> I haven't heard of people wanting to tunnel things within kerberos, so
> that's a new thought and could certainly be done. Most people that
> end up protecting older SNMP versions within a secure transport have
> picked TLS or IPsec to provide that protection.
I have given a thought on these tw
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 14:21:35 +0300, Nektarios Leontiadis <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> said:
Nektarios> My plan is to create a tunnel through which the snmp
Nektarios> packets will travel encrypted
Ahhh
Nektarios> Moreover as authentication will be introduced too, "set"s
Nektarios> will be
I do know the existance of KSM. My plan is to create a tunnel through
which the snmp packets will travel encrypted. Moreover as
authentication will be introduced too, "set"s will be safe to use. I
don't think that changes to the snmp packet header will be necessary.
The purpose of this effort is th
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:37:40 +0300, Nektarios Leontiadis <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> said:
Nektarios> I just wanted to announce that I am going to add security
Nektarios> and authentication support to net snmp for snmp versions 1
Nektarios> and 2, using kerberos v5 infrastructure. Is this gon
Hello everyone!
I just wanted to announce that I am going to add security and
authentication support to net snmp for snmp versions 1 and 2, using
kerberos v5 infrastructure.
Is this gonna have any use for any of you?
Nektarios Leontiadis
Greece
---
