From owner-freebsd-security  Sun Nov 26 05:31:44 1995
Return-Path: owner-security
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id FAA06928
          for security-outgoing; Sun, 26 Nov 1995 05:31:44 -0800
Received: from haywire.DIALix.COM (news@haywire.DIALix.COM [192.203.228.65])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id FAA06923
          for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Nov 1995 05:31:36 -0800
Received: (from news@localhost) by haywire.DIALix.COM (sendmail) id VAA03492 for freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Sun, 26 Nov 1995 21:31:17 +0800 (WST)
Received: from GATEWAY by haywire.DIALix.COM with netnews
	for freebsd-security@freebsd.org (problems to: usenet@haywire.dialix.com)
To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Date: 26 Nov 1995 21:31:13 +0800
From: peter@haywire.dialix.com (Peter Wemm)
Message-ID: <499q71$3d0$1@haywire.DIALix.COM>
Organization: DIALix Services, Perth, Australia.
References: <199511250241.CAA02783@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>, <199511250818.AAA28898@precipice.shockwave.com>
Subject: Re: I wonder how much trouble something like this would be to do? :)
Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

pst@shockwave.com (Paul Traina) writes:

>  It uses the tun device, and raw IP sockets for its transport. (What's
>  the point of wrapping IP in TCP? IP is unreliable anyway 8))

>There are advantages if you're running a stream cypher protocol like RC4.

I've got a working prototype using "any backend transport you care to
implement" - I've been testing it with ssh, although I plan to use
either udp or raw IP as well for beating international packet
losses.. :-)

It only took an hour or so to implement, and even then I wasn't
working at it exclusively...

Cheers,
-Peter