> Encryption is designed to run over insecure links such as the internet or > corporate LAN.
Encryption is designed to make information unintelligible to people who do not have what is needed to decrypt it. It has been around quite a bit longer than the Internet or Corporate LANs. I believe the root of his question was probably "Should I feel safe using using Metaframe's encryption on a wireless LAN." The environment would need to be described better to formulate a proper answer. The NSA would probably not consider it safe to use the encryption that Metaframe provides as a sole source of protection. However if I was using to log into my home machine to grab a list of my DVD collection, it should be sufficient. So Paul, you will have to decide what level of security is desired for your particular application and compare that to the level of security that Citrix claims to have in Metaframe. As Jason said, in regards to WEP, dont rely on it to protect your data. Ken On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 15:14, Jason Johnson wrote: > Encryption is designed to run over insecure links such as the internet or > corporate LAN. Anyone with the proper packet sniffing network tools can > intercept normal traffic; encrypted traffic is more difficult to > identify/decode. It's been proven that even the strongest WEP settings > aren't very secure; adding anything on top of that would definitely help > out... > > --Jason > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Caruso > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 12:51 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [BAWUG] Citrix Metaframe encryption and 802.11b > > > The network a particular type encryption is used on does not have any > affect on how secure the encryption is. That aside you should treat an > wireless network like the Internet. Would you feel comfortable using > Metaframe with its High-Encryption setting over the Internet? If not > then you probably should not trust it on a wireless network either. > > As for the different levels of encryption that Metaframe provides I do > not know what the differences are. I have used Windows NT/2000 terminal > services which is based on the Citrix code (I believe?) and have had > good luck tunneling it over ssh with the "High" encryption that Terminal > Services provides enabled. > > Ken > > > On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 12:02, Paul Price wrote: > > The Citrix metaframe client has high, medium and low encryption options > when > > connecting to a Citrix Metaframe server. Does anyone have any thought on > > Citrix encrypted client/server data? Do you think this type of encryption > > would be secure on an 802.11b network? > > > > Any thought are much appreciated. > > > > -Paul > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > > > > -- > > general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> > > [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > -- > general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> > [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > -- > general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> > [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
