From owner-freebsd-chat  Wed Oct  1 04:55:26 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA08561
          for chat-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 04:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA08550
          for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 04:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from eivind@localhost)
	by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) id NAA20125;
	Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:54:27 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:54:27 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199710011154.NAA20125@bitbox.follo.net>
From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no>
To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
CC: softweyr@xmission.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: Mike Smith's message of Wed, 01 Oct 1997 16:20:47 +0930
Subject: Re: Microsoft brainrot (was: r-cmds and DNS and /etc/host.conf) 
References: <34320C04.5DB5@xmission.com>
	<199710010650.QAA00865@word.smith.net.au>
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> > 
> > OK, I'm working on this.  (Got the old 486sx laptop fired up here in San
> > Hoser, and am slaving away on FreeBSD work as we speak.  ;^)
> 
> Good to hear. 8)
> 
> > I've been developing the prototype for the next generation of my
> > embedded
> > web server on FreeBSD ;^) where it is working pretty well.  I'm willing
> > to throw this in, if I can convince you (all-inclusive you here) that it
> > will be sufficiently secure.  I can think of a couple of ways to insure
> > this, but it won't be completely painless.
> 
> How do you feel about adding source-IP-based access control?  That and 
> a local sshd in port-forwarding mode would just about do it.

I'd like to support SSL, too, as Windows users has to do quite a bit
of work to get hold of SSH (unless a freeware port has come along -
I've not looked at SSH for Windows for a while).  It isn't the
ultimate priority, but it would make it much easier.  (Especially if
those pesky export-restrictions fall over and die).

> SSL is, AFAIK, subject to certain undesirable licensing conditions (not 
> exportable, not available for commercial use, etc.) which may render it
> unsuitable.

SSLeay isn't too much subject to this; it was developed outside the
US.  We'd need it integrated in a web-server, though, and I don't know
how the state of Apache-SSL is (Stronghold works just fine for my job,
so I haven't looked at the freeware side of this).

Eivind.