 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 04:50:17 PDT, "Kevin C. Almeroth" said: > Better yet, try RFC3171. Bottom-line: there are weak links in the chain. > But, if those weak links weren't there, other links would be weak links, > and THOSE weak links would still be weak enough to require using encryption. > It just so happens that the weak multicast links are only a bit weaker than > the unicast links. Understand that convoluted logic? :-) By the same logic, if the next-stronger links for multicast still require crypto, and the *weak* multicast links are only a bit weaker than unicast, then the next-stronger ones are probably stronger than unicast - therefor unicast should be using crypto too. (Understand THAT convoluted logic? ;) Oh wait.. the security-conscious *are* using crypto on unicast - there's a reason things like 'ssh' are popular... :) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech
Attachment:
pgpYBSl1I1HZu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.