3 ms·

The post already mentions why he doesn't want to do this. > One of the core tenants of the ngrok.com service is that it does not inspect your traffic at all be

• jarrett 12y ago
  Yeah, I'm just thinking one could relax that policy--if there were actually a viable strategy for flagging sites, which there may not be. Unless you're tunneling SSL, you can't know that ngrok doesn't inspect your traffic. Promises of privacy that are based on the honor system aren't worth much, at least to me. I'm not at all attacking the honesty of the ngrok operator; I'm just stating a generality about security--one that applies regardless of how much you think you trust any particular actor. For two main reasons: 1) The actor may not be as good as you think, and 2) even a truly good actor can be compromised in a variety of ways. Therefore, to me at least, a promise not to inspect traffic has little or no value. And if that promise has no value to users of ngrok, perhaps it could be relaxed in favor of protecting the long-term viability of the service. That being said, the caveat stated above still applies. There's no point in relaxing the promise unless there exists a viable flagging strategy. And such a strategy may not exist, owing to the problems I described in my previous post.
• dennisgorelik 12y ago
  What is the reason to keep free and potentially dangerous traffic private? If users want privacy - they can pay for their privacy. Payment information would also make users traceable and therefore responsible for their private traffic.