I'm not quite sure where to start, but there are a lot of errors in your message.
Registration Account wrote: > TCP/IP I am sorry will go down in history as the most > insecure and worst collection of protocols ever conceived. > > Some protocols aren't that great. Others are fine and some have been fixed. > The origins of TCP/IP are well know as it was created > by the US Government and bell Labs in 1979. It was to > provide a vehicle that could network US Military > missile silos and internal comms. > > It was developed on behalf of DARPA, a defence dept research organization as a result of investigations into robust networks that could survive a fair amount of damage. It was initially used to link the military and research institutions, such as universities. > It was abandoned because the protocol was subject to > potential abuse and not considered a secure comms protocol. > > I think you need to have a look at the beginnings of > TCP/IP and realise why is was dumped. > http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:CCf8DOW0v1QJ:csrc.nist.gov/publications/secpubs/ipext.ps+tcp/IP+fails+bell+labs&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=au&client=firefox-a > > That article was written 14 years ago. A lot has happened since then. Some of the things it discusses have been replaced by more secure methods, such as the "r" commands with secure shell etc. > But so much money was spent on development, Microsoft > saw an instant market for its use. TCP/IP because of > its flexibility provided the vehicle for the world wide > web which was essentially meant to transfer > information. As the web grew the issues of innate > design flaws in the protocol needed patching up to > provide HTTP/SSL. > MS initially resisted it and Windows 95 was originally planned to not use it. It was only after many other companies started adopting it, that MS did as well. For example, OS/2 had it included with Warp 3, which was released in 1994, more than a year before Windows 95. Novell was also starting to work with it then too. > It is important to realise that the TCP/IP > fundamentally failed as a secure comms transport > because of the ability for an intermediate intercept > being not only able to join the a data stream from A - > B, but more over was capable of permitting a third > party to escalate their own authority, despite not > being a part of the communications from A - B. > > > In Australia we will NOT use TCP/IP for government or > direct Banking requirements. Thats why do don't worry > about massive amounts of data being hijacked. You will > recall the latest computer fraud in the USA where a > merchant lost over 200.000 customer credit details etc. > > http://www.merchantaccountblog.com/archives/268 > http://www.google.com.au/search?q=data+loss++in+us+merchant+in+2007&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a > > > ALL government Mainframes and law enforcement use SNA > here and we are not about to dup it in the short term. > We don't have Data high jacking in this country as a > result. > > With respect to token ring - Do not dismiss the > topology as it is capable of carrying many transport > layers. The issues of speed that have been tanked about > are wrong. Token ring submits 1 token at a time - It > does not use multiple tokens. The topology is dependant > on the speed it takes from 1 token to pass the logical > LAN with many Lans coming from different routers (not > MAU's). Speed issues have improved out of sight since > original design. The major issue early on was that the > cable that token ring requires is as expensive as hell, > Unshielded twisted pair is a cheap as chips. > http://www.google.com.au/search?q=token+ring+multiple+protocols&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a > > Ethernet also used fairly expensive cable initially. -- Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
