On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 08:04:38PM -0400, eigenman wrote:
> > > Well duh.
> > > freeweb is to freenet as WWW is to HTTP!
> > > Its a naming process.
> > >
> >
> > WWW is to HTTP? Huh?
>
> An abstract naming simplification. Which stops at a point where most
> average people understand how to use it.
> I could use HTTP directly but why?
>
> >
> >
> > > > People who want security will use MSK/SSK. People
> > > > who don't need it will use Windows and FreeWeb or
> > > > more likely a web server. If someone really needs
> > > > encryption they will take the extra time to do it
> > > > right.
> > >
> > > So how does the naming compromise security again?
> > >
> >
> > This is a perfect example of why .free is bad. A
> > little knowledge is a dangerous thing. FreeWeb relies
> > on KSKs which are insecure!
>
> But Ian just told me that KSK@ is the simplest choice for easy naming on the
> freenet protocol.
> He sugested this as an equivaliant to .free naming.
> If this is insecure then freenet is already insecure.
>
> >
> > > I fail to see the problem with making it easier for
> > people to secure their
> > > stuff.
> > > Command line people will say its the easiest thing
> > in the world. Just cd
> > > to /usr/devNULL/42//bin and
> > > execute 'boringcommand /ssd /a hhhDD44D3 [opp23.a4]
> > etc.... '
> > >
> > > Oh yeah,
> > >
> > > Command line ism is the future to security. right?
> > >
> > > Wrong.
> >
> > Nobody is suggesting using command line interfaces.
> > Where did you get that from?
>
> Command line ism ss the notion that command line like interfaces trump
> others for various reasons.(some good some not)
> At the moment freenet seems to be a command line protocol. Understandable.
> Its an infant.
> But people will say this makes it more secure. This is not true. Some
> one's ignorance of command line intracies of the interface is not a
> platform for arguing security unless you plan to make some kind of secret
> society.
> I assume that Freenet is not a secret society and that the information we
> are discussing, such as naming will be available for anyone to get. Most
> Freenet keys are available publicly. So naming these difficult to verbalize
> keys to something more intuitive
> is good for the average joe free guy. My point about command line isms is
> that developers speak this language easily and hence don't infer a cost
> here. But average intuitive joe free guy will infer a cost. joe free guy
> does not understand the language and must be spoon fed. I prefer an
