There is a miss understanding of the information I have seen given by
many people on this list regarding TLS. I think this miss understanding
is also being applied to SSH.
Most people get the facts right on server-side-authentication. SSL for
years supported Server side authentication. This
, 2005 1:44 PM
To: Tom Petch; Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Why not TLS was Re: [Syslog] Secure substrate - need your
input
TLS does support mutual node authentication. The healthcare
world has been using mutual-node-authenticated-TLS for over
three years. We use
To all,
The view that syslog must only be used to transport human readable
syslog messages is disturbing. Is this the view of the syslog
community? If it is then I know that healthcare will take it's security
audit message (RFC3881) and build our own transport likely using web
services. We will
at this point. I am ok with hope, I just don't
want you to limit my ability to hope.
John
-Original Message-
From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:37 AM
To: Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message
. ;)
Rainer
John
-Original Message-
From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:37 AM
To: Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size
John,
the issue is the simplex
An advantage of TLS over SSH that is not technical in nature is that
TLS/SSL is already found in very low end devices as it is used for other
purposes. Utilizing it is far better than requiring that these devices
now take on the additional SSH (or other) protocols. SSH tends not to be
as widely
I would like to plea with the group to figure out ways to stop using the
legacy MTU as a reason to constrain new standards. I would rather see
syslog-sign not support 3164 than for it to be constrained to 1024 bytes
because of some belief that it needs to support a non-normative RFC. My
Much of the reason 3195 is specified is because there is no good
alternative. Healthcare has been asking for a stable standard that gets
implemented for 4 years now. It is getting hard to justify this
allegiance to the syslog community. There are many in the healthcare
community that want to
The Healthcare industry has tried to use COOKED... WHY is it considered
no uptake? We have security audit events that get captured in an XML
message; thus COOKED would be preferred. (See RFC 3881)
I agree that the audit servers have not implemented it, but then again
there isn't much conformance
deployed, we should be very careful
about obsoleting 3195.
Rainer
-Original Message-
From: David Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 4:57 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards; 'Chris Lonvick'; 'Moehrke, John (GE
Healthcare)'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
10 matches
Mail list logo
