RE: remote telnet with ssl

Thank you, and sorry for the delay in reply (as I.. uhhhhh... got
side-tracked a "bit"...;-).

I was most interested in this part:  "If there are multiple layers of
encryption it is impossible to crack or decrypt them simultaneously.  ...
While it is true that additional layers would make things harder to crack,"

Because if an additional layer would make it harder to crack, then it sounds
like you mean "impossible" in the sense that it was "impossible" for the
Titanic to sink.  And I consider a crack-proof method of voting to be much
more critical than nuclear launch codes, because there's at least a
POSSIBILITY of survival in the latter case.

And if e-voting is outside the domain of this list, then I can't imagine who
WOULD have a handle on it.

Wrt to part's I snipped, also agree that Scott's post was excellent, and I
need to read it again.  (Btw, I thought the OSI model had 7 layers, but
icbw.)


| -----Original Message-----
| [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of James Rich
| Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 6:15 PM

| On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, jt wrote:
|
| > What I have never understood is whether Kerberos, SSH, SSL,
| TLS, VPN and/or
| > IPV6 if it has any security stuff.. Whether ANY of these (and
| I'm sure I'm
| > missing a few) run the exact same encryption methods or not??
| If not, SEEMS
| > like would be an advantage to the added overhead as it would
| appear to be
| > harder to crack both at the same time, but dunno if that's the
| case at all.
|
| They can use the same encryption, or they can use different encryption
| schemes.  Many, if not most, allow you to choose an encryption scheme.
|
| If there are multiple layers of encryption it is impossible to crack or
| decrypt them simultaneously.  Each layer must be completed before starting
| on the next (per packet).  While it is true that additional layers would
| make things harder to crack, this advantage is far outweighed by the
| disadvantages of complexity and overhead.  A single layer of proper
| encryption already provides enough protection for almost everything.
| Unless you're sending out nuclear launch codes.  In which case don't use
| the internet...
|
| > Afaik, none of these are sufficient to store and forward legal
| votes, btw.
|
| I don't think the encryption protocols is the root of the problems of
| e-voting.  More likely the moronic and breath-takingly stupid
| implementation of the systems as a whole.  But this is completety OT
| (sorry list and David).

<hated to snip>