IRC channel logs

<mark_weaver>civodul: I'm sure I'm missing something, but if you have access to a server, why can't you use ssh to create tunnels back and forth? what are you trying to do?

<mark_weaver>is it just that you want to avoid sending the bulk of the data through the server, for bandwidth reasons?

<civodul>mark_weaver: i'm trying to use viric's filegive: http://vicerveza.homeunix.net/~viric/cgi-bin/filegive/doc/trunk/doc/home.wiki

<civodul>it returns an https URL that must be valid from the outside, and so it creates the tunnel itself

<viric>mark_weaver: privacy reasons

<viric>(too)

<viric>mark_weaver: to create ssh tunnels that *open* a remote port, the default sshd config allows only opening it for 'localhost'.

<viric>civodul: if anything had worked about tunnels, I imagine that next you would tell me that the given 'ssh' host allows only connections to port 22. ;)

<mark_weaver>interesting. where can I read about how filegive works?

<viric>at that url

<viric>given by ludo

<viric>or http://viric.name/cgi-bin/filegive

<civodul>mark_weaver: it has .go files :-)

<viric>which are not guile files

<mark_weaver>but not from Guile, I see :)

<viric>:)

<mark_weaver>does filegive work from behind hostile corporate firewalls, or does it depend on a fairly friendly NAT router that supports things like UPnP?

<viric>it does not do tricks at all.

<viric>but if you have a public reachable ssh host, you can use it as hop

<viric>it does not use any network magic. It only uses usual things. So yes, you may be in a case like civodul, where no option serves you to use filegive.

<mark_weaver>NAT is one of the worst things that happened to the internet :-(

<viric>that happened, and that will happen MORE

<viric>ripe meetings results suggest, that providers go to cgNAT and not to IPv6

<mark_weaver>*nod* so sad

<viric>you can download a trojan that connects to a remote computer and sends all your data to it, without warning

<viric>but you have very good protection against trojans that listen to incoming connections.

<viric>(talking about firewalls)

<viric>I mean... given that NAT is there, there could be better approaches to it, than the usual firewall sysadmin approach of disabling incoming connections to any internal host whatsoever.

<mark_weaver>NAT blocks some simple ways to hack into a host, but there are plenty of other ways. meanwhile, it makes peer-to-peer quite difficult, and strongly encourages the use of privileged servers as intermediaries.

<viric>exactly.

<viric>False feeling of security.

<viric>by the means of lots of annoyance.

<viric>everyone knows, annoyance means security. ):

<viric>:)

<viric>speak with your BOFH, and get a public reachable tcp port :)

<mark_weaver>the internet has become so broken that at this point, the best we can do is probably to treat UDP as the new IP, and build something better on top of that.

<viric>I've some friends behind cgNAT. Very annoying; they need some public host with ssh account, but filegive gives the end-to-end security over that, at least.

<mark_weaver>filegive sounds very nice

<viric>mark_weaver: UDP can't bypass NAT either, in 99% of cases

<mark_weaver>well, I'm thinking of STUN

<viric>STUN is in the 1% of cases

<mark_weaver>so yeah, you can't quite use it as a direct IP replacement.

<viric>works in the 1%

<mark_weaver>oh really? STUN doesn't work anymore in most cases?

<viric>I have never seen it working

<viric>I'd be pleased to accept a counterexample

<mark_weaver>I've only read about it, and that was many years ago. I'll take your word on it.

<viric>I may be wrong; I only tried it with voip, with troubles.

<mark_weaver>viric: where did you get the 99% and 1% from?

<viric>I thought I saw them here: http://grothoff.org/christian/pwnat.pdf but it seems it is not so

<viric>:)

<viric>that is about *autonomous* nat, which is clearly not stun

<mark_weaver>right, STUN requires a server that can accept incoming connections for the initial connection setup.

<mark_weaver>well, I'm a fool for staying up so late. time for sleep now.

*mark_weaver --> zzz

<viric>fun that there is Mark Weaver, Marc Weber, and Mark Webber.

<civodul>heh

<civodul>seen on LWN: GNOME now requires GNOME application developers to provide package descriptions in their AppData format

<civodul> http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/569034/1fa61f0fdc41ef37/

<jxself>Hey, a complete RMS recording has been found. It was made by someone in the audience. Woot.

<jxself>Plus, it looks like I missed civodul earlier. It is working now?

<viric>jxself: the gnu30 talk?

<viric>I'm interested in it

<jxself>Yep.

<jxself>It's currently being worked on by FFmpeg. I expect it'll be on audio-video.gnu.org later today.

<viric>Ok!

<viric>isn't it this? http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/#2013

<jxself>That is where the complete recording will end up being but isn't there just yet. The two part thing you see is missing several minutes because of an error at the streaming source.

<viric>aaah

<viric>I remember the cut. I didn't expect that part would be recorded. great

<jxself>The problem was at the streaming source, and so yeah. Sadly.

<civodul>Guix in the news: http://www.examiner.com/article/gnu-guix-the-most-important-free-software-project-you-ve-never-heard-of-1

<viric>:)

<civodul>jxself: the symlinks seems to work now: http://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Bootstrapping.html

<civodul>jxself: did you change something?

<jxself>civodul: Nope, it just sometimes takes a while. I am not sure when the cron job runs.

<civodul>jxself: ah ok, good then :-)

<civodul>perhaps the symlinks cron job is less frequent than the regular web page update job

<civodul>Steap: do you know the answer to Andreas' Python issue?

<Steap>not yet :)

<civodul>ok :-)

<Steap>I don't know why "python setup.py install_data" is triggered

<Steap>but I guess we can just pass the right switch

IRC channel logs

2013-10-03.log