Re: [weewx-user] Re: Changing Apache WAN port- HTTP security?

2016-10-10 Thread Tim Phillips
I'm OK with opening a port for FTP or a webcam but I try my best to make sure it's a secure connection. Strong passwords, HTTPS if possible, using a brand that's not off the Walmart discount shelf and MAC filtering if possible. I still won't put a webcam inside my house though. So that says

[weewx-user] Re: Changing Apache WAN port- HTTP security?

2016-10-10 Thread vince
On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 4:28:39 PM UTC-7, Tim Phillips wrote: > > So I've totally misinterpreted what Apache does for the weewx > serviceI'm super new to this so I'm sorry you need to explain these > things like this. > oh geez, not a problem I have punched inbound tcp/80

Re: [weewx-user] Re: Changing Apache WAN port- HTTP security?

2016-10-09 Thread Tim Phillips
An excellent read. I wish they would market the device better to people like me (us?) that require web security. I might have bought their product. Might still, in fact, after reading that. It's important to take some caution to adding and trusting IoT devices. On Oct 9, 2016 6:42 PM, "Andrew

[weewx-user] Re: Changing Apache WAN port- HTTP security?

2016-10-09 Thread Andrew Milner
This tells you how the bridge works: http://moderntoil.com/?p=794 It would appear to me that the bridge has no real need for security as such since it only transmits data to acurite web site from your weather station using POST commands. It's security is controlled by your own router, and it