[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  "Adam Emery" <subscribe at aehome dot net>
 To:  "'Sancho2k.net Lists'" <lists at sancho2k dot net>
 Cc:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] Feature request
 Date:  Sun, 3 Apr 2005 21:27:39 -0500
i was using the telnet/ssh thing as an example.  I don't understand why you
would want to do that.  Its sort of like webmin with ssl giving you a This
web server is running in SSL mode. Try the URL
instead when you go to http instead of https.  I personally feel it is
better to lock everything down.  Again, that is just a personal thing.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sancho2k.net Lists [mailto:lists at sancho2k dot net] 
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 8:53 PM
To: Adam Emery
Cc: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Feature request

Adam Emery wrote:
> Don't take this the wrong way but why would you want to do this?  To me
> would be like changing a telnet or ssh port for security but having the
> accept it anyway. 

I think you're misunderstanding (or else I am.) It seems they want to
redirect connections to the web interface that would go to port 80
(cleartext) to port 443 (https). A 403 style redirect. Not just have it
listen on a different port.

It is a sound idea, that way you can enforce admin access over SSL.