[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IPSec still too slow?
I was wrong. Your detailed response (Fed 22, 1998) predated the
description of your product as snakeoil (June 9, 1998) by 3 1/2 months.
That was some interesting reading though.
Your number one technical criticism of IPsec at the time was that it
did not have key recovery built in. You said, "Regardless of the merits
of the design by not supporting this requirement it will probably kill
IPSEC as a viable Internet standard." Your number two technical criticism
said that because there was no key recovery built in that the requirement
for DES as the mandatory-to-implement cipher would not be possible to meet.
LOL, indeed!
Dan.
"I personally think it is very dangerous to organize
referendums when you're not sure to win them"
-- Louis Michel, President of the European Union
On Tue, 09 Oct 2001 17:56:28 PDT you wrote
> Dan,
>
> LOL. You need to re-read the archives to get your facts straight.
>
> I've been very clear about my concerns with IPsec prior to that,
> starting with a detailed response to the last call 3 years ago.
>
> - Alex
>
> At 12:01 PM 10/9/2001 -0700, dharkins@lounge.org wrote:
> > Alex,
> >
> > Since all you do is spread FUD you shouldn't be surprised that someone
> >would get nasty. Your agenda is quite obvious, you've had it in for IPsec
> >ever since your product was described on this list as snake-oil.
> >
> > Dan.
References: