[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit

To: Ran Atkinson <rja@inet.org>, Bill Pabst <bpabst@holontech.com>, Hilarie Orman <ho@earth.hpc.org>
Subject: Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm3@chrysler.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 15:25:08 -0500
Cc: dharkins@cisco.com, ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <Chameleon.859999781.rja@c8-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com>
References: <3341A51E.4EFC@htc.sj.nec.com>
Reply-To: rgm3@chrysler.com
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

At 05:33 PM 4/2/97 Time, Ran Atkinson wrote:
>
>--- On Tue, 01 Apr 1997 16:15:26 -0800  Bill Pabst <bpabst@holontech.com>
wrote:
>
>> Would this be something that could be enabled/disabled through a Radius
>> Server with its audit and accounting capibilities?
>> 
>
>A fine idea.  RADIUS has some transmission security built-in, hence
>might be a better choice than an insecure SNMP Trap.  cisco routers support
>RADIUS Accounting as of (at least) IOS 11.2, as I've been learning lately.
>
There are many implementations that will have nothing to do with Radius.
Particularly UNIX and MS OS implementations.  Of course these systems have
their own way to log audit information.


Robert Moskowitz
Chrysler Corporation
(810) 758-8212

References:

Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit

From: Bill Pabst <bpabst@holontech.com>

Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit

From: Ran Atkinson <rja@inet.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Manual keying and replay prevention
Next by Date: Re: Manual keying and replay prevention
Prev by thread: Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit
Next by thread: Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread