1996-10-08 - Re: encrypting pppd?

Header Data

From: Adamsc@io-online.com (Adamsc)
To: “vax@linkdead.paranoia.com>
Message Hash: 1178a54f0c9454db7234cd48c26570ba6aa65348416413efe66f7640759ab281
Message ID: <19961007204519812.AAA220@GIGANTE>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-10-08 01:53:39 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 09:53:39 +0800

Raw message

From: Adamsc@io-online.com (Adamsc)
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 09:53:39 +0800
To: "vax@linkdead.paranoia.com>
Subject: Re: encrypting pppd?
Message-ID: <19961007204519812.AAA220@GIGANTE>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Sun, 06 Oct 1996 04:18:04 -0500, VaX#n8 wrote:

>Thinking about it a bit more, if you only encrypt, say, telnet
>then you've got a pretty predictable plaintext stream.  If you
>encrypt the entire link level properly then it might be much harder
>to isolate the nonvariant bits of the protocols since the port and
>that kind of header info is not available to the attacker at that

What about predictabilities in the PPP datastream?

#  Chris Adams <adamsc@io-online.com>   | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp
#  <cadams@acucobol.com>		 | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY"
"That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them."
   --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)