On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:30:44 +0100, Jim wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi guys, > Without wishing to start a flame war and perhaps starting another > thread!! > Anyone transmitting un-encrypted data across a world wide internet (as > opposed to a "private" intranet) needs to think ahead a little. Every > > hacker will be rubbing their hands with glee before trying to hit you > on these ports you have just announced. A server/client or even > peer-to-peer client can implement TLS/SSL fairly easily. For those > with restricted firewalls you can tunnel through SSH port 22 if you > want to keep it simple. Firewall/NAT configurations are difficult > enough for admins to configure without having to allow special > FlightGear port rules to allow access to ports on machines > in-the-clear which may then get hacked thus compromising the security > of everyone behind the firewall. ..yes, but can ssh give us any good udp tunnelling? > Maybe I am paranoid (well known for it in my previous job!) but a > denial-of-service attack on your multi-player ports will soon wreck > your response times! > cheers > Jim ..try put an outboard in your kettle and casually wield a chainsaw on asking the white coat guys for constructive critisism. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
