[Noisebridge-discuss] VPN from the noisebridge network.

[Christie Dudley]

While I'd agree that "it's a feature not a bug" and if someone's not OK with
the lack of security, it's their problem not ours (but we're happy to help
fix, if necessary).  However, the bandwidth cost of having anything in the
space becoming a server is non-trivial.  NAT isn't evil so long as it's
uniformly applied.  It concerns me that we're not uniformly applying it,
though.

Christie
---
Pigs can fly given sufficient thrust.
    - RFC 1925


On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Jonathan Lassoff <jof at thejof.com> wrote:

> Excerpts from Jacob Appelbaum's message of Wed Oct 14 19:17:29 -0700 2009:
> > I agree. Why would we want to filter the network? Can't I just have a
> > real IP and routed?
>
> I'm not suggesting we filter the network, however if someone shows up
> with an unpatched Windows laptop, I'd hate for them to get owned.
> The NAT-ed network keeps outsiders from being able to connect to
> services internally (including weakly secured visiting laptops), whereas
> a network that gives you a public IP leaves whatever's connected to it
> accessible from the outside world.
>
> I suspect this shouldn't be a problem for most people at Noisebridge,
> but I'd just hate to see some visitor come along and see the
> "noisebridge-public" network, hop on and get compromised.
>
> --j
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20091014/7c35bc7a/attachment-0003.html>