[Nut-upsdev] NUT I-D: Unencrypted communication

Roger Price
Mon, 03 Jan 2022 18:10:09 -0000

On Mon, 3 Jan 2022, Greg Troxel wrote:

>>> On 1/3/22 14:17, Roger Price wrote:
>>>> I propose adding the following sentence to section 4.2.12:
>>>>
>>>> ?If the client does not send command STARTTLS to the Attachment
Daemon
>>>> ?communication continues unencrypted.
>>>
>> Should the Attachment Daemon upsd be able to defend itself against
>> unencrypted access from misconfigured or possibly hostile clients?
>
> That's an implementation question, really, but it seems obvious that it
> should be conforming for an implementation to refuse to interact in
> cleartext.  And also to choose to allow cleartext on localhost and not
> with other addresses.

I'll change the additional sentence to

?If the client does not send command STARTTLS to the Attachment Daemon
?communication continues unencrypted, however an Attachment Daemon may refuse
  unencrypted communication.

How the AD does this is an implementation matter and outside the scope of the
RFC.

Roger