Re: IPSEC vs. PPTP, etc
From: Theodore F. Marz (tfm@sei.cmu.edu)
Date: 02/20/03
- Next message: MyndPhlyp: "Re: Security Breach... help needed"
- Previous message: Adie: "Re: FTP Server behind firewall"
- In reply to: Robert Mortimer: "Re: IPSEC vs. PPTP, etc"
- Next in thread: Mike R: "Re: IPSEC vs. PPTP, etc"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Theodore F. Marz <tfm@sei.cmu.edu> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:12:50 -0500
But, the combination of L2TP/IPSEC (ala Microsoft VPN) does NOT go
through NAT. Which was a problem for our organization.
We ended up using a Cisco VPN solution, which uses IPSEC, but does
IPSEC tunneling (TCP or UDP) to address certain VPN and Firewall
issues.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:20:40 +0000, Robert Mortimer
<rmortimerREMOVE@bluechiptechnology.co.uk> wrote:
>PPTP is no longer recommended by Microsoft for secure comms.
>It is tunnelling first secure second. That said it is good enough for
>most of us and it can go through a NAT.
>
>IPSEC is FBI and CIA proof (If set up correctly) byt it will not go
>through a NAT due to adjustments to the IP header
>
>L2TP Is Microsoft and co.'s second bite at the cherry. It will go
>through a NAT and if set up correctly should be secure.
>
>Rob
>
>Try the Free Swan Website
>
>On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:43:19 -0500, john <jpohn@amd.net> wrote:
>
>>What is more secure - IPSEC vs. PPTP, etc.
>>
>>Would anyone know of a good website that explains all this
- Next message: MyndPhlyp: "Re: Security Breach... help needed"
- Previous message: Adie: "Re: FTP Server behind firewall"
- In reply to: Robert Mortimer: "Re: IPSEC vs. PPTP, etc"
- Next in thread: Mike R: "Re: IPSEC vs. PPTP, etc"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|