[47708] in Cypherpunks
Re: IPSEC == end of firewalls (was Re: (fwd) e$: PBS NewsHour, Path Dependency, IPSEC, Cyberdog, and the Melting of Mr.)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perry E. Metzger)
Mon Jan 22 21:09:59 1996
To: Nelson Minar <nelson@santafe.edu>
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 22 Jan 1996 18:59:51 MST."
<199601230159.SAA00256@nelson.santafe.edu>
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 21:07:38 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Nelson Minar writes:
> I'm all for the end of ridiculous non-TCP/IP protocols, but does
> anyone believe this point about encrypted IP traffic eliminating the
> need for firewalls?
There is division in the IETF community on this point.
Phil Karn (who I have the greatest respect for) thinks IPSEC means we
can get rid of the firewalls. I, for one, don't -- they are there
largely because people don't trust that their networking software is
free of security holes, and cryptography doesn't fix security holes
for the most part.
Perry
