From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pptp: Update to 1.10.0
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:07:55 +0000
Message-ID: <256F3807-BDD6-4A5E-9D0A-8B02D2DE79F6@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <9CF10841-E9D5-40A1-9641-27B481326CB5@rymes.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4181140218803680923=="
List-Id: <development.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============4181140218803680923==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

> On 5 Feb 2021, at 13:20, Tom Rymes <tom(a)rymes.net> wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> On Feb 5, 2021, at 6:15 AM, Michael Tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org> w=
rote:
>>=20
>> Hello,
>>=20
>>> On 4 Feb 2021, at 22:58, Adolf Belka <adolf.belka(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Hi Tom,
>>>=20
>>> On 04/02/2021 19:10, Tom Rymes wrote:
>>>> Isn=E2=80=99t PPTP heavily deprecated, or is that just when used with ce=
rtain encryption methods?
>>> It may be, I don't know for sure. However, while it is still in IPFire I =
think it is better to have the latest version from 2018 rather than the one f=
rom 2008.
>>=20
>> Yes, in terms of bugs in the implementation it is.
>>=20
>> PPTP is a universal tunnelling protocol (short for point-to-point tunnelin=
g protocol) and it can be used for VPNs. However it is very old and the speci=
fied cryptography is very outdated. In IPFire we only use it to connect to so=
me DSL providers which use it on the Internet link. They do not use any encry=
ption and use weak authentication to identify the subscriber.
>>=20
>> -Michael
>=20
> Thanks, Michael. I have used PPP for DSL links before, but didn=E2=80=99t r=
ealize that some required PPTP.

It is very rare these days. Which brings me to the question: Can anyone actua=
lly test this any more?

-Michael

>=20
> Tom


--===============4181140218803680923==--