[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[anonsec] 3401 and highjacking

From: Nicolas.Williams at sun.com (Nicolas Williams)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:17:55 -0600
In-reply-to: <p06230904c020f4432aa5 at [128.89.89.106]>
References: <v04q36n1tx.fsf at marajade.sandelman.ca> <p06230904c01685fea3d2 at [192.168.0.100]> <20060214055647.GY9977 at binky.Central.Sun.COM> <p06230900c019121a4f27 at [10.1.184.180]> <20060215224234.GD9977 at binky.Central.Sun.COM> <p0623090ac01a6c5f2872 at [12.104.145.107]> <20060216202710.GB20143 at binky.Central.Sun.COM> <p06230912c01aa22ecf92 at [12.104.145.107]> <43F5EF3B.5050301 at isi.edu> <p06230904c020f4432aa5 at [128.89.89.106]>

On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 11:50:09AM -0500, Stephen Kent wrote:
> Also, SSL/TLS now is defined to support UDP, so the traditional 
> argument about needing to use IPsec to accommodate other than TCP is 
> no longer valid.

For the record, I've not made that argument.

Nico
--

References:
- [anonsec] 3401 and highjacking
  - From: Michael Richardson
- [anonsec] 3401 and highjacking
  - From: Stephen Kent
- [anonsec] 3401 and highjacking
  - From: Nicolas Williams
- [anonsec] 3401 and highjacking
  - From: Stephen Kent
- [anonsec] 3401 and highjacking
  - From: Nicolas Williams
- [anonsec] 3401 and highjacking
  - From: Stephen Kent
- [anonsec] 3401 and highjacking
  - From: Nicolas Williams
- [anonsec] 3401 and highjacking
  - From: Stephen Kent
- [anonsec] 3401 and highjacking
  - From: Joe Touch
- [anonsec] 3401 and highjacking
  - From: Stephen Kent

Prev by Date: [anonsec] 3401 and highjacking
Next by Date: [anonsec] 3401 and highjacking
Previous by thread: [anonsec] 3401 and highjacking
Next by thread: [anonsec] 3401 and highjacking
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.