1995-02-05 - Re: The SKRONK protocols (version 0.6)

Header Data

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

Raw message

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





Thread