On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 02:30:42PM -0600, Michael Torrie wrote:
> Stuart Jansen wrote:
> > It is also violating the Churches apparent intention for the data to
> > remain private. A proxy would shuttle raw encrypted bytes. A MITM can
> > see the data, a proxy can't.
I agree with Stuart that this i
Stuart Jansen wrote:
> It is also violating the Churches apparent intention for the data to
> remain private. A proxy would shuttle raw encrypted bytes. A MITM can
> see the data, a proxy can't.
Yes if this were offered as a web site to others, then yes I agree. If
it was intended to be run perso
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 14:07 -0600, Michael Torrie wrote:
> Actually I should add that it can't be a man-in-the-middle attack
> because it is not transparent (ie he has to manually browse to the proxy
> page). And no one is attacking anyone.
It is transparent. Most people won't understand the impl
Michael Torrie wrote:
> Same thing.
Actually I should add that it can't be a man-in-the-middle attack
because it is not transparent (ie he has to manually browse to the proxy
page). And no one is attacking anyone.
BYU Unix Users Group
http://uug.byu.edu/
The opinions ex
Stuart Jansen wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 12:31 -0600, Michael Torrie wrote:
>> Have I misunderstood what AJ is doing?
>
> Yes. You've described his app as a proxy. In reality, it's more like a
> Man In The Middle attack.
Same thing.
BYU Unix Users Group
http://uug.byu.ed
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 12:31 -0600, Michael Torrie wrote:
> Have I misunderstood what AJ is doing?
Yes. You've described his app as a proxy. In reality, it's more like a
Man In The Middle attack.
--
"XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve your problem, you aren't
using enough of it." - Chris M
James Carroll wrote:
> I would be especially careful now that a public record of what you are
> doing has been made (on the UUG group archives).
Wow! This isn't the RIAA here. Besides I think that unless I've
totally misunderstood what AJ is doing, you all have definite
misunderstood and are sim
I would be especially careful now that a public record of what you are
doing has been made (on the UUG group archives).
:D
James
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Robert LeBlanc wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Andrew McNabb wrote:
>>
>> I'm curious what others on the list think, bu
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Andrew McNabb wrote:
> I'm curious what others on the list think, but I'm pretty sure that if
> you asked for permission, the Church (or at least its lawyers) would not
> permit such a web service. My personal opinion would be that it's safer
> (both in terms of
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 06:51:14PM -0400, AJ ONeal wrote:
> I think it's fair to make a distinction between
>
> Web Site
> Web Application
> Web Service
>
> A web site would be a site where information is made publicly available.
>
> A web application would be like gmail - a tool that I use whic
10 matches
Mail list logo