Re: Why not TLS was Re: [Syslog] Secure substrate - need your input

2005-10-26 Thread Tom Petch
Just to add the figures that support my assertion, in an e-mail from Wes Hardaker, who surveyed the network operators, to isms Of the various authentication systems in use at that time by the people that responded: 66% local accounts 49% SSH-keys 40% Radius 29% TACACS+ 14% X.509

Re: [Syslog] Secure substrate - need your input

2005-10-26 Thread David B Harrington
Hi, As this WG struggles with the question of which secure transport to use, I recommend reading RFC3535 - Overview of the 2002 IAB Network Management Workshop. This workshop, a world tour of ISP organizations, and the survey of which Tom speaks were part of an effort by the IAB and the OM Area

RE: Why not TLS was Re: [Syslog] Secure substrate - need your input

2005-10-26 Thread Moehrke, John \(GE Healthcare\)
There is a miss understanding of the information I have seen given by many people on this list regarding TLS. I think this miss understanding is also being applied to SSH. Most people get the facts right on server-side-authentication. SSL for years supported Server side authentication. This

[Syslog] survey

2005-10-26 Thread David Harrington
Hi, The survey was summarized at IETF 60 in the following presentation: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/04aug/slides/isms-1.pdf Dave Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org

RE: Why not TLS was Re: [Syslog] Secure substrate - need your input

2005-10-26 Thread Moehrke, John \(GE Healthcare\)
Anton, Thanks for your support. I do want to caution your enthusiasm for the browser support. I believe that all current production browsers implement the feature you found using HTTP-authentication, not TLS/SSL. Trying to create a user interface for this complex concept can't be easy, and the