Re: [Tails-dev] I2P isolation vs usability

Hi,

sajolida@??? wrote (10 Nov 2014 15:12:42 GMT) :
> Several users asked about the new isolation of I2P. Now that I2P runs in
> a dedicated browser, from inside a chroot, I understand that the same
> warning than from the Unsafe Browser applies:

> « As a consequence, if you download files using the Unsafe Browser it is
> not possible to access them outside of the Unsafe Browser itself. »

> Does that mean that people are not supposed to download or upload their
> personal files to I2P? I tried myself and couldn't find a way to do it.

> I think that this is an important usability issue, no?

Arguably yes. The exact same kind of problems will arise when we'll
confine the Tor Browser with AppArmor (on my plate for 1.3), so I'm
going to generalize the topic of this thread a bit.

My short-term plan is to allow the Tor Browser to read/write from/to
one special directory in $HOME (likely: "Downloads"). I guess the same
trick could be used for the I2P Browser: we could bind-mount
a directory from $HOME into the I2P Browser's chroot. I think these
two directories should be different.

The implementations would be different, but the resulting UX would be
the same, hence both could share basically the same documentation.

What do you think?

Cheers,
--
intrigeri