> Thats what I mean. Most users run bearerbox and smsbox on the same machine. > If they are separate the its usually on two boxes sitting next to > each other and performance is a key issue in those situations (as > otherwhise you wouldnt use two boxes). So adding SSL to a performance > sensitive environment isnt helping. But in those cases its relatively > easy to make the network secure by using a separate network between > bearerbox and smsboxes. The only case where I think it would be
of course you can use lower-level network security like IPSEC or something for remote communications. But in case of (relatively) easy and open internet based connections you will be communicating in plaintext. > helpful is when the bearerbox is far remote from the SMSbox and > reached over the internet. in that case however you might run > bearerbox & smsbox in the remote location and run a local bearerbox & > smsbox and interface with HTTP between the two locations and there > you can use HTTPS with your patch already. but what about this: bearerbox <---> (the world) <---> smsbox/wapbox (LAN 1) (LAN 2) so if you don't run beaererbox on the machine of LAN 2 you will have plaintext TCP connections between bearerbox from LAN1 and smsbox/wapbox from LAN2? Stipe [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wapme Systems AG Münsterstr. 248 40470 Düsseldorf Tel: +49-211-74845-0 Fax: +49-211-74845-299 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de ------------------------------------------------------------------- wapme.net - wherever you are
