If we continue to support SECURE=0 at all, then I agree SECURE=1 needs to at least be the default, so that if you don't specify SECURITY= then you are secure by default.
I have no preference on whether SECURE=0 support is maintained or removed. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev- > bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 6:37 AM > To: Gregg Reynolds <dev at mobileink.com> > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: [dev] SECURE build flag setting as default configuration > > On segunda-feira, 19 de setembro de 2016 15:53:26 PDT Gregg Reynolds > wrote: > > > It shouldn't be *supported*. > > > > > > It was used for a long time during development so that we could do a > > > packet capture and use it to debug what was happening. > > > > Sorry, I am a bear of small brain. do you mean it was used to disable > > dtls so that e.g. stuff captured by wireshark would not be encrypted? > > was there more to it than that? > > Correct, it disabled encryption and the ACLs, along with the security-related > resources that IoTivity implements on behalf of the application. > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
