Wireless security

Wireless security
Secure Home | Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 Computer Software Security    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content add this group's latest topics to your Google content
Subject Author Date
Wireless security John Hyde 10-10-2005
---> Re: Wireless security Juergen Nievele...10-10-2005
Posted by Hairy One Kenobi on October 11, 2005, 10:49 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>
> > I did find this interesting quote about WEP.
> >
> > "WEP is better than nothing
> >
> > If you can't use WPA, perhaps because you can't afford new base
> > stations and Panther upgrades for all your laptops, at least enable
> > WEP, feeble though it may.
>
> I don't agree with that, actually. Turning on WEP will make you think
> "Oh, I got at least SOME security", so you'll never know when your
> security isn't there anymore.
>
> Either go for real security, or no security - if you have no encryption
> enabled, you'll at least always remember that there's a good reason to
> be carefull.

Interesting argument.

A car ignition lock can be forced.. so do you park your car with the doors
open and the key in the ignition? ;o)

--

Hairy One Kenobi

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
in the first place. So there!




Posted by Juergen Nieveler on October 11, 2005, 11:56 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

>> Either go for real security, or no security - if you have no
>> encryption enabled, you'll at least always remember that there's a
>> good reason to be carefull.
>
> Interesting argument.
>
> A car ignition lock can be forced.. so do you park your car with the
> doors open and the key in the ignition? ;o)

No, I keep the Garage door locked ;-)

And yes, as the car windows are transparent and non-armoured, I don't
leave valuables lying openly in the car.

Juergen Nieveler
--
I give up, what is the meaning of life?


Posted by Hairy One Kenobi on October 11, 2005, 10:42 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>
> >> Either go for real security, or no security - if you have no
> >> encryption enabled, you'll at least always remember that there's a
> >> good reason to be carefull.
> >
> > Interesting argument.
> >
> > A car ignition lock can be forced.. so do you park your car with the
> > doors open and the key in the ignition? ;o)
>
> No, I keep the Garage door locked ;-)
>
> And yes, as the car windows are transparent and non-armoured, I don't
> leave valuables lying openly in the car.

So, in other words, some security (even fairly inadequate) is batter than a
choice of none at all?

I *do* follow your argument, but I would hope that we agree that "some" is
better than "none". Particularly if we all understand the limitations of
"some".

"Holy Dictionary, Batman":

Uncrackable, adj.
Something that hasn't been cracked just yet. Give it a year or two.

:o)

H1K




Posted by Imhotep on October 11, 2005, 10:28 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Hairy One Kenobi wrote:

>>
>> >> Either go for real security, or no security - if you have no
>> >> encryption enabled, you'll at least always remember that there's a
>> >> good reason to be carefull.
>> >
>> > Interesting argument.
>> >
>> > A car ignition lock can be forced.. so do you park your car with the
>> > doors open and the key in the ignition? ;o)
>>
>> No, I keep the Garage door locked ;-)
>>
>> And yes, as the car windows are transparent and non-armoured, I don't
>> leave valuables lying openly in the car.
>
> So, in other words, some security (even fairly inadequate) is batter than
> a choice of none at all?
>
> I *do* follow your argument, but I would hope that we agree that "some" is
> better than "none". Particularly if we all understand the limitations of
> "some".
>
> "Holy Dictionary, Batman":
>
> Uncrackable, adj.
> Something that hasn't been cracked just yet. Give it a year or two.
>
> :o)
>
> H1K


....I think this is more of a "weakest link" argument. I think you are both
right and wrong. True *some* security is better than none, but to
*evaluate* your security you *must* examine your weakest link. If I have
safe with a concrete floor and walls but with a paper roof does the
concrete floors *really* get me more security? In this example it does
not...I think that is the point Juergen is making.

Im


Posted by Hairy One Kenobi on October 12, 2005, 4:43 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>
> >>
> >> >> Either go for real security, or no security - if you have no
> >> >> encryption enabled, you'll at least always remember that there's a
> >> >> good reason to be carefull.
> >> >
> >> > Interesting argument.
> >> >
> >> > A car ignition lock can be forced.. so do you park your car with the
> >> > doors open and the key in the ignition? ;o)
> >>
> >> No, I keep the Garage door locked ;-)
> >>
> >> And yes, as the car windows are transparent and non-armoured, I don't
> >> leave valuables lying openly in the car.
> >
> > So, in other words, some security (even fairly inadequate) is batter
than
> > a choice of none at all?
> >
> > I *do* follow your argument, but I would hope that we agree that "some"
is
> > better than "none". Particularly if we all understand the limitations of
> > "some".

> ...I think this is more of a "weakest link" argument. I think you are both
> right and wrong. True *some* security is better than none, but to
> *evaluate* your security you *must* examine your weakest link. If I have
> safe with a concrete floor and walls but with a paper roof does the
> concrete floors *really* get me more security? In this example it does
> not...I think that is the point Juergen is making.

Not if you leave the door wide open, because a paper roof means that,
shucks, might as well not bother using what few options we have.

To take YACA (yet another car analogy) - old cars often came fitted with
static lap belts; in the event of a crash, these caused greater injuries
than modern over-the-shoulder seat belts with pre-tensioners. Hence the
change.

Would you then argue that it's better to drive without any belts at all,
simply because the old design isn't as good; that not wearing one will make
you drive more carefully, and somehow immune from an accident?

After all, that's pretty much what's been stated.

H1K




Similar ThreadsPosted
wireless security June 22, 2006, 2:23 am
using wireless internet without security December 8, 2006, 4:02 am
wireless security tools May 6, 2007, 10:53 am
THE NON-WIRELESS WIRELESS NETWORK MONITORING SYSTEM September 14, 2005, 11:38 am
Technical Question on wireless security July 17, 2005, 7:05 am
Wireless adapter security question April 10, 2006, 1:35 pm
wireless router password security May 7, 2008, 9:59 am
Home wireless router security by limiting the number of available IP addresses June 16, 2007, 11:06 pm
Public Wireless Network together with Private Wireless Network November 15, 2007, 3:39 am
Help for noob re wireless January 16, 2007, 7:54 am

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy