Bug 23376

Summary:	strongswan, the OpenSource IPsec-based VPN Solution
Product:	Mageia	Reporter:	Gerhard Munze <tuvbunn2>
Component:	New RPM package request	Assignee:	All Packagers <pkg-bugs>
Status:	RESOLVED WONTFIX	QA Contact:
Severity:	enhancement
Priority:	Normal	CC:	marja11, npomarede
Version:	Cauldron
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
URL:	https://www.strongswan.org/
Whiteboard:
Source RPM:	strongswan	CVE:
Status comment:

Description Gerhard Munze 2018-08-02 09:47:43 CEST

Description of problem:

It would be nice to have the support for strongswan in mageia to use vpn connections that require strongswan (Ipsec with IKEv1 or IKEv2).
It would be perfect if that option for strongswan would be intregrated in the drakvpn (https://doc.mageia.org/mcc/5/de/content/images/drakvpn1.png)


https://www.strongswan.org/


Thank you very much.

Comment 1 Marja Van Waes 2018-08-02 14:29:03 CEST

Assigning this package request to all packagers collectively. On a voluntary basis, one of them might, if there are no license or other legal issues, want to integrate it to the distribution and maintain it for bug and security fixes.

You might also want to join the packager team to maintain this piece of software: see https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Becoming_a_Mageia_Packager

Severity: normal => enhancement
Assignee: bugsquad => pkg-bugs
Summary: strongswan RPM Request => strongswan, the OpenSource IPsec-based VPN Solution
URL: (none) => https://www.strongswan.org/
CC: (none) => marja11

Comment 2 David Walser 2018-08-02 18:22:20 CEST

This is not needed and would just bring recurring security issues.  We already have openswan to provide this functionality.  Granted, we do need to switch that to libreswan.

Status: NEW => RESOLVED
Resolution: (none) => WONTFIX

Comment 3 David Walser 2019-08-11 17:12:20 CEST

*** Bug 25193 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

CC: (none) => npomarede

Comment 4 Nicolas Pomarède 2019-08-11 20:18:06 CEST

Neither openswan not libreswan provide support for EAP so far. Maybe strongswan would be the best solution to keep instead ? Or are there some licence or other issues that prevent it ?

Comment 5 David Walser 2019-08-12 02:10:24 CEST

libreswan is the more popular alternative.  We don't have the manpower to provide and support multiple implementations of everything, especially something as highly impacted by security issues as this.

Comment 6 Nicolas Pomarède 2019-08-12 08:39:56 CEST

popular according to what/who ? If strongswan supports everything that libreswan does and also already have support for EAP, then why not keep only strongswan and not libreswan to have only one package to support ?
Plus fedora already has a strongswan package, so work could be shared with them ?

Comment 7 David Walser 2019-10-18 20:50:06 CEST

*** Bug 25193 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***