On 3/31/2016 11:21 AM, Ludolf Holzheid wrote:
On Thu, 2016-03-31 10:39:03 -0400, Carter Browne wrote:
[..]
I didn't ask the reason why in this case - I have had instances where I
wanted the communication to be encrypted, but I count not go directly
from Host1 to Host3. If he can go directly from Host1 to Host3, then
your configuration is correct. However, in these days of firewalls,
network segmentation, etc. the direct path may not be available or
desired.
Carter,
I was wondering if there is a reason for the two separately encrypted
connections. I had the impression, an end-to-end-encryption and a
port forwarder on Host2 was easier to set up (and more resource
conserving), but this may be a matter of taste ...
Ludolf
Ludolf,
You are correct, a simple port forwarder would work just as well. In my
case, I have stunnel running for other reasons, so it was easier to use
it rather than install another package to do the port forwarding. Using
stunnel can provide more security by validating the individual
point-to-point connects with the cost of the additional overhead of
decrypting and re-encrypting the data.
Carter
--
Carter Browne
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
stunnel-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.stunnel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/stunnel-users
