How about employing TLS for private DBus connections ?

[L A Walsh]

On 10/8/2018 3:15 AM, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> There are certainly implementations of networks marked as private,
> corporate or public on Linux systems - firewalld does that, for example -
> but not every user of dbus uses firewalld (and firewalld itself relies
> on D-Bus, so it would be a circular dependency if dbus relied on it).
>   
===
    I don't run a firewall.  It could allow me to be much more lazy, but
I prefer shutting down apps listening to the outside world.
> Microsoft presumably also pay multiple people to develop and maintain
> their IPC systems; I am not aware of any dbus contributor who works on
> it full-time. (I certainly don't.)
>
> If this is not acceptable to you, either don't use dbus, or help us.
>   
---
    Problem with that is you have taken steps and have talked about
taking steps to make such features more difficult to add.  Many projects
are strongly into telling users how to manage their security
> When we try to set a realistic scope for what we can support, telling us
> that we are not doing enough is not constructive.
>   
---
    Actually, I'm more concerned about you doing too much -- to remove the
ability to have an open architecture that can allow remote connections
with the security of 'rsh'.  The network that is used on is over a
closed circuit. with only 2 devices on it (2 computers).

    It is also the case that _if_ I can point at a solution that takes less
work, it seems that would be beneficial to you and the project as a 
whole, no?