Mac Forum / General / Networking / September 2004

Thankya, William,

I looked at the Fugu site. I partly understand it... I think.

Is there a comparable and compatible product for Windows XP? (seems
likely...)

Is this really as easy as it sounds?

In my long and exasperating history  as a computer user, nothing is ever
as easy as it sounds -- because I'm basically a non-technical user.
Computering isn't my job, it isn't my hobby, and I have no tech support
department to turn to. I'm a sole proprietor.

Does Fugu require a ssh-capable router? If so, how many consumer-level
routers have that capability? Is tricky router-configuring also necessary?

Thanks,

Tim

Hi,

Okay, thanks to all on this thread. I won't bother you no more. It looks
like I'm out gas, pending the development of new technology or a new
product.

A couple of comments. I did some reading about ssh tunneling and VPN.
For instance, Steve Jobs wrote a few pages on these topics in "the
missing manual" for OS X. It didn't seem very encouraging. Jobs
indicated that these technologies are not really suitable for the
non-technical user. Plug and play they are not.

One method -- I can't remember which one -- maybe both -- requires a
server, or at least a router, that supports the technology. Some routers
enable it, many don't. One method-- maybe both -- is intended primarily
for large servers with many users, not one-on-one relatively casual
communication. No user friendly GUIs for either. Maybe a user friendly
GUI will turn up eventually.

I could probably figure out how to use one or the other, but most of my
clients would not be very geeky. They will have figured out how to
video-conference. They might have figured out how to port map their
DSL/Cable routers to enable videoconferencing. That would be their max,
technically, with occasional exceptions. They would not be motivated to
geek around a lot more so they could videoconference securely with me.

For my mad scheme to work, I have to make it easy for my clients. So
neither ssh tunneling nor VPN sounds very promising.

If I've misunderstood or overlooked the obvious, please toss me a clue
before I sink into the sea of ignorance for the last time.

Unless something unexpected happens, I'll return to the default plan.
I'll use Skype, a new VOIP and IM application that encrypts text and
audio. I'll simultaneously employ unencrypted video over a separate
channel. (Skype doesn't support video.) If the CPU and home-user
broadband are adequate, that will be okay.

If that doesn't work, I'll use a conventional telephone connection for
the audio, plus unencrypted video. My professional associate considers
conventional telephone connections acceptably secure.

(BTW, that seems ridiculous to me. Eavesdropping on another telephone in
the same home, simple telephone bugging devices, telephone company
technicians and operators, etc., are all easy procedures. Not to mention
eavesdropping on cordless phones, cell phones, etc.)

Someone warned me that unencrypted video could be insecure because of
the possibility of lip-reading. Interesting point. I suspect a slighly
slow or jerky frame rate would make lip reading impossible.

BTW, the hypothetical exchange of a symmetrical key would be done by
telephone or encrypted IM or something like that. That seems reasonably
secure.

Cheers,

Tim