On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 09:51:20AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 12:49:28PM -0400, Tavin Cole wrote: > > > But why is a secured FNP connection better than simply adding an > > > authentication handshake to FCP? > > > > I'm not saying one's better or worse than the other. Adding more > > stuff to FCP is more work for us though .. the secured FNP mechanisms > > are already written. > > I guess the question is not what is more work for us, but what is less > work for the client author. FCP is designed to make clients as easy to > implement as possible without the benefit of a language-specific > library. Reimplementing FNP would be much more difficult that > implementing a simple hash-based handshake.
The way I implemented this this afternoon was simply: if adminPassword is set in the config, then using that will allow admin messages. If adminPeer is set as a node identity, then only if Message.source.peer().getIdentity() is the same PK as was set by adminPeer will admin messages be accepted. The first is not very secure but should be good enough for Ian and co, the second is secure and should work for people who actually care about that. -- 'DeCSS would be fine. Where is it?' 'Here,' Montag touched his head. 'Ah,' Granger smiled and nodded. Oskar Sandberg oskar at freenetproject.org _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
