Go Back   Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computer Security
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply

Computer Security - Privacy & speed vs security

 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-26-2004, 10:01 AM   #1
Default Privacy & speed vs security


Hi! Sorry for my English.
I'm using a firewall that uses intrusion detection systems. I can filter
any packet (in or out ) that I want but, if the communication is encrypted
or compressed it is virtually impossible. A simple example:
I can't filter google pages based on content unless I disable http 1.1 because
the outgoing http 1.1 header accepts gzip.
Is it possible that privacy (encrypted communication) and speed (gzipped
content or compressed content) is against security? In the future
I think that many clients will use encrypted communication.
Is this a security risk?


Marco Maier
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2004, 06:35 PM   #2
Marco Maier
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Privacy & speed vs security

> I think you misunderstand: encryption should include an acceptance by *both*
> ends of the link that the other party is valid (e.g. SSL and certificates)


I have in mind p2p clients that support encryption.I can't filter what I want.


Marco Maier
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2004, 06:35 PM   #3
Hairy One Kenobi
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Privacy & speed vs security
"Marco Maier" <> wrote in message
news:QL3Nc.43211$...
> Hi! Sorry for my English.
> I'm using a firewall that uses intrusion detection systems. I can filter
> any packet (in or out ) that I want but, if the communication is

encrypted
> or compressed it is virtually impossible. A simple example:
> I can't filter google pages based on content unless I disable http 1.1

because
> the outgoing http 1.1 header accepts gzip.
> Is it possible that privacy (encrypted communication) and speed (gzipped
> content or compressed content) is against security? In the future
> I think that many clients will use encrypted communication.
> Is this a security risk?


I think you misunderstand: encryption should include an acceptance by *both*
ends of the link that the other party is valid (e.g. SSL and certificates)

Anything else is, well, pointless.

Don't worry too much about compression - IIRC (and stand to be corrected)
it's been there since at least HTTP 0.9 and is largely unsupported. I looked
at before I wrote NETcruncher..

--

Hairy One Kenobi

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
in the first place. So there!




Hairy One Kenobi
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Computer Security Information and What You Can Do To Keep Your SystemSafe! Ann.Anderson.group.com@gmail.com A+ Certification 0 12-06-2007 01:55 AM
Computer Security aldrich.chappel.com.use@gmail.com A+ Certification 0 11-27-2007 02:11 AM
Computer Security Information (Free Articles and eBooks) aditya.jaiswal.com.use@gmail.com DVD Video 0 10-10-2007 04:53 AM
Playstation3 getting a 2x speed Blu-ray disc drive? DVD Video 0 08-03-2005 10:41 PM
CPU higher speed than the mainboard can support. Raymond A+ Certification 0 12-23-2003 07:01 AM




SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46