Hi Raffaele, On 4 February 2018 at 17:25, Raffaele Florio <raffaeleflo...@protonmail.com> wrote:
> > The "make firefox" rule uses wget to get a few files. Is this because > you don't want to distribute signatures on Github? Ideally, it would use > local files only. > I was referring to the HTTPS statement. I'd like to deepen this statement. > There are signatures and I also think that the GitHub clone reduce the > complexity. I agree that the latter will be the default. However HTTPS is > used both in the clone and in the process to get my public key. > It introduces an extra point of failure. I could owned by a corrupted "git clone" operation. I could also get cloned by a corrupted wget operation. It's one extra thing to audit (if I want to be careful). > > Well, it crashed my machine... I had to reboot the whole thing. It > would be nice if it did something more graceful when presented with 20 > links at the same time, even if it is just asking for confirmation. > Why 20? Why not 10, 30 or other numbers? However to avoid DOS attacks, > very plausible, is useful to have a maximum requests per second. When this > limit is reached the extension blocks other request and warns the user. > This is a vital feature.. ;) > Yes, a lower number would be better. I used 20 for dramatic effect, because this is enough to crash a computer. > > Also, I think your tool could be quite useful for several different use > cases. Perhaps it's better to have the default configuration being > unobtrusive, but allow the user to switch on more defenses if they like. > I think that the opposite is better. *The user* sets as default "Open > here mode" (not secure), and then, trough Quick Settings, it could switch > to "redirection mode". Quick Settings has to be very flexible. > More secure default, is better.. I repeat: the extension did its job. > However why do you not whitelist these (20+) URLs (or related domains), if > you consider them trustworthy? > My computer crashed before I had a chance to whitelist anything. I would actually rather open them inside a "session VM", but it isn't obvious how to do it. > (I think this idea needs a bit more thought!) > I agree. It's something not, principally, related to this extension. I'm > also waiting to try the stable 4.0. > It is a great use case though, which is very helpful when designing things. Kind regards, Andrew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to qubes-devel@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-devel/CAAXZBWJWaJM4SNArR_dLfX%2BgjWi_r3%2BUehJ1KyN75Nc--Qug%2BA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
