-4

Aside from possible implementation bugs, which VPN concept aims to offer more protection by design?

  • SSL VPN (implementation example - OpenVPN)
  • L2TP/IPSEC (implementation example - Strong Swan)

After reading this review, I can't understand how to compare designed security levels of both beyond what the author says. That is, I'm looking for a summary assessing and comparing these designs in more technical deepness from information security point of view.

I've created a Meta post about how can I improve this question.

  • but how is this possible in an open standard designed by many? I thought I misread that! – J. Doe Jan 12 at 12:23
-1

Both them uses 256-bit key encryption. L2tp/ipsec is a kind of proprietary code. In which you need to rely on there standards. While OpenVPN is open source you can view the source code yourself and can check what code is doing what(kind of security). Also in OpenVPN you can see some drop points on connection speed, although it provides fair amount of speed depending on the bandwidth of your connection. Primarily openvpn uses UDP connection by default, which is faster in itself as there is no checking of data every time. On the otherhand l2tp/ipsec might be slower because it uses double encapsulation of data. While it is easy to configure rather than openvpn upto some extent.

Also yes there is another vpn concept, such as PPTP(Point to Point Tunneling Protocol). Whereas, this is not that much secure and only provides basic security. Although it works on some older system and its not recommended option to use for good security reason. Whereas you can use it for low-risk browsing and streaming.

| improve this answer | |
  • thank you for your answer! though, StrongSwan is opensource GNU License? How do you mean it's proprietary? – J. Doe Jan 12 at 10:10
  • L2TP/IPSEC is proprietary? Can you provide support for that? Here's the RFC... – schroeder Jan 12 at 11:17
  • I know that but if you see most of the private providers using the same implementation technique won't provide you there twisted source code optimized for the software they provide. Thats why i called it proprietary over here. Otherwise you have the protocol and RFC available no doubt in that. – Abhijeet Singh Tomer Jan 12 at 15:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.