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: Matthew J Ghio <mg5n+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: eeb821314294ad38209eb06ecec4d5d8546e7c0f542f1b195259e9c8bce02e40
Message ID: <sjBKpHm00bkP0bX0Yx@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply To: <9502060008.AA03105@snark.imsi.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-06 00:29:28 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 5 Feb 95 16:29:28 PST

Raw message

From: Matthew J Ghio <mg5n+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 95 16:29:28 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The SKRONK protocols (version 0.6)
In-Reply-To: <9502060008.AA03105@snark.imsi.com>
Message-ID: <sjBKpHm00bkP0bX0Yx@andrew.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com> writes:

> 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.

Presumably you would only let trusted people tunnel through your firewall.

Thread