On Monday 02 April 2001 09:42, Tavin wrote: > This has been argued over before. I don't think it should, the reason > being that it's not 100% effective, and it will lull people into a false > sense of security. Sure it blocks that <img> tag, but I'll bet you if > I spent a half hour I could figure out something that would slip past the > filter. A while ago it was as simple as a meta tag refresh, but I think > that one got fixed ;') > > The only thing that could be 100% effective would be to set your browser > to use a real proxy for all protocols which would perform http->freenet > relaying like fproxy but would block any outgoing non-freenet traffic. > > After I finish some of the stuff I'm working on, if no one else steps up, > I will write one of these, maybe as a service to be run with the node, > maybe external.. dunno. > > Anyway, with FCP in the node now we're in a good position to create this > beast. > > On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 11:18:05PM +1200, David McNab wrote: > > Oops! > > So it does! > > Hmmm, I wonder if this should be set on by default in the Windows > > installer. > > Here we go again.
I disagree. How are you going to trap all protocols? You will have to filter the HTML.. Just because the current security filter isn't perfect doesn't mean you should do absolutely nothing. Analogy: It is almost impossible to make a house 100% secure --> You shouldn't lock your door because that gives you false sense of security. Nonsense. The real reason the filter is currently disabled is because fproxy was leaking one thread per anonymity warnings as of the .3.7.1 release I didn't fully characterize this bug, but I am pretty sure that it is in fproxy -- not the filtering code. Could someone else take a look at this? Does this problem still exist? --gj -- Web page inside Freenet: freenet:MSK at SSK@enI8YFo3gj8UVh-Au0HpKMftf6QQAgE/homepage// _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
