On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 03:39:19PM -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Olav Vitters <o...@vitters.nl> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 07:12:53PM -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > >> As I played around with it, I found the HTTP approach more feasible > >> and less ugly than the mimetype handler approach. At first I figured > >> the idea of running a local HTTP server would be a bit ugly, and Owen > >> thought of some security concerns, but there's nothing too critical > >> (or unsolvable) that I know of. The only "ugly" thing from a code > >> perspective is that there's a magic port number: 16269. It's not on > >> the IANA Registered Ports list, so I doubt there's going to be a > >> collision. > > > > Won't that break down in two cases: > > 1. Proxy set in the browser > > User/sysadmin has to explicitly exclude localhost from being proxied > > I'm unsure how or why localhost would be proxied. If it's some DNS > quirk would 127.0.0.1 get around it? If not, is this something we can > put in the sysadmin documentation?
Why not? If you put in a proxy setting, everything is proxied, including localhost, 127.0.0.1, etc. The browser will just connect to the proxy machine (which is pretty handy btw). I don't know what the default for 'do not proxy for' is in the various browsers, but I know I make use of the fact that localhost is proxied. > > 2. Multiple users or sessions on the same machine > > Only the first session can use it. > > My idea was that log-out would stop the HTTP daemon for that session > and open one for the current user. Unless there's a special case (I > didn't think of virt) where two users can be securely both actively > having GNOME sessions at the same time, I don't think this is a > problem. The only security issue I can think of that arises out of > this compromise is that a user could ssh in to the same machine and > frob the HTTP server to... install, enable/disable and list extensions > from the official GNOME3 site. That does not seem ideal. If I give someone access to my machine, I don't want them being able to change anything belonging to my account. I don't care if it is only official extensions. I just don't think it should be possible. > I assume there's no magic way to tie a TCP socket to a user's session > (paging Dr. Lennart Poettering) -- Regards, Olav _______________________________________________ gnome-shell-list mailing list gnome-shell-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
