Yes, come to think of it, that makes sense
Fil
John Clarke wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:59:09PM +1100, Phil Scarratt wrote:
working. I then had another problem with ppp authentication over the
L2TP tunnel - turns out you can't have * for the server field in the
secrets file as man page
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:59:09PM +1100, Phil Scarratt wrote:
> working. I then had another problem with ppp authentication over the
> L2TP tunnel - turns out you can't have * for the server field in the
> secrets file as man page says you can (maybe it's an l2tp thing).
I dont think you can
ubject: RE: [SLUG] Win2k - Linux VPN
At 04:55 PM 13/03/03, Adam W sent this up the stick:
>Just on this topic of VPN's. I have been meaning to ask everybody. How
>secure are VPN's in terms of packet sniffers/encryption etc. The company
>that I work for has decided to use
CIPE is a heck of a lot easier to configure and get working, and there is a
windows client if you need to integrate a windows client into the vpn.
furthermore, it's more lightweight than IPSEC, and it is easier to configure
thru a firewall.
and one final note, it's included with the recent Red Ha
Thanks to all who replied and the ensuing discussion... cleared up a few
things.
I read about Bruce Schneier's analysis as well and was one of the
reasons for not wanting to go PPTP. I didn't necessarily want to spend
money on it so went in search of other methods. Having heard of IPSEC
before
My understanding is that PSK is not possible with Win2K
Fil
Adam Hewitt wrote:
BTW, you are probably better off gettign everything working with a
pre-shared key first and then trying certificates. The certificates just
add an extra element that you may not want to deal with on your first
time rou
BTW, you are probably better off gettign everything working with a
pre-shared key first and then trying certificates. The certificates just
add an extra element that you may not want to deal with on your first
time round...
Adam.
On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 16:32, Phil Scarratt wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Sor
Thats all well and good if you have a routable address range, if you are
just getting one public address statically from your service provider
then you are stuck with 1) a firewall on the same box as the vpn is
terminated or 2) no firewall at all. The reason for this is that IPSEC
cannot be nat'ed,
I haven't any luck getting native mode l2tp to work on win2k.
we use netscreen remote instead - www.netscreen.com with a high degree
of success.
100 user license is around $500
its based on the safenet ipsec client.
works well - easy to deploy and support
dave
On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 16:32, Phil S
> It's actually MS's implementation that's flawed rather than PPTP itself.
> However, the most likely reason for using PPTP is Windows clients and that
> means MS's implementation.
Lots of people are still using PPTP for Win9x clients, because that's all
they have... However, MS now has a very e
I think that was with pptp2 and that was patched 6 months ago.
I am pretty sure of that because with 2k is using pptp3
> My concern with the PPTP path is the reported security issues:
>
> # Flawed encryption mechanism -- non-random keys, session keys weak hash
> of user password, key lengths too
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 05:14:58PM +1100, Phil Scarratt wrote:
> My concern with the PPTP path is the reported security issues:
It's actually MS's implementation that's flawed rather than PPTP itself.
However, the most likely reason for using PPTP is Windows clients and
that means MS's implementa
At 04:55 PM 13/03/03, Adam W sent this up the stick:
Just on this topic of VPN's. I have been meaning to ask everybody. How
secure are VPN's in terms of packet sniffers/encryption etc. The company
that I work for has decided to use citrix Nfuse or whatever the S^#@ is!
Because they argue that using
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 04:55:16PM +1100, Adam W wrote:
> Just on this topic of VPN's. I have been meaning to ask everybody. How
> secure are VPN's in terms of packet sniffers/encryption etc. The company
Secure for whom against what and where exactly?
VPNS protect against people sniffing the traff
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 04:55:16PM +1100, Adam W wrote:
> Just on this topic of VPN's. I have been meaning to ask everybody. How
> secure are VPN's in terms of packet sniffers/encryption etc. The company
This is a "how long is a piece of string" question. It all depends
upon the encryption used,
My concern with the PPTP path is the reported security issues:
# Flawed encryption mechanism -- non-random keys, session keys weak hash
of user password, key lengths too short (non-configurable)
# Bad password management in mixed Win95/NT environment; static
passwords easily compromised
# Vulner
> There's a book called "Building Linux VPNs" which I bought
> recently. I haven't read it all yet, but what I have read is
> pretty good. I used it to set up ppp over ssh a couple of days ago:
Just on this topic of VPN's. I have been meaning to ask everybody. How
secure are VPN's in terms of
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 04:32:27PM +1100, Phil Scarratt wrote:
> Anyone know a good howto or pointers on setting up a VPN from Win32
> clients to Linux server? I'm currently looking at setting up an
I can't offer any suggestions to fix your particular problem, other
than to point you at a coupl
Hi,
Have you checked the various VPN HOWTOs in /usr/share/doc/HOWTO/HTML/en ?
HTH
Mike
---
Michael S. E. Kraus
Administration
Capital Holdings Group (NSW) Pty Ltd
p: (02) 9955 8000
Phil Scarratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
13/03/2003 04:32 PM
To: SLUG <[EMAI
19 matches
Mail list logo
