RE: Link level security with static arp tables

["R. DuFresne" <dufresne () sysinfo com>]

        [SNIP]

> I am not aware of how PEAP is "known broken" for this kind of application
> (assuming one takes just a little care), and I'm not sure it will go away.
> If anyone has any good stuff to point me at I'd be interested in discussing
> this aspect further. I am, of course, familiar with the IETF draft. [1] I
> agree that I much prefer EAP-TTLS [2], since it's a cleaner design, but
> "word on the street" has it that PEAP is looking more likely to emerge as
> market victor.

I think the reference was that 'LEAP' is  borked, known dictionary attack
issues.  I don't recall directly that PEAP was included in the mix on
that.  I have a brain tickle that hints that PEAP might not have been and
was cisco's <Sharad Ahlawat> response to Joshua Wright's latest paper on
LEAP dictionary attacks mentioned something about the other EAP protocols
perhaps being off the target vector.  I have that reply in storage here,
if folks want to see it, or if Paul wishes me to repost it here.

Thanks,

Ron DuFresne
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        admin & senior security consultant:  sysinfo.com
                        http://sysinfo.com

"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity.  It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation."
                -- Johnny Hart

testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!


_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards