Re: Open Source (was Simple SSL/TLS - Some Questions)

2003-10-09 Thread Ben Laurie
Jill Ramonsky wrote: > Too late. I've already started. Besides which, posts on this group > suggest that there is a demand for such a toolkit. I think there's demand in the sense that there's demand for free lunches. People would like the inherent complexity to go away, because they can see that t

Indian Defence Research Facility Burgled

2003-10-09 Thread R. A. Hettinga
HindustanTimes.com Defence research facility burgled Soni Sangwan, Vishal Thapar and Vibha Sharma New Delhi,?October 9 Nineteen computers belonging to top-secret establishments of t

Re: Open Source (was Simple SSL/TLS - Some Questions)

2003-10-09 Thread Ng Pheng Siong
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 01:56:47AM +1300, Peter Gutmann wrote: > I would add to this the observation that rather than writing yet another SSL > library to join the eight hundred or so already out there, it might be more > useful to create a user-friendly management interface to IPsec implementation

Re: Open Source (was Simple SSL/TLS - Some Questions)

2003-10-09 Thread Matt Crawford
On Thursday, Oct 9, 2003, at 04:31 America/Chicago, Peter Clay wrote: If you want a VPN that road warriors can use, you have to do it with IP-over-TCP. [...] If someone out there wants to write VPN software that becomes widely used, then they should make a free IP-over-TCP solution that works on W

Re: Open Source (was Simple SSL/TLS - Some Questions)

2003-10-09 Thread Guus Sliepen
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 09:42:18AM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > If you want a VPN that road warriors can use, you have to do it with > > IP-over-TCP. Nothing else survives NAT and agressive firewalling, not even > > Microsoft PPTP. > > Unfortunately, IP over TCP has very bad properties. TCP

Easy VPNs?

2003-10-09 Thread Ian Grigg
I'm curious - my understanding of a VPN was that it set up a network that all applications could transparently communicate over. Port forwarding appears not to be that, in practice each application has to be reconfigured to talk to the appropriate port, or, each port has to be forwarded. Am I mis

Re: Open Source (was Simple SSL/TLS - Some Questions)

2003-10-09 Thread Perry E. Metzger
Peter Clay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Having spent much of the past few weeks trying to sort out a workable VPN > solution, I think this is a good but doomed idea. http://vpn.ebootis.de/ > has the best free windows IPsec configuration tool I've found, but that > doesn't help. Why? Because IPsec

RE: Open Source (was Simple SSL/TLS - Some Questions)

2003-10-09 Thread Peter Clay
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Peter Gutmann wrote: > IP-over-TCP has some potential performance problems, see Yeah. I hope they won't be too serious. My understanding is that links with few tunnelled connections and low packet loss work OK. > >If someone out there wants to write VPN software that becomes

RE: Open Source (was Simple SSL/TLS - Some Questions)

2003-10-09 Thread Peter Gutmann
Peter Clay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >If you want a VPN that road warriors can use, you have to do it with IP-over- >TCP. Nothing else survives NAT and agressive firewalling, not even Microsoft >PPTP. IP-over-TCP has some potential performance problems, see http://sites.inka.de/bigred/devel/tcp

RE: Open Source (was Simple SSL/TLS - Some Questions)

2003-10-09 Thread Peter Clay
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Peter Gutmann wrote: > I would add to this the observation that rather than writing yet another SSL > library to join the eight hundred or so already out there, it might be more > useful to create a user-friendly management interface to IPsec implementations > to join the zero