Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 12:36:12 -0700 From: Ian Kallen <ian@gamespot.com> To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.org, security@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Commercial vs built in firewall capabilities of FreeBSD Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970424123611.008bdb50@mail.gamespot.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The IETF told Cisco and Microsoft to merge their VPN technology 'cause they were sufficiently similar but not interoperable. I don't know what the implimentation schedule is though. I tried to answer my objection to NT's lack of secure remote administration by using pcAnywhere over a pptp link. No go. Since I couldn't run a tcp/ip capable application over the link, it made me sour on pptp en generale. I don't remotely admin any NT boxes over the net. There's a lot of issues MS has to deal with for NT to be taken seriously as an internet platform, IMO. At 01:06 PM 4/24/97 -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote: >One thing I have found somewhat suprising in this research project is the >reaction to Microsoft's PPTP RFC, or to be more precise, the lack of >reaction to it. I did a search through Dejanews (for those of you who >havent tried it, check out http://www.dejanews.com), and found absolutely >no mention of in in the FreeBSD mailing lists, or in the newsgroups, and >hardly any mention of it even in comp.unix*... Is it because its a >Microsoft initiative ? -- Ian Kallen ian@gamespot.com Director of Technology and Web Administration SpotMedia Communications http://www.gamespot.com/ http://www.videogamespot.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.32.19970424123611.008bdb50>