I fail to see why, in the abstract, IPsec and/or TLS (SSL's replacement)
are not solutions. If you are making a "they aren't ready for
prime time" comment, that's something else. If you are claiming
above-link-level encryption is not acceptable, then we have a valid
debate here (and Perry will stop reaching for the DELETE key when
he considers tossing this email for list-topic violations...)
P.s. Ricochet sucks as a LAN but even in Northern California there are
not free telephone sockets in most parks and coffee shops so it does
have it's uses...
At 06:19 PM 7/22/99 -0700, Lucky Green wrote:
>Ricochet is too slow. I don't consider something that does well below 56kpbs
>a LAN product.
>
>--Lucky Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mike Brodhead [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 16:39
>> To: Lucky Green
>> Cc: K. M. Ellis; Thomas P. Hallaran; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Wireless Networking Encryption...
>>
>>
>>
>> > BTW, if anybody ever finds a strong-crypto wireless LAN solution let me
>> > know. [To save time: yes, I am aware of IPSEC, SSL, etc. No,
>> that's not what
>>
>> you might want to take a look at Ricochet from Metricom.
>>
>> http://www.metricom.com/individuals/description.htm
>>
>> while their main line of business is as a wireless ISP, they also
>> claim to be able to sell you a point-to-point service. their hype
>> states that they use RC4, but they don't mention a keylength. since
>> it's a domestic-only product, i wouldn't be surprised to see 128 bits.
>> then again, the same document contains the sentence "You can't find
>> better security" which is a pretty bad sign.
>>
>> if you are able to find out more of their crypto details, please share
>> them.
>>
>> --mkb
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> Michael Kennedy Brodhead
>> Security - Design - Development
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>
>
>
