[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IPSEC == end of firewalls (was Re: (fwd) e$: PBS NewsHour, Path Dependency, IPSEC, Cyberdog, and the Melting of Mr.)

To: Nelson Minar <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: IPSEC == end of firewalls (was Re: (fwd) e$: PBS NewsHour, Path Dependency, IPSEC, Cyberdog, and the Melting of Mr.)
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 21:07:38 -0500
Cc: [email protected]
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 22 Jan 1996 18:59:51 MST." <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]

Nelson Minar writes:
> I'm all for the end of ridiculous non-TCP/IP protocols, but does
> anyone believe this point about encrypted IP traffic eliminating the
> need for firewalls?

There is division in the IETF community on this point.

Phil Karn (who I have the greatest respect for) thinks IPSEC means we
can get rid of the firewalls. I, for one, don't -- they are there
largely because people don't trust that their networking software is
free of security holes, and cryptography doesn't fix security holes
for the most part.

Perry

Follow-Ups:
- Re: IPSEC == end of firewalls (was Re: (fwd) e$: PBS NewsHour, Path Dependency, IPSEC, Cyberdog, and the Melting of Mr.)
  - From: "Dave Emery" <[email protected]>

References:
- IPSEC == end of firewalls (was Re: (fwd) e$: PBS NewsHour, Path Dependency, IPSEC, Cyberdog, and the Melting of Mr.)
  - From: Nelson Minar <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: IPSEC == end of firewalls (was Re: (fwd) e$: PBS NewsHour, Path Dependency, IPSEC, Cyberdog, and the Melting of Mr.)
Next by Date: RC4 for HP48
Prev by thread: IPSEC == end of firewalls (was Re: (fwd) e$: PBS NewsHour, Path Dependency, IPSEC, Cyberdog, and the Melting of Mr.)
Next by thread: Re: IPSEC == end of firewalls (was Re: (fwd) e$: PBS NewsHour, Path Dependency, IPSEC, Cyberdog, and the Melting of Mr.)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread