[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ipcdn] draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-01.txt
At 11:23 AM 4/22/2002, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>>This statement seems to suggest that implementations must differentiate
>>operations by security user (i.e., use VACM and USM).
>>I think such features should not be mandated. SNMPv1(2c) over IPSEC should
>>be considered secure enough.
> Not hardly secure enough, though I know that cisco is trying to
>push that approach so they can sell a more proprietary approach
>to SNMP and MIB security for their own profit reasons.
Please explain why IPSEC is not secure enough, why multiple security
users per application are mandatory, and why IPSEC is proprietary.