Re: Secure and convenient protocol

> > My first choice was MSCHAPV2, because it's well supported by most
> > OS, but it seems unsecure.
> 
> It was considered secure once, but times have changed.  I consider it
> unsecure now.
> 
> > So, is there a secure protocol, well supported by most OS, with which
> > we don't need to touch to the client computer ? (with password, for
> > example)

> Basing a security system on only a password (and not also a token) leads
> to a weak system, in the same way as building a house upon the sand near
> a river.  A system that hashes passwords (MSCHAPV2) cannot be made more
> secure by a longer or more complex password; a brute force attack takes
> the same resources.

Is bruteforce attack the only problem with MSCHAPV2 ? I've read it's easy to 
crack MSCHAPV2, but it seems that it's based on force to MSCHAPV1. If I forbid 
mschapv1 in the conf file, then users can't use this, right ? The only problem 
would be bruteforce attack, but VPN are only for local use, and I doubt there 
will be users with time to try to do this, if there is no kiddie app which do 
it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev

_______________________________________________
Poptop-server mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/poptop-server

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EABEIAAYFAk2wPVEACgkQB3Y8MwGKx1dyRwD/Yx9dR74WnQhF2Vr8Uwub6DsK
BSNsmtmGBLxGIPbUuz0A/2/yqEcInkn6STpSfFC7Nl4kXP9axWFMIJ+/AO7l0aAb
=MG3a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----