From owner-freebsd-hardware Sat Jul 6 21:45:03 1996 Return-Path: owner-hardware Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA25045 for hardware-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 21:45:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from crh.cl.msu.edu (crh.cl.msu.edu [35.8.1.24]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA25036 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 21:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from henrich@localhost) by crh.cl.msu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22350; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 00:45:00 -0400 Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 00:45:00 -0400 From: Charles Henrich Message-Id: <199607070445.AAA22350@crh.cl.msu.edu> To: troy@circle.net, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cable vs. ISDN Newsgroups: lists.freebsd.hardware References: <4rne79$v0a@msunews.cl.msu.edu> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #3 (NOV) Sender: owner-hardware@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In lists.freebsd.hardware you write: >Know of any machine that can handle destination-based encryption on >the fly, fast enough to support 10MB/s? >These are, I think, the real issues. Sure, bidirectional cable >is provably possible. But the security of the technology is >abominable. And of course, the cable folks will probably screw it >all up. So, take heart ISPs! Just be ready to move quickly, who knows >when your local cable company might want to buy their access thru you? >Or consulting, too... :) Think people! I have one of these things, its a filtering *bridge* I dont get packets im not sposed to get, and thats how it works. Now if I can spoof the hardware and take it over then yes, I can snoop. Okay on to encryption, ever hear of SSH?! Cripes, ssh is virtually transparent and fast as hell! -Crh -- Charles Henrich Michigan State University henrich@msu.edu http://pilot.msu.edu/~henrich