Re: [fw-wiz] Link level security with static arp tables
From: Bennett Todd (bet_at_rahul.net)
Date: 10/15/03
- Previous message: R. DuFresne: "RE: [fw-wiz] Link level security with static arp tables"
- In reply to: R. DuFresne: "RE: [fw-wiz] Link level security with static arp tables"
- Next in thread: Sloane, David: "RE: [fw-wiz] Link level security with static arp tables"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:46:42 -0400
I think the current picture is that LEAP isn't believed terribly
strong, and yet it's the closest to an inter-vendor standard
portable choice available. Ick.
IPSec is definitely the way to go if your requirements include
confidentiality of traffic and inter-vendor interop.
If you drop the requirement that your transport layer be completely
protected from sniffing, and care only for reasonably strong auth, I
think ppp-over-ethernet (pppoe) is worth looking at. In fact, I
think that's why some broadband vendors like to insist that their
customers run it. Way, way lighter-weight and simpler than IPSec,
but still has decent auth.
-Bennett
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
- Previous message: R. DuFresne: "RE: [fw-wiz] Link level security with static arp tables"
- In reply to: R. DuFresne: "RE: [fw-wiz] Link level security with static arp tables"
- Next in thread: Sloane, David: "RE: [fw-wiz] Link level security with static arp tables"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]