SAFE URL: use a real internet domain such as safenetwork.net

Neither point applies to the scheme being proposed in this topic as far as I can tell.

The scheme being discussed works across all browsers - as described in the OP.

Later we could extend that to also allow “safe:” URLs, but which would (in the example I gave) only work in the SAFE Network’s own SAFEbrowser - something I have suggested might be used exclusively with SAFEnetwork.

But that’s not part of this proposal - I just mooted it to show that the proposal leaves open the path to supporting “safe:” URLs in future. This would not require conversion from one format to another - the existing addons would continue to work (just not understand “safe:” URLs) and the SAFE browser would be able to support both formats simultaneously - but could make it simple to share one form or the other, defaulting to the universal form for greater compatibility.

Conversion would only be needed if we wanted to drop the support for an existing URL format, which would be of debatable value, at least until the point it was so out of date it was no longer an issue! :slightly_smiling:

Let’s just do it anyway , because we want : safe://
Eventually , even Chrome will somehow include it

1 Like

I think a better way to implement your idea is to simply have the browser symbols without the links showing, the text next to the symbols is a descriptive tag (EDIT: use this when javascript is off)

Even better would be to use a little javascript and only provide the correct link for the browser being used.

And somewhere on the web page is a link to the browser plugin & launcher installers

2 Likes

both points apply to the scheme i proposed - but as you said it’d be a killer to have different appearance between 2 browsers … I myself wouldn’t think so - but I probably won’t be the one programming the addon :wink: … so I don’t get to decide ^^

just in case you missed it :wink: and I’d go with *.s now instead of *.SafeNetworkLinkThisTopLevelDomainWillNeverBeUsed …

8 posts were split to a new topic: Safe:// URL cross browser support revisited!

The following point has not been considered so far in this topic:

This means we need to reconsider the security implications of using a URL that the browser - without a plugin - can in fact interpret, because it means that rather than sending a SAFE URL to a search engine, a browser would visit the website we administer instead.

Anyway, as I’ve suggested in the following post, I suggest that we revisit this discussion when we’ve got a better idea of the different options.

1 Like

Well, let’s revisit it.

Now that there’s an http proxy server to be added to Launcher, we know that it will be communicating over http:// instead of an alternative scheme.

This is what’s been accepted - using a TLD of .safenet

The browsers can be configured to use the local proxy only for requests with the .safenet TLD. The configuration can be simplified by providing a PAC file.
Launcher as a REST Server

1 Like

I’ve been shying away from large threads for the past months, likely because of not having the time of sorts to read. I still don’t at all! But I just started reading some of the heavier/heated sections of the past 20 days of posts, and I find it fascinating how people are looking for the best solution—as an emergent discussion just after/as the core devs work on the incredibly time consuming foundation of the network code. Really makes me want to read everything from top to bottom, and hopefully other people. Lots of people, ideas, interactions, etc… wouldn’t want to miss out. Peace

2 Likes

6 posts were split to a new topic: An idea for dual homed services

A post was merged into an existing topic: An idea for dual homed services

Yes, likewise. I wasn’t able to read it all, but read the first 2/3.

From that incomplete perspective let me just add, fwiw, that I do agree that mass adoption trumps perfect security in the early days. I’d follow happybeing down the utilitarian route… more safety for more people is more important than perfect safety for users at the outset… especially if security can then be improved for all as network effect has taken hold and adoption speed becomes less important.

That said, I also agree that the counter-arguments I’ve read do make valid points and I’m not saying it’s obvious to go the less secure route. I guess it’s just a matter of priorities - to me SAFE needs to spread really quickly, and that’s more important than it being absolutely perfect and uncompromising.

Just my thoughts anyway, not worth much as a non-techy, safe-noob obvs… :wink:

2 Likes

I would say that’s exactly why it matters more. Techy people think everybody is just as excited about their new toy, so they just go “well of course they will come” and forget that people care more about cat videos :joy_cat:

Attract people, or stay irrelevant: it’s that simple :pouting_cat:

1 Like

I do love a cat video!

And I never really used Tor because it was too much hassle and I thought I’d just make other mistakes as non-techy that would have left me open/visible anyway. That’s what stopped me actually making an order on silk road years ago… I thought it was over my head and I’d make a mistake on my end that would expose me.

It would be nice to make things ultra simple so users could feel really confident and happy using it. But ‘confidence’ also plays into the counter arguments I suppose.

2 Likes

Yes, it’s super important to let people know the limits. “This is safe” and “this isn’t safe” should be clear and obvious. Being confident in something that simply isn’t true is dangerous.

interesting…

The opposite is true. If the SAFE network has no option for a user to forward any domain name to it, then it is inherently flawed on a path to nowhere. No widespread adoption, nothing.

I hope this isn’t the case. Is there an option at all that someone can forward the name servers for their own domain name to the network or not?

Hopefully. Build it and they will come. Right now the the MS purists hate the thought, but they will adapt.

1 Like

I always hoped that there would be a way to provide a link on the clear net that lead you to a installation of the safe client (that is short, simple, and tells you how simple and short it will be) and after installing the safe client (not registering but giving the option to) you are directed to the initial link you clicked on on the clear net.

I think this would be the best case of what you’re suggesting and feasible without loss of security

2 Likes

I LOVE the below idea - The below could be done in parallel to what SAFE team is working on.

""My suggestion is that we use a normal domain, such as safenetwork.net (or maybe something shorter), so that a safe URL would look exactly like a normal URL: for example “http://safenetwork.net/happybeing” would be used to refer to the SAFEnetwork “DNS” of “happybeing” etc

Behaviour would then be as follows…

  • user with SAFE browser add-on: browser add-on intercepts the URL and displays the content from SAFE domain “happybeing” - this behaviour is exactly like the other schemes such as “safe:”. Content is served directly from SAFEnetwork by the browser add-on.
  • user without SAFE browser add-on: the website on the old internet at safenetwork.net is accessed and displays a page informing the user “You are trying to access a resource on SAFEnetwork, a new public secure internet for everyone. Before you can access this secure anonymous website, you must install the SAFEnetwork add-on for your browser from the official Chrome (or firefox etc) add-on repository. This is necessary to ensure anonymity and end to end encryption, by accessing the website through SAFEnetwork rather than the existing internet, which has inferior privacy and security. If you are concerned about this, you can read more about SAFEnetwork here: http://safenetwork.org . Or to visit the repository and install the SAFE browser add-on click here

I OWN the domain - Safeinternet.io - which I’ll be happy to sell to MAIDSAFE team :slight_smile:

SAFE TEAM can also work on its plan to run things through the SAFE browser.
For users using the SAFE browser, HOW about also build a chrome and Firefox plugin on the SAFE browser. That way we keep the independence, security and also allow users to browse non-SAFE sites on the safe browser. My biggest concern is adoption so the more easy we make it for the users, the easier it will be for SAFE to gain prominence, content etc on its system.

Also integration with Bitcoin is critical - some sort of atomic swap between Bitcoin and safecoin. And also integration with SOLID. Bitcoin will be huge in coming years as it is the only deccentralized and secure blockchain. More and more development will be coming on Bitcoin. So we neeed to integrate with BITCOIN somehow rather than try to fly solo.

I am just looking for adoption of SAFEnet for the everyday user (and corporates alike) and also ability to easily integrate with Bitcoin - the future. AND will give immediate recognition to SAFEnetwork as well.

safeinternet.io is a generic name which means browse safely. I hope to leverage this generic domain name someday : )

2 Likes