[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The netsec thread

From: Robert Pluim
Subject: Re: The netsec thread
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 10:17:52 +0200

Jimmy Yuen Ho Wong <address@hidden> writes:

>> And, as I've said before,
>> `paranoid' should stay.
> Eli's use case has already been taken cared of by
> `nsm-trust-local-network`. `paranoid has been aliased to `high for
> backward compatibility.
> Robert do you still object to removing the `paranoid level? I've
> removed that prompt that askes for permission on every TLS connection
> due to crying-wolf effect.

As Iʼve said before: I donʼt think many people need to be prompted
every time a TLS connection is set up from emacs to a host thatʼs
never been seen before, but I do, as I need to inspect the connection
parameters. Yes itʼs annoying, but I can live with self-imposed

> If there isn't an objection from people who've found use for it, I'd
> really like to try without 'paranoid on master later before declaring
> it insufficient.

I guess I could always add my own function into 'high, but Iʼd prefer
it if it was available by default.

>>> +(defun nsm-should-check (host)
>>> +  "Determines whether NSM should check for TLS problems for HOST.
>>> +
>>> +If `nsm-trust-local-network' is or returns non-nil, and if the
>>> +host address is a localhost address, a machine address, a direct
>>> +link or a private network address, this function returns
>>> +nil.  Non-nil otherwise."
>> What do you mean by "machine address"?  The MAC address?  If you mean
>> IP address, it's perfectly valid to have TLS on a non-named IP
>> address. does that for DNS over HTTPS last I heard, and
>> that's definitely a service you should verify, well, everything on.

Iʼm a bit dubious about the whole 'nsm-trust-local-network' stuff. nsm
already stores per-host settings, so why the need to check for RFC
1918 addresses? Besides, I can easily set things up so that Iʼm using
RFC1918 addresses, but the packets would definitely not be going over
what you'd think of as a 'local' or 'private' network.

Iʼd thought this was going to be something like 'trust this subnet',
which I can see people wanting, although Iʼd recommend against them
using. That would require that nsm-should-check pass the host to the
user-specified nsm-trust-local-network function (or you define a
'nsm-trusted-by-default-networks' variable).

> I mean I'm not sure what the proper name is or if I even
> need to deal with it. What do you think?

If you mean localhost, then you have:

              ;; (0.x.x.x) this machine
              (eq (aref address 0) 0)
              ;; (127.x.x.x) localhost
              (eq (aref address 0) 0))

where that second eq should check against 127, I think. I can think of
no situation in which would be something you need to check
against (nor can I see how you'd ever see such a value).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]