Re: Encrypted Video Conferencing? (fwd)

emile anderson (emanders@nexus.chapman.edu)
Mon, 11 Mar 1996 17:46:40 -0800


As CuSeeme is TCP/IP based, a Moptorola NES should work to provide the
desired point to point encryption. I have demoed in a lab on a single ISDN
BRI and Proshare.

Emile

Emile

At 10:54 AM 3/11/96 EST, @fdic.gov wrote:
>Forwarded to: smtp@va16@servers[cu-seeme-l@cornell.edu]
> cc:
>Comments by: Richard S. Campbell@DIRM ATS@Washington
>Comments:
>
>Just snatched this of Usenet. Does Cornell or White Pine have any plans to
>add encryption per the H.32x standards to their video conferencing, or is
>this not seen as a problem?
>
> -------------------------- [Original Message] -------------------------

>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: 11 MAR 1996 12:47:54 GMT
>From: Robert Blackshaw <blckshaw@clark.net>
>Newgroups: comp.dcom.videoconf
>Subject: Re: Encrypted Video Conferencing?
>
>In article <31436342.CDA@cris.com>, jbrandt@cris.com writes...
>>
>>Does anyone know of any reason why video-conferencing (VC) systems should
>>not be digitally encrypted? I am working with a client for whom
>>confidentiality is very important. If we wind up using the Internet for
>> VC, then they want it encrypted. Can CU-SeeMe be encrypted, like maybe
>>with PGP?
>>
>>James
>
>I expect that if both ends agree upon the method, encryption should
>be possible. I know that it is built into the H.320 suite. Rec. H.233
>covers the encryption methods.
>
>Bob
>
>--
>Opinions expressed are those of the author and are copyrighted
>RB & Associates - Consultants in Multimedia Teleconferencing
>
>
>
>
>
LCDR EMILE ANDERSON USN

FCTCPAC San Diego CA

email: csg5weps@manta.nosc.mil; emanders@nexus.chapman.edu; andersoner@aol.com

Hm (619) 788-2146