Re: Atlassian, Trello, side meetings and privacy considerations.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




--On Friday, July 11, 2025 12:33 +0100 Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 
> On 11/07/2025 00:44, Jay Daley wrote:
>> Hi John
>> 
>> It's a public Trello board that does not require a login to
>> view. I just tested it to make sure.
> 
> When I try read it, I get: "To use Trello, please enable
> JavaScript."

You got further than I did, with at least a hint that failure to
enable scripts was the problem.  I just got a message indicating the
"board" require login access to read.

> I allow-listed ietf.org with NoScript yonks ago, and recently had to
> add some cloudflare thing to get past the pre-login captcha (with a
> limit on the calling page being ietf.org which took quite a while to
> figure out) and now I have to add who knows who else to see the list
> of side meetings?

Same problem, only I think I'm still allowing some cloudflare thing
only on a "temp trusted" basis rather than globally/ permanently.

> /me unhappy, in particular with this most recent one where the
> putative benefit (joint editing of side-meeting roster to avoid
> conflicts) seems like only a tiny win at the cost of significant
> widening of the attack surface for all NoScript users.

Exactly

> I suggest looking for some other way to handle side meeting co-
> ordination with no or fewer bad side effects for next time.

Yep.  See my note posed a few minutes ago.  To generalize a bit, I
think we may be at the point when any decision to adopt (or
implement) a tool that widens the attack surface for IETF
participants should require a summary of what is being exposed and
how and what alternatives might exist.  That those summaries be
public and readily available to the community.  I'm not suggesting a
mailing or any sort of formal community approval process that would
make us permanent residents of a bikeshed.  Just requiring that the
"is this exposure really necessary" questions be asked and answered,
with informal ways to question any sloppy analyses, might result in
less exposure and better-thought-out tools.  It would also help the
IETF set a good example for the rest of the community, which I think
would be A Good Thing.

best,
   john




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux