Ok, we know and agree that freenac isn't in the same league as freeradius.
The form of the announcement was a mistake we're now trying to correct.
I'm really sorry it hurt you and would like you to formally accept my apologize for this bad communication.

Would you agree to close that part of the discussion ?

On 11/07/07, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com > wrote:
> right. but I guess it should come after a 802.1x  and a VPN client ...
> and those still don't exist

  wpa_supplicant, xsupplicant, and SecureW2 are well-known GPL'd 802.1x
clients.  I've been in contact with those developers for years.  There's
already work on an open source 802.1x client with additional (i.e. NAC)
features. Search the net.

sorry, this was a late email and I forgot important details like had in mind "with additionnal (NAC) features" and the "for windows" is implied by the vast majority of windows-based computers.

so indeed, the most likely candidates are SecureW2 and open1x/opensea xsupplicant, but none of them are there yet.

of course, a "a GPLed, ActiveX / Java / other browser-based endpoint posture assessment client, for use in fallback non-802.1x (walled-garden) mode." could also work after 802.1x



> That's something already written by the TNC@FHH projects.
> Code is available here
> http://tnc.inform.fh-hannover.de/wiki/index.php/Download

  I was in contact with them when they first wrote the code, quite a
while ago.

> Is there any plan to integrate that in the official release ?

  Last I checked (quite a whole ago), the code wasn't GPL'd.  It looks
like it's changed since then.  After a quick look, perhaps.  The
formatting should really follow the FreeRADIUS standard, it has C++
style comments, and some things likely need to be cleaned up.  There's
also the issue of which license libtnc falls under.  On top of that,
they haven't requested that it be added to FreeRADIUS.

so there's no plan, but a properly formatted, cleaned version would find its place ?

(btw, libtnc is also GPL)


> it would be no strings
> attached (bounty-like, resulting code solely licensed under GPL in
> freeradius, copyright retained by the author, ...).

  "Bounty"?  No thanks.
  If you want to pay for a feature, then standard business practice is
to use a contract.  I don't have much nice to say about bounties.

again,  wrongly written sentence : bounty-like was to refer to the "no strings" that the result would end up as part of FreeRadius - nothing else.
Of course, it would be made using a contract (and I also don't really like bounties, for the record).

Would you be open to implement Microsoft's IF-TNCCS-SOH in that context ?

dago