[unisog] Opinion on L2TP/IPSEC?
Schley Andrew Kutz
a.kutz at its.utexas.edu
Mon Sep 25 18:28:44 GMT 2006
What is wrong with MS IPSec? They co-developed it with Cisco (it's even
Cisco branded on the gui parts). It seems to work ok to me as I have
many Linux boxes (OpenSwan) involved in IPSec secured communications
with many Windows boxes (MS-IPSec) using Certificate authentication...
ITS at The University of Texas at Austin
name: Schley Andrew Kutz, MCSD, GCWN
mail: a.kutz at its.utexas.edu
Please do not hesitate to call or e-mail me if you have any questions or
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unisog-bounces at lists.dshield.org
> [mailto:unisog-bounces at lists.dshield.org] On Behalf Of Julian Y. Koh
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 1:15 PM
> To: UNIversity Security Operations Group
> Subject: Re: [unisog] Opinion on L2TP/IPSEC?
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> At 13:37 -0400 09/25/2006, Gary Flynn wrote:
> >We're considering enabling L2TP on our VPN concentrator to enable
> >Windows Mobile devices to connect without the need to
> purchase an IPSEC
> The Windows (including PocketPC Windows) L2TP client actually
> rides on top of IPSec (don't confuse the real IPSec with MS'
> co-opted IPSec term). So the security level should be fine.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP Desktop 9.0.6 (Build 6060)
> Comment: <http://bt.ittns.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html>
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Julian Y. Koh
> <mailto:kohster at northwestern.edu>
> Network Engineer
> Telecommunications and Network Services Northwestern
> PGP Public
> unisog mailing list
> unisog at lists.dshield.org
More information about the unisog