[Date Prev] [Date Index] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Index] [Thread Next]
Doug Hughes email@example.com
Mon, 21 May 2001 15:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Iain Rae wrote: > > > > I've done it. Yes, it is work. Doing it modularly will be even more work. > > However, in order to do this right (not creating dependency hell), I > > think it's the right way. (Kerberos would be a *whole* lot of work for > > somebody wishing to incorporate that with modularity). > > can you point at any decent docs/examples I could take a look at? I was > thinking of digging through the cyrus-imap or <winces>samba code. cyrus might be a descent one. I wouldn't do samba though. WAAY too big. It's a good example of super-abstraction, but can be difficult to follow. I can't really think of any small examples off the top of my head using cryptolib. I've written some stuff, but not sure how clean it is. ;) > > > > > Just my $.02. > > > > The easiest way would be to just add encryption using something like > > cryptolib. Use DH to gen keys on both ends and then 3DES or IDEA > > or blowfish or whatever to encrypt things. Then have a set of > > #ifdefs in the appropriate place in the communication path to > > initialize the session and before/after network reads/writes to > > encrypt/decrypt. > > > > > This is bare bones. It doesn't provide for man in the middle > > prevention, it doesn't verify authenticaticity. It does prevent > > passwords from transiting in the clear. Using something like this > > with tcp_wrappers provides some additional protection at marginal > > effort increment. > > In the first instance all I'm looking to is provide an encrypted channel > between the various hosts, but if I'm going to do that I'd rather work the > code to try and make it easier to add other systems and in the med-long term > we'd (DCS) be looking for kerberos anyway so anything I'd do would have one > eye on that. > > I was also thinking that you would probably want something that didn't require > an infrastructure to fall back on, not much point in having kerberos if it's > your kerberos servers you're trying to get to the consoles of. yup. > > This pretty much ties you to a modular system from the start ( if your > bare-bones system above doesn't work do you drop back to cleartext or drop the > connection). > well, I was thinking of it more as compile time options, but you could have run time options of which one to use too. That adds more complexit too..