I cannot, i did some searches when i wrote the comment but could not find info about it. It is possible that i am confusing it with another project. I added a iirc but maybe that was not clear enough that i am not sure about it.
ShortN0te
That’s simply bad software practice, which was fixed once pointed out. Fact is that if they had done this on purpose, they wouldn’t have changed it and instead, would’ve came up with an excuse to keep it the same way.
This is not correct. While they have removed it from being installed on newer installs/updates, the certificate remains on the system that ran the corresponding version installer/upgrade unless it will be manually removed by the few percent that got the news.
I am talking about it in general. If you trust it or not depends on you. I am just saying that the argument that it is OS or that you can host the server yourself does not automatically mean that it is safe. That applies to any software.
It could install software that transmits the data some time else. Basically something virus would do. The code can be hidden somewhere or loaded from somewhere with simple code.
Those are basic tactics used for years by malware. If just simply monitoring would be enough to protect against malware then we would have way less problems.
You should never run untrusted code or code by untrusted ppl.
You are not running the software cause you do not trust the ppl running it? So you do host the software anyway? Just because it is OS and just because you can run it on your own hardware does not mean you can blindly trust it.
The installer has included a root certificate before that gets installed without asking. Also there are some code blobs in the code iirc.
Also how they handled the initial wayland "support".
It is relatively easy to smuggle in backdoors if you are the maintainer of the code and afaik there was not even an independent audit.
Saying it is fine just because of it being OS is really naive.
You have clearly not understood what it does. It basically acts as a basic WAF by blocking the access to various paths that are required by the default sharing feature but not by this "proxy".
I mean you have the current image cached on the local server when you use it.
1 GB of RAM for every TB of storage is recommended but you can do with way less for ZFS.
What do you mean with encryption? Does it need to be transport encrypted, end to end encrypted or is encryption at rest (when the server is offline) good enough?
Open standards are the first step of a functional transition to an open government. From there Open Source Software can compete against commercial software, once the ppl see that the FOSS offers the same features then the proprietary paid software they can easily switch to it. With open standards they only need to train the users, no data to migrate etc.
if i recall correctly