On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> wrote: > Note: you don't just want BTNS, you also want RFC5660 -- "IPsec > channels". You also want to define a channel binding for such channels > (this is trivial).
I am not convinced. It's supposed to be *better than nothing*. Packets that are encrypted between me and whatever gateway the endpoint elects to use are strictly better than unencrypted packets, from a security and privacy standpoint. Insisting that "BTNS should not be used without X, Y, and Z" had better come with a detailed explanation of why BTNS without X, Y, Z makes me *less* secure than no BTNS at all. -- Taral <tar...@gmail.com> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown _______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography