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. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010626/58a31592/attachment.pgp>
