Re: [Tails-dev] I2P isolation vs usability

intrigeri a écrit :
> 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?

Seems good to me, relatively usable. Maybe you should open a ticket with
your plan ? I searched and found none (at least in the "browser" category).

Cheers,

BitingBird