<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

To: "Eric M. Hopper" <hopper,AT,omnifarious,DOT,org>
Subject: Re: Cipe still vulnerable?
From: Les Mikesell <les,AT,futuresource,DOT,com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:39:46 -0600
Cc: cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de
In-reply-to: <1109175862.6165.145.camel@bats.omnifarious.org>
References: <20050223133853.GA15113@killerhippy.de> <1109175862.6165.145.camel@bats.omnifarious.org>

On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 10:24, Eric M. Hopper wrote:
> > 
> > today I have found a link that claims cipe to be vulnerable for being
> > easy to encrypt by third party and even being vulnerable to replay
> > attacks.
> > 
> > The page is quite old but as it is representing a mail archive, it may
> > be up-to-date?
> 
> I'm thinking that IPSEC + NAT-T will work out better for people.  Though
> I think IKE is ugly.  :-(

Is there an easy way to tell if a NAT device is NAT-T compatible? 
Another alternative is OpenVPN, but it looks much more difficult to
configure, especially compared to the RedHat releases that included
CIPE and made it a fill-in-the-form setup.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
    les,AT,futuresource,DOT,com


<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]