From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
To: Adam Shostack <adam@bwh.harvard.edu>
Message Hash: 905933276b9ed68abfdf453b505c7ccfa947b4de9c52637188d5273dd7619ec3
Message ID: <9502052117.AA02893@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <199502052024.PAA21302@bwh.harvard.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-05 21:17:47 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 5 Feb 95 13:17:47 PST
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 95 13:17:47 PST
To: Adam Shostack <adam@bwh.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: The SKRONK protocols (version 0.6)
In-Reply-To: <199502052024.PAA21302@bwh.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <9502052117.AA02893@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Adam Shostack says:
> I was going to say some similar things about firewalls, but
> then decided that Strick is doing the right thing. If the firewall
> wants to offer skronk'd services, it can respond to the UDP packet,
> and offer up services, presumably through relays.
I was going to mention something about not putting excess thought into
the fifth or sixth "encrypt tcp connections" hack I'm aware of, but...
Perry
Return to February 1995
Return to “strick at The Yak <strick@yak.net>”