<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39957 >

Madeline Book wrote:
> I am slightly confused here in that you change subject to the database
> auth code (i.e. server/auth.[ch]) - I assume you meant the hack
> mechanism.
No, I was looking at the auth code.

> ...  I have on more than one occasion been tempted to add a
> dependence on libssl, e.g. so that even the server operator could
> be considered an "untrusted party".
That would be better in some ways, but SSL/TLS involves a different
problem space.  I'm doubtful that we need encrypted communications,
with a complete Diffie-Hellman key agreement protocol.

If we did, I'd add Photuris instead....  In this case, CHAP will be OK.

> With respect to preserving the hack mechanism, it is unlikely that
> someone would only upgrade their client and not also their server,
> so it would be safe to remove for future versions. ...
Since 2.1 clients will never be able to access 2.2 servers (they will
die() on the unrecognized terrain land and water), that's a good time
to introduce a replacement.

Thanks you for your background information.

Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to