nanog mailing list archives

Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability


From: Joe Rhett <jrhett () isite net>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 20:06:52 -0700


I've left your entire message below so that one can see I've removed
nothing.  Winstar has made NONE of the statements you are interpreting from
their response.  They have simply stated that they don't support it at this
moment in time.  I'll grant you that they could have answered "when" or
"why" or "what else".  But they certainly didn't say anything you are 
suggesting that they have said.

<joke>Should we ever meet, I'll remember to never turn down a beer.
You might think I'm pro-prohibition or something...</joke>

On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 01:44:44PM -0700, Rodney Joffe wrote:

Perhaps we are all making too much of this...

It appears that Winstar feels that there is no need for MD5
authentication of peering sessions. One of our customers has just had
the following response from Winstar following a request to implement MD5
on their OC3 connection to Winstar. My first suggestion is to locate
another upstream provider (they have 3 already).

However, perhaps someone from Winstar would care to help us all
understand what the alternative solution is to securing the session via
MD5? I would *love* an alternative to the 5 days of work we've just gone
through.

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Crawford - NMCW Engineer [mailto:jcrawford () winstar net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 11:13 AM
To: xxxxxx
Subject: Re: *****SPAM***** MD5 implimentation on BGP

xxxxx,

Winstar does not currently run MD5 authentication with our peers.

Thanks

Justin

Thank you for your time and business

Justin Crawford
Winstar NMCW
Ph: 206-xxx.xxxx

Has anyone else run in to this with Winstar?

-- 
Rodney Joffe
CenterGate Research Group, LLC.
http://www.centergate.com
"Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"(SM)

-- 
Joe Rhett                                                      Chief Geek
JRhett () Isite Net                                      Isite Services, Inc.


Current thread: