Of course, both of them are not ready for security-related tasks such as terminal sharing. So treat them like a "console" streaming service there you broadcast your terminal to the world.
Streamhut can be made more secure with some configuration tricks, namely, don't expose it's TCP port to the public, instead, only expose it's HTTP service. Then you can create a back tunnel (with SSH -L for example) to feed data into it's TCP port in a safer manner.
However, I'd imagine a better option is to beg miguelmota the author to add support for websocket in the cli client, that way the feeder connection can be protected by TLS rather than just a raw TCP.
Of course, both of them are not ready for security-related tasks such as terminal sharing. So treat them like a "console" streaming service there you broadcast your terminal to the world.
Streamhut can be made more secure with some configuration tricks, namely, don't expose it's TCP port to the public, instead, only expose it's HTTP service. Then you can create a back tunnel (with SSH -L for example) to feed data into it's TCP port in a safer manner.
However, I'd imagine a better option is to beg miguelmota the author to add support for websocket in the cli client, that way the feeder connection can be protected by TLS rather than just a raw TCP.