On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 10:25:24PM -0600, Benjamin Tomhave wrote: > SSL is only safe if the initial handshake is missed by the sniffer. No, SSL is safe against sniffing and against Man-in-the-middle. Of course for protection against MITM you need Certificates and trusted users. For protection against sniffing, replay, mac altering you just need to use a recent SSL or better TLS implementation and restrict your cipher suites. Greetings Bernd - [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
- Re: Configuration Arguments... In House... D. Clyde Williamson
- RE: Configuration Arguments... In House... Jez Humble
- Re[2]: Configuration Arguments... In House... CSchellenberg
- Re: Configuration Arguments... In House... Paul Cardon
- RE: Re[2]: Configuration Arguments... In House... John Steniger
- RE: Re[2]: Configuration Arguments... In House... David Ishmael
- RE: Re[2]: Configuration Arguments... In House... chris . hastings
- RE: Re[2]: Configuration Arguments... In House... David Ishmael
- Re: Configuration Arguments... In House... Michael T. Babcock
- RE: Configuration Arguments... In House... Benjamin Tomhave
- Re: Configuration Arguments... In House..... Bernd Eckenfels
- Re: Configuration Arguments... In Hou... Michael T. Babcock
- Re: Configuration Arguments... I... Bernd Eckenfels
- RE: Configuration Arguments... In House..... Jose Nazario
- encryption isn't security [Was: Configuration Arg... mouss
- RE: Re[2]: Configuration Arguments... In House... chris . hastings
- RE: Configuration Arguments... In House... Ben Nagy
- Re: Configuration Arguments... In House... Michael T. Babcock
- Re: Configuration Arguments... In House... David Lang
- Re: Configuration Arguments... In House..... Otto Goencz
- Re: Configuration Arguments... In House... Bernd Eckenfels
