Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "vdongen".
Did you mean:
dongen
2000 Jul 06
1
Notification: PR#9
JitterBug notification
ivo moved PR#9 from incoming to wishlist
Message summary for PR#9
From: vdongen@hetisw.nl
Subject: map
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 18:23:20 0200 (CEST)
0 replies 0 followups
Notes: This is a nice idea on itself, but not really doable in tinc itself.
What would be nice is the ability to control tinc realtime with some sort of GUI
tool. This tool can then be used for much more...
2003 Apr 01
2
Another idea for tinc on windows
Since the lack of code to implement a virtual network adapter driver
(tun/tap equivalent) seems to be the primary roadblock preventing a tinc
port to Windows, has anyone given any thought to the idea of implementing
a very basic pptp server front-end for the tinc code (in place of the
tun/tap driver) whose sole purpose would be to allow a windows PPTP client
connection to connect to it via a
2001 Nov 04
8
Connection problem
I've got a test lab set up and im having problems connecting.
The first problem is that it takes it a couple of tries before it actually
connects the two machines.
It complains about bogus data and after trying for a minute or so it
connects.
kill -USR1 shows that they are connected
kill -USR2 only shows the local subnet, not the remote
I've tried these versions without any luck:
cvs
2000 Jul 02
0
map
Full_Name: Ivo van Dongen
Version: 1.0pre3-1
OS: Linux 2.2.12 to 14
Submission from: (NULL) (195.193.21.152)
I would like to see a sort of map option in the next version that checks all
tincd's and produces a map of the linked tincds
preferably in 2 formats 1)easy to read map like the /map feature in some ircds
and 2) a script usable map
---
TINC development list, tinc-devel@nl.linux.org
2004 Mar 03
1
Big VPN
Richard Atterer wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 10:00:58PM +0100, I.R. van Dongen wrote:
>
>
>>You might want to check tinc (http://tinc.nl.linux.org)
>>
>>
>
>I strongly recommend *not* to use tinc.
><http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/249142> illustrates that the
>authors didn't have enough expertise to build a secure tool 2 years ago.