *need* Freenet use an unix computer hooked > to xDSL. > > Not all people that need freenet have a computer at all; maybe > they are on trip without portable or live in China. > > So they go in an Internet Cafe' take a seat, disable the > browser cache and point https://bespin.homelinux.net:443 > > This is (er... was) a Freenet node that has an open fproxy and tunnel > port 8888 thru an ssl tunnel on port 443. Now is an unprotected > one on 8888; I'll explain why in a minute. > > They can browse of publish on freenet without disclosing > content or keys to any sniffer; OK, to have a local node is better > for privacy, but a public fproxy gateway to freenet > is *far, far* better that nothing. > > Due to complex way the new fproxy rewrite the url, tunneling > stop working one month ago; I tried every week a new build, > but the 404 still had this problem. > > I'll be able to test 509 next week; i just suggest that, before > the release of 0.5, this problem will be addressed, and optionally a > warning message like that about Internet Explorer is added when people > browse freenet using http AND are not on 127.0.0.1. > > JM2C. Marco _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
