Kurt Weiske wrote to Sean Dennis <=-
The latest IT trend in security that bugs me is SSL packet inspection.
My network team is essentially performing a man-in-the-middle attack on any SSL packets leaving the corporate network, and it breaks a ton of things.
Thankfully, I don't need to use my work PC to "home from work" (the opposite of working from home) anymore. With an Android phone, guest
wifi and VPN, I can go about my day and get home tasks done as needed.
I do find it interesting that when I see someone who's at work on their phone all the time that my first thought is that they're goofing off,
but work has a BYOD policy and some people younger than me go for the phone first for work communication.
Not to sound obtuse but why? That violates the security priciples I know. Why not inspect the packets before the SSL layer? Is there a genuine technical reason for doing something so stupid?
It is ugly and insecure, but if you want something sane you
should not be using the web to start with.
Hello Arelor!
** On Thursday 09.09.21 - 09:56, Arelor wrote to Sean Dennis:
It is ugly and insecure, but if you want something sane you
should not be using the web to start with.
What is the alternative to the web? Do you consider email as
"the web"?
--
../|ug
The "Web" would be WWW.
In this context, it means applications served over http(s),
websockets and other web browser's technology, specially
when they are served from mainstream platforms.
I don't know if you are up-to-date with http standards, but
the http specification is scattered across 6 RFCs (think of
them as reference documents) or so. [...]
HTTP is not getting better. It was a protocol designed for
serving documents but big tech wants it to serve
applications [...]
[...] HTTP 2's main selling point is precisely that they
can ship a whole lot of bloat bundled with more bloat in
the same connection.
Compare that to the reference document for something like
Gopher, which can be understood in a matter of minutes.
Sean Dennis wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
My network team is essentially performing a man-in-the-middle attack on any SSL packets leaving the corporate network, and it breaks a ton of things.
Not to sound obtuse but why? That violates the security priciples I
know. Why not inspect the packets before the SSL layer? Is there a genuine technical reason for doing something so stupid?
At John Deere, they had a BYOD allowance but you had to run their
software on it to access company data and they had the right to wipe
your phone via remote if they felt the need to do so at any time, with
or without notice.
That never sat well with me so I carried two cell
phones. I really hated that. I still hate carrying a cell phone and
I'm tempted to just get a numeric pager.
Compare that to the reference document for something like
Gopher, which can be understood in a matter of minutes.
Gopher seems to be very quick and efficient, but I just can't
seem to want to use it very much. It just seems too plain.
BTW.. the "Xibalba - Enigma Bulletin Board System" link on your
gopher page doesn't seem to work.
Gopher seems to be very quick and efficient, but I just
can't seem to want to use it very much. It just seems too
plain.
BTW.. the "Xibalba - Enigma Bulletin Board System" link on
your gopher page doesn't seem to work.
Gopher has some shortcommings, like a lack of standard
support for anything that is not ascii (which gophermasters
have to workaround) and lack of client-to-server
encryption.
Maybe that is why they are trying to bring Gemini forth.
I am a fan of Gopherpedia and the Gopher gateway to reddit,
so you can use those web serives up to a point without
using their lame web interfaces.
One thing that I thought would be interesting is if gopher
bloggers would share their content as echomail. That would help
foster communications and discussions.
One thing that I thought would be interesting is if gopher
bloggers would share their content as echomail. That would
help foster communications and discussions.
I used to post my blog entries on Usenet to foster
discussin back in the day, but when you are a gopher r web
master you usually want people to check your site rather
than just the usenet newsgroup.
I used to post my blog entries on Usenet to foster
discussin back in the day, but when you are a gopher r web
master you usually want people to check your site rather
than just the usenet newsgroup.
Makes sense. But then, if there is nothing special about the
site that an nntp presence can provide, then why bother going
to that site?
For the Gopher/echomail system, the blogger could make the
primary article available via gopher, but steer replies/
comments to a sister-echo. That way, gopher technology gets
greater awareness and echomail gets new converts.
For the Gopher/echomail system, the blogger could make the
primary article available via gopher, but steer replies/
comments to a sister-echo. That way, gopher technology
gets greater awareness and echomail gets new converts.
A gopherhole's special feature is that it is reachable.
A post on a gopher server won't get autopurged by a BBS
after X time has passed. Also, it won't be filtered by a
sysop because you were put in a blacklist because you think
his favourite brand of soda is not that good.
A Gophersite could support a comment engine. It is just
that gopher operators prefer not to have those.
| Sysop: | deepend |
|---|---|
| Location: | Calgary, Alberta |
| Users: | 239 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 02:03:10 |
| Calls: | 1,430 |
| Files: | 3,322 |
| Messages: | 357,655 |