Re: Security

Robert Hsiung (dr-bob@uchicago.edu)
Wed, 26 Nov 1997 07:46:32 -0600 (CST)


>a packet sniffer?
>Well..if you want to get technical..that's always possible.

That's what I was afraid of. :-)

>The typical
>user isn't gonna have the keys to the routers

The physical keys to the rooms that the routers are in? Or some kind of
software password-type key?

>(unless you connect to the
>reflector and the reflector operator maintains the router to the
>reflector..in which case it's much easier just to send a BCC of the
>reflector to monitor off to another reflector).

I'm wondering about a one-to-one connection, not a connection through a
reflector. Someone worried about security wouldn't go through a reflector,
I don't think! :-)

>There's always packet sniffers..but I imagine the percentage of people
>that use packet sniffers actively is much less than 1% of the internet
>population.

A packet sniffer is software that lets you somehow intercept data on the
Internet? Sorry, but I really don't know anything about this...

>Even if you do sniff packets, you have to know what type of
>data the packets are. That would mean having to rewrite CU to display
>real time video/audio based on the sniffed packets.

But wouldn't the packets say what type of data they are? Otherwise, how
would the computer that they're intended for know what to do with them?

CU already does display real time video/audio based on packets, right? So
it would "just" be a matter of feeding it sniffed packets?

>I'm no expert though..I could be way off on that last part. I don't know
>of anyone that's used a packet sniffer to actively display video.

Well, if any experts want to chime in, this is something I need to find out
about. Not because I want to go sniffing, but because we're thinking about
using CUSM in situations in which confidentiality would be important.

Thanks,

Bob