[HECnet] Question for PyDECnet users

[Supratim Sanyal]

> On Sep 24, 2020, at 5:25 PM, Robert Armstrong <bob at jfcl.com> wrote:
> 
>  FWIW, I don't care if my IP or FQDN is displayed for either option.
> Neither is especially secret.  And in my view, security thru obscurity is
> not especially effective.

Ditto

> 
>  Which reminds me - I need to get some of my HECnet link partners to enable
> passwords on their connections...

Ooops

/s
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf
> Of Paul Koning
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 2:16 PM
> To: <hecnet at update.uu.se>
> Subject: [HECnet] Question for PyDECnet users
> 
> Gentlepeople,
> 
> Currently the details of what PyDECnet circuits connect to are not
> displayed.  So you can see that a Multinet circuit is up and the other end
> is node 42.73, but you don't see the IP addresses or the like.
> 
> When things are working that's fine; when they are broken it might be
> helpful to see what something is trying to talk to.
> 
> On the other hand, hiding IP addresses is arguably a security feature.  So I
> have this question:
> 
> 1. Should the addressing info (basically, what's in the --device config
> argument) be shown in the PyDECnet web interface?
> 
> 2. Should the addressing info be visible via NCP / NML?
> 
> The difference is that #1 can be limited to be local only, if you use an
> internal address for the web service.  That's what I do for my nodes except
> for the mapper, though perhaps there isn't a strong argument why it should
> be so restrictive.  #2, on the other hand, is visible to all HECnet users
> assuming you haven't disabled NML in your config settings.
> 
> I'd be interested in comments.  Am I too concerned about hiding information,
> or is it sensible to be cautious?
> 
>    paul
> 
>