cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1995-02-06 - Re: The SKRONK protocols (version 0.6)

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
To: Matthew J Ghio <mg5n+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Message Hash: ddce5cd7a91266a6a8a929b5cafd29bce467d37a7e45535b912fca856496a61c
Message ID: <9502060008.AA03105@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <YjBJeLe00bkR9JllAy@andrew.cmu.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-06 00:08:37 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 5 Feb 95 16:08:37 PST

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 95 16:08:37 PST
To: Matthew J Ghio <mg5n+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: The SKRONK protocols (version 0.6)
In-Reply-To: <YjBJeLe00bkR9JllAy@andrew.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <9502060008.AA03105@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Matthew J Ghio says:
> sdw@lig.net (Stephen D. Williams) wrote:
> 
> > UDP won't get through most firewalls.
> 
> I'm working on a program that gets around this.  It creates a IP tunnel
> by setting up a SLIP interface on a encrypted TCP stream and routes
> packets through that.  It's not completely finished but it does work. 
> Send me mail if you want it.

Pardon but... why? Whats the reason for wanting to do this?

If a firewall has been set up to stop UDP, then it should stop UDP. If
the firewall has not been set up to stop UDP, or has a mechanism like
the experimental versions of "socks" currently being played with that
relay UDP, then there is no reason to want to do the above. I don't
really understand what the idea is here.

Perry

Thread