[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Tim Nelson <tnelson at rockbochs dot com>
 To:  m0n0wall <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Beta 1.3b16 released
 Date:  Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:28:29 -0500 (CDT)
----- "Harbert Reilink" <harbert at orangebroom dot com dot br> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:06:59 -0700, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
> <cdl at asgaard dot org> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > I second this vote.
> > 
> > 	Chris
> > 
> > On 11/04/2009, at 11:51 AM, Egbert Jan van den Bussche wrote:
> > 
> >> PLEASE NO UPNP! This is firewall software. Let's keep it safe.
> >>
> >> Egbert Jan
> >>
> >>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> >>> Van: ConiKost at gmx dot de [mailto:ConiKost at gmx dot de]
> >>> Verzonden: zaterdag 11 april 2009 19:38
> >>> Aan: m0n0wall dash announce at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> >>> CC: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> >>> Onderwerp: Re: [m0n0wall] Beta 1.3b16 released
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Regarding future development: I still plan on releasing 1.3
> anytime
> >>>> soon, but would like to tackle the following issues first.
> >>> If you can
> >>>> help with any of these, please let us know.
> >>>
> >>> IMHO, we should be thinking about adding UPNP in the future...
> >>>
> >>>
> I think there has been sufficient anti-commercial about UPNP, meaning
> the
> big security holes.....
> I used it in the past, but I don't miss it at all now.....
> There has been said before that integrating UPNP in m0n0wall is a no
> go,
> because of those security issues, so I wonder why it should change
> now?
> 

If there is sufficient call for it, why not add the feature but make it disabled by default? I will
never use it on my boxen but surely *someone* would find it useful?

--Tim