2martens/uni
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/2martens/uni.git synced 2026-05-06 19:36:26 +02:00
Code Releases Activity

Sem: Zitierstil verbessert

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Jim Martens
2014-11-12 11:11:06 +01:00
parent 842a61fc57
commit d80b740468
1 changed files with 4 additions and 6 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

10
sem/sem.bib
View File

@ -12,7 +12,6 @@
Publisher = {IEEE}, Publisher = {IEEE},
Volume = {2}, Volume = {2},
Doi = {10.1109/AINA.2005.70},
Owner = {jim}, Owner = {jim},
Review = {The comparison is very enlightening and can be used to reference the performance of both protocols. Since OpenVPN is based upon SSL, it can be used very well.}, Review = {The comparison is very enlightening and can be used to reference the performance of both protocols. Since OpenVPN is based upon SSL, it can be used very well.},
Timestamp = {2014.10.24} Timestamp = {2014.10.24}
@ -27,7 +26,6 @@
Publisher = {IEEE}, Publisher = {IEEE},
Abstract = {This paper deals with current Virtual Private Network (VPN) technologies, such as Internet Protocol Security (IPSec), Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP), and Point to Point Tunneling Protocol (PPTP). Furthermore, the VPN solution of the Austrian company phion Information Technologies is presented. After a short introduction to the basics of each protocol, the strengths and weaknesses of each technology are outlined, as far as interoperability, manageability, and practical problems is concerned. This is done by means of a practical analysis and comparison of the results. The analysis includes performance measurement, link quality and stability analysis, feature comparison, interaction with TCP/IP protocols, and some basic security attacks. In order to provide comparable results, all technologies were tested in the same manner. However, this paper does not provide explicit recommendations which technology is to be preferred.}, Abstract = {This paper deals with current Virtual Private Network (VPN) technologies, such as Internet Protocol Security (IPSec), Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP), and Point to Point Tunneling Protocol (PPTP). Furthermore, the VPN solution of the Austrian company phion Information Technologies is presented. After a short introduction to the basics of each protocol, the strengths and weaknesses of each technology are outlined, as far as interoperability, manageability, and practical problems is concerned. This is done by means of a practical analysis and comparison of the results. The analysis includes performance measurement, link quality and stability analysis, feature comparison, interaction with TCP/IP protocols, and some basic security attacks. In order to provide comparable results, all technologies were tested in the same manner. However, this paper does not provide explicit recommendations which technology is to be preferred.},
Doi = {10.1109/ARES.2006.30},
Owner = {jim}, Owner = {jim},
Review = {This conference contribution is interesting, since it shows the problems of IPSec and the differences between some VPN protocols.}, Review = {This conference contribution is interesting, since it shows the problems of IPSec and the differences between some VPN protocols.},
Timestamp = {2014.10.27} Timestamp = {2014.10.27}
@ -183,9 +181,11 @@
Author = {Hosner, Charlie}, Author = {Hosner, Charlie},
Institution = {SANS Institute}, Institution = {SANS Institute},
Year = {2004}, Year = {2004},
Note = {Abruf am 12.11.14 11:07},
Owner = {jim}, Owner = {jim},
Timestamp = {2014.10.24} Timestamp = {2014.10.24},
Url = {https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/vpns/openvpn-and-the-ssl-vpn-revolution-1459}
} }
@InBook{Jurafsky2009, @InBook{Jurafsky2009,
@ -243,6 +243,7 @@
Institution = {IETF}, Institution = {IETF},
Year = {2005}, Year = {2005},
Month = {Dec}, Month = {Dec},
Note = {Abruf am 12.11.14 11:08},
Number = {4301}, Number = {4301},
Type = {{RFC}}, Type = {{RFC}},
@ -308,11 +309,8 @@
Year = {2006}, Year = {2006},
Abstract = {In this article, we provide an overview of cryptography and cryptographic key management as they are specified in IPsec, a popular suite of standards for providing communications security and network access control for Internet communications. We focus on the latest generation of the IPsec standards, recently published as Request for Comments 4301–4309 by the Internet Engineering Task Force, and how they have evolved from earlier versions of the standards. Abstract = {In this article, we provide an overview of cryptography and cryptographic key management as they are specified in IPsec, a popular suite of standards for providing communications security and network access control for Internet communications. We focus on the latest generation of the IPsec standards, recently published as Request for Comments 4301–4309 by the Internet Engineering Task Force, and how they have evolved from earlier versions of the standards.
-- --
IPSec RFCs are huge. The current iteration of IPSec is a large improvement but has still some problems. Due to the backwards compatibility encryption-only is still supported which looks like missed opportunity. A comparison between IKEv1 and IKEv2 is presented, outlining their differences. IPSec RFCs are huge. The current iteration of IPSec is a large improvement but has still some problems. Due to the backwards compatibility encryption-only is still supported which looks like missed opportunity. A comparison between IKEv1 and IKEv2 is presented, outlining their differences.
In some detail the content of the single RFCs is presented and the mandatory algorithms shown.}, In some detail the content of the single RFCs is presented and the mandatory algorithms shown.},
Journal = {information security technical report}, Journal = {information security technical report},
Keywords = {IP, IPsec, network security, cryptography, key management}, Keywords = {IP, IPsec, network security, cryptography, key management},