On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Matt Willsher <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matt@monki.org.uk">matt@monki.org.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On 20 February 2011 18:59, Michiel de Jong <<a href="mailto:michiel@unhosted.org">michiel@unhosted.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> 5) Home network security, with real protection against intrusion and the<br>
> security threats aimed at Microsoft Windows or other risky computers your<br>
> network;<br>
> -> willma is looking into this one, and also into general detection<br>
> intrusion and security hardening. Willma indicated that this goal needs some<br>
> clarification as to what its author means.<br>
<br>
</div>To further clarify this, the consensus was that the FreedomBox would<br>
not be a router. That being the case, what did the author of this goal<br>
have in mind that could offer 'real protection' with out being in the<br>
clients' data stream?<br></blockquote><div><br>Hmm, as one who has vocally opposed the idea that FreedomBoxes would be REQUIRED to be routers, I think that some of the features will best be achieved when FreedomBoxes are ABLE to be routers.<br>
<br>I think we should assume that SOME FreedomBoxes are indeed routers, but not all.<br><br>So if that role is required to do a job properly (transparently enabling network neutrality for example, or providing mesh features as an alternate to traditional Internet for example), it should be assumed.<br>
<br>But for things like "leaving the cloud" or anonymous publishing, it is not necessary to "be the router" and care should be taken that the packages which achieve those goals don't depend on it.<br>
<br>Did that make sense?<br clear="all"></div></div><br>-- <br>Bjarni R. Einarsson<br>The Beanstalks Project ehf.<br><br>Making personal web-pages fly: <a href="http://pagekite.net/" target="_blank">http://pagekite.net/</a><br>