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

Re: [linux-security] Re: IP Security for Linux (IPSec)



> On Fri, Aug 07, 1998 at 11:39:12PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Does Debian have enough volunteers/resources outside the US to fully
> > integrate an IPSEC implementation?
> 
> 	I thought IPSEC was mostly a kernel-level issue?
> 
> 	But yes, when it becomes available, I at least
> 	will work on it. I would love throwing ssh
> 	away, and expect to find clients who need VPNs
> 	using IPSEC.
> 
> 	(Yes, ssh is good. But it still sucks in many ways)
> -- 
> tv-nospam-sig-1@hq.yok.utu.fi - it's a valid address w/o spam
> 


We've been running IPSEC network wide for nearly two years now 
I'd guess.  We are upgrading kernels from 2.0.* to 2.1 and 
there were no appropriate patches last time I looked 
(several months).  It was even a hack getting it into later 
2.0.3* kernels.  Given the whole glibc, gcc to egcs, etc...
I doubt it will slip in cleanly now.  I expect that for other 
than the particular machines that need it on day-to-day basis 
we will have to drop it from our system; those machines will 
have to remain without upgrades.

Alan Cox points out that given US encryption laws, building IPSEC
into kernel is unlikely to be widely `acceptable'.  He recommends
CIPE drivers instead and I expect we will be switching to those.
Drivers might even address one of the shortcomings of IPSEC, 
that it only worked on gateway boxen ( and except in that 
configuration would not replace ssh.)

The real beauty of IPSEC ( IMHO ) was that keys would be 
integrated into DNS and that it could then spread with `fax effect' 
eg "1 is worthless, 2 are worth something, millions worth a lot". 

cfm


-- 

Christopher F. Miller, Publisher                            cfm@maine.com
MaineStreet Communications, Inc        208 Portland Road, Gray, ME  04039
1.207.657.5078  (MTRF 3-5pm)                        http://www.maine.com/


Reply to: