On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
> My point, however, is that it's still acting as a transport for insecure
> protocols -- instead of having to set up VPNs or SSH, dammit, FIX THE
> PROTOCOLS.
I disagree. Why should every implementor of every protocol have to worry
about authentication, encryption, and so on? Why should we go back and modify
the billions of lines of existing code to support some new security scheme?
Why should every implementor have to maintain that security layer? Why should
administrators have to worry about different keys, options, and so on, for
every possible protocol? Doesn't it make more sense to handle it in the
transport layer? We don't expect HTTP to handle error correction. We don't
expect FTP to handle routing. We pass the work on to a common subsystem.
Solve the problem once, and be done with it. That makes much more sense,
IMNSHO.
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Net Technologies, Inc. <http://www.ntisys.com>
Voice: (800)905-3049 x18 Fax: (978)499-7839
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
