Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re: Link level security with static arp tables
From: Bennett Todd <bet () rahul net>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:46:42 -0400
I think the current picture is that LEAP isn't believed terribly strong, and yet it's the closest to an inter-vendor standard portable choice available. Ick. IPSec is definitely the way to go if your requirements include confidentiality of traffic and inter-vendor interop. If you drop the requirement that your transport layer be completely protected from sniffing, and care only for reasonably strong auth, I think ppp-over-ethernet (pppoe) is worth looking at. In fact, I think that's why some broadband vendors like to insist that their customers run it. Way, way lighter-weight and simpler than IPSec, but still has decent auth. -Bennett
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Link level security with static arp tables Debian User (Oct 13)
- Re: Link level security with static arp tables Luke Butcher (Oct 14)
- Re: Link level security with static arp tables Magosányi Árpád (Oct 15)
- Re: Link level security with static arp tables Paul Robertson (Oct 15)
- RE: Link level security with static arp tables Ben Nagy (Oct 15)
- RE: Link level security with static arp tables R. DuFresne (Oct 15)
- Re: Link level security with static arp tables Bennett Todd (Oct 15)
- Re: Link level security with static arp tables Magosányi Árpád (Oct 15)
- Re: Link level security with static arp tables Luke Butcher (Oct 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Link level security with static arp tables Sloane, David (Oct 14)