Re: [WinMac] DSL vs. Cable Modems

Darryl Lee(lee[at]darryl.com)
Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:42:47 -0700 (PDT)

Leonard wrote:
> AFAIK, there is no crypto in either cable modems - or if
> there is, it's not something they are making public knowledge (for
> fear the crypto community will nail their butts!)

Ok, it _might_ be coming.
(http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/09/23/cable_dsl/index3.html)

:> The ARP problem, meanwhile, will be solved by the next-generation
:> cable modems that implement the so-called DOCSIS 1.1 protocol.
:> Instead of broadcasting ARP packets over the entire cable segment,
:> DOCSIS 1.1 makes sure that each customer will only see the ARP
:> messages intended for his or her machine. As an added protection,
:> DOCSIS 1.1 is capable of encrypting all information sent over the
:> cable itself, with a separate encryption key for each customer.
:> This security measure prevents an attacker from splicing their own
:> cable modem into the backbone, the way that some people used to
:> hook up unauthorized cable decoders to get free cable TV service.

[Re: NAT]
> Assuming you are willing to deal with those agreements, you
> can run NAT on another machine on the network with ANY type of
> connectivity. However, if you want static IP's (which is what I
> use) then cable is a non-option...

Right, but if you want static IPs, then NAT on DSL is also a
non-option. You wrote:

> Also, if you're using NAT on your DSL line, the chances for
> hacking the machines on the other side of the router are boardering
> on NIL.

My point was that the same goes for cable. NAT is a great security
measure, regardless of connectivity.

[Re: Macs vs. Windows vs. Linux vs. dedicated NAT boxes]
> How about things like BackOrifice, all the known Windows
> security holes, etc?

Sure, if you're opening up e-mail attachments on the machine that
serves as your gateway, then you're entitled to all the havoc that
BackOrifice can bring. >:}

[Re: half-duplex != asymmetrical]
> True, that's my old modem days coming back to me...(though in
> the old days, they used to describe things like satellite links as
> "half-duplex" where the up vs. down speeds were different).

Ah, i remember the old modem days well. Can you say 300 baud acoustic
coupler? Yeah! Anyways, i thought half-duplex just meant that a
connection could not send and receive at the same time.

[Anyways, gotta get to work, sorry no time to argue whether or not i
should be allowed to swap out my own DSL equipment. :}]

--D

* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Fri Oct 01 1999 - 11:55:59 PDT