nanog mailing list archives
Re: huawei
From: Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:20:40 -0400
Not really, no one has claimed it's impossible to hide traffic. What is true is that it's not feasible to do so at scale without it becoming obvious. Steganography is great for hiding traffic inside of legitimate traffic between two hosts but if one of my routers starts sending cay photos somewhere, no matter how cute, I'm gonna consider that suspicious. That's an absurd example (hopefully funny) but _any_ from one of my routers over time would be obvious, especially since to be effective this would have to go on much of the time and in many routers. Hiding all that isn't feasible for a really technically astute company and they're not in that category yet (IMO). On Jun 13, 2013 1:10 PM, "Nick Khamis" <symack () gmail com> wrote:
On 6/13/13, Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:On 06/13/2013 09:35 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:I am assuming a not-Hauwei-only network. The idea that a router could send things through other routers without someone who is looking for it noticing is ludicrous.::cough:: steganography ::cough:: MikeWell put! N.
Current thread:
- Re: huawei, (continued)
- Re: huawei Phil Fagan (Jun 13)
- Re: huawei Eugen Leitl (Jun 13)
- Re: huawei Jay Ashworth (Jun 14)
- Re: huawei Adrian (Jun 13)
- Re: huawei Rich Kulawiec (Jun 14)
- Re: huawei Phil Fagan (Jun 13)
- Re: huawei Michael Thomas (Jun 13)
- Re: huawei Nick Khamis (Jun 13)
- Re: huawei Scott Helms (Jun 13)
- Re: huawei Michael Thomas (Jun 13)
- Re: huawei Mark Gallagher (Jun 13)
- Re: huawei Scott Helms (Jun 13)