I would also really like to see a hidden service for suckless.org, not
everyone uses hidden service but it's generally really easy to set it
up, I tried setting it up some time ago without even setting up port
forwarding in router.
But one thing I heard that is going to be coming out is that the
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 01:21:46PM +0200, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> Do you trust your network adapter telling you the truth?
>
> Nevertheless I doubt you don't use online banking and stuff like that,
> hence you definitely trust some CA to some extent ;)
I always wear a tinfoil hat and double up on
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 01:28:40PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:23:41 +0100
> Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>
> > I did set it up for the first few months but then was too lazy to
> > renew it.
>
> What about Hiltjo then? He set it up for codemadness.nl.
>
> --
> FRIGN
>
FWIW I
Dear suckless folks,
sorry, for being ignorant, but I have one question regarding the warning
below from Clang’s static analyzer scan-build.
```
dwm.c:480:4: warning: Use of memory after it is freed
unmanage(m->stack, 0);
^
`
FRIGN wrote:
> Even if you use self-signed certificates on your server, which provide 0
> guarantee that the server you are contacting really is the "right" one, it
> still means the traffic itself is encrypted, with all benefits of it.
Heyho,
In our case it would do nothing. There is no "secret"
Alternative to the CA system:
http://convergence.io/
Alternative to SSL: use SSH to clone git repos.
The site contents are available over git as well.
Food for thought: https://github.com/shazow/ssh-chat
Now, if there was public SSH access, things like gitolite do exist...
<3,K.
Greetings.
On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 13:35:11 +0200 Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> Hi 20h,
>
> On 3 August 2016 at 12:18, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 12:18:52 +0200 Paul Menzel
> > wrote:
> >> I noticed, that it’s currently not possible to securely browse the Web
> >> s
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 01:16:06PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:10:06 +0200
> hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > are you claiming Let's Encrypt is trustworthy?!
>
> To clear this up, no, I am not. However, Let's Encrypt is not about
> certifying the server on the other end in the
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:23:41 +0100
Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> I did set it up for the first few months but then was too lazy to
> renew it.
What about Hiltjo then? He set it up for codemadness.nl.
--
FRIGN
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 01:20:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:10:06 +0200
> hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > are you claiming Let's Encrypt is trustworthy?!
>
> However, to add to my previous point, I like the automated process for
> Let's Encrypt, and it adds more trust than
Hi 20h,
On 3 August 2016 at 12:18, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 12:18:52 +0200 Paul Menzel wrote:
>> I noticed, that it’s currently not possible to securely browse the Web
>> site [1].
>
> HTTPS is not really secure. Do you really trust any CA? How many CA peo‐
>
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:10:06 +0200
hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> are you claiming Let's Encrypt is trustworthy?!
However, to add to my previous point, I like the automated process for
Let's Encrypt, and it adds more trust than just connecting over HTTP.
The 100% ideal way would be to do onion
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:10:06 +0200
hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> are you claiming Let's Encrypt is trustworthy?!
To clear this up, no, I am not. However, Let's Encrypt is not about
certifying the server on the other end in the first place, but
providing a way for easy encrypted traffic. In my o
are you claiming Let's Encrypt is trustworthy?!
On 8/3/16, FRIGN wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 12:18:52 +0200
> Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
>
> Hey Christoph,
>
>> HTTPS is not really secure. Do you really trust any CA? How many CA
>> peo‐ ple have you met in your life and really trus
On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 12:18:52 +0200
Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
Hey Christoph,
> HTTPS is not really secure. Do you really trust any CA? How many CA
> peo‐ ple have you met in your life and really trust them?
there's always Let's Encrypt, but I know what you mean. Masquerading
still
Hey all,
On 08/03, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
A onion service might be a consideration, to add something similar to
»security« as an access method for suckless.org.
A hidden service would be a really good idea. I totally agree with that:
End-to-end encryption and no CA. I could generate a domain
Greetings.
On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 12:18:52 +0200 Paul Menzel wrote:
> I noticed, that it’s currently not possible to securely browse the Web
> site [1].
HTTPS is not really secure. Do you really trust any CA? How many CA peo‐
ple have you met in your life and really trust them?
If you would co
On 3 August 2016 at 11:36, Paul Menzel wrote:
> I noticed, that it’s currently not possible to securely browse the Web site
> [1].
>
> Are there plans to allow access using HTTP over SSL?
This is on my TODO list for quite some time. Expect it to happen until
end of this year.
BR,
Anselm
Paul Menzel wrote:
> I noticed, that it’s currently not possible to securely browse the Web site
> [1].
>
> Are there plans to allow access using HTTP over SSL?
Heyho,
I'd also like that. My main argument is that it helps against MitM attacks when
our precious software is downloaded. However I'm
Dear suckless folks,
I noticed, that it’s currently not possible to securely browse the Web
site [1].
Are there plans to allow access using HTTP over SSL?
Thanks,
Paul
[1] http://suckless.org
cwm.
On 2016-08-03 11:01, Martin Kühne wrote:
Save the thread, kill yourself with ratpoison. Not the wm.
cheers!
mar77i
This mailing list should be closed.
You are providing give these retards a discussion platform with a BRANDED NAME.
But there is too much shit posted, and it's too much work to distance
oneself from all the crap.
Too many people believe suckless intersects with their ideas. They
will use it as mora
Save the thread, kill yourself with ratpoison. Not the wm.
cheers!
mar77i
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:05:22PM +0200, patrick295767 patrick295767 wrote:
> I believe than an alternative to dwm might be good. dwm is fine, but
> an alternative could be useful.
Why?
--
Kind regards,
Hiltjo
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:04 PM, Mattias Andrée wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:54:43 +0200
> Silvan Jegen wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 10:16:06PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:08:08 +0200
>> > Silvan Jegen wrote:
> [...]
>> The Wayland protocol deals with input as well so
25 matches
Mail list logo
