* Jusa Saari <jargonautti at hotmail.com> [2006-05-26 16:11:24]: > On Fri, 26 May 2006 12:42:45 +0200, Jano wrote: > > > Here's my situation: > > > > I have a computer with static IP and always on, where I run a fairly well > > connected .7 node. I'd like to use that node for freenet browsing from > > remote computers which have dynamic IPs. Setting transient nodes in each > > of these computers and collect references for all of them is too much an > > inconvenience, leaving aside that I don't think they would work very well > > being disconnected most of the time. > > > > I don't think that currently are any mechanism to allow this. (Correct me > > please if wrong). IIRC, .5 allowed to list trusted IPs that could connect > > to the node. This is insuficient because of the dynamic IPs. > > > > I guess it would be relatively easy to add an option to allow remote > > access, authenticated via https connection and a password, and make the > > authentication valid for the session. Any plans to add this to freenet? Is > > it sensible? > > Why add this to Freenet, when simple ssh port forwarding can do the same? > If I recall correctly, giving the command > > ssh -L 8888:localhost:80 -L 8478:localhost:8478 freenetmachine > > will forward both FProxy and FNCP ports securely over the encrypted > channel without any needed configuration changes for Freenet (since it > sees the connections originating from the localhost). > > So no, I don't think that it's sensible to add https support to Freenet, > when existing tools can already get this behavior easily.
Agreed, how do you explain that to a windows user though ? :) NextGen$ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060526/5037de39/attachment.pgp>
