🚀 go-pugleaf

"Josh Howlett" <bujfxh@shark.cse.bris.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:G8prup.GCw@bath.ac.uk...
| James Carlson <james.d.carlson@sun.com> wrote:
| > John D Loop <loop@snt.bst.bls.com> writes:
| >> Thanks for your comments, James.
| >> You would probably get an argument about DHCP and bridging in a WAN
| >> environment.  I believe almost all the ADSL providers started off that way
| >> (including BellSouth), but they got away from it as fast as they could.  DHCP
| >> works well, as long as you are in a trusted environment.  Stolen IPs,
| >> broadcast traffic, rogue DHCP servers, using MAC address as "authentication"
| >> proved very troublesome.
|
| > PPPoE has absolutely no security whatsoever.  It's in worse shape than
| > DHCP, since at least with DHCP, there's ongoing effort to add
| > security.
|
| >>  The Redbacks (which BellSouth [and the rest of the
| >> known universe] switched to) were added by the providers who would do almost
| >> anything to go to a more familiar PPP implementation (!), where authentication
| >> is via username/password, traffic isolated to the ppp connection, nobody can
| >> steal IPs.  In short, it "looks" like dialup.
|
| > Looks can be deceiving.  It's trivial to forge packets on PPPoE, and
| > use these forged packets to highjack user sessions or snipe them out
| > of existence as long as you have bridging at the Ethernet layer.
|
| For what it's worth, I've been experimenting with PPPoE encrypted sessions
| (using home-brewed extensions to the Roaring Penguin implementation) and
| it works a treat.  Anyone fancy a 128-bit cypher on *all* their traffic?
| With a few trivial extensions to the rfc2516 I believe it would be possible
| to offer a highly-secure service, without sniffing, interception, or DoS
| concerns.
|
| cheers, josh.
|
| josh.howlett@bris.ac.uk
|
|

I'm curious, I haven't installed myself yet, but at the Windows Update site their is an
option to install 128 bit on DUN.

Is this the same?

Michael
_____________