Wi-Fi Security Hole Exposed

from the i-remember-when-we-used-to-leave-our-doors-unlocked dept

802.11b is really starting to take off recently, especially with big players like Apple (Airport) and Lucent (WaveLAN) pushing it.. It’s supposed to be pretty secure, but apparently a group of researchers have figured out how to eavesdrop and gain unauthorized access to the networks. Does this mean that I’m going to have to install a physical “firewall” in my house now?

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Wi-Fi Security Hole Exposed”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Ed says:

I Give Up

It just ain’t my day on Techdirt — first I comment on the story about popup browser windows, then the next story is on a web page that has one. I comment on that, saying home wireless LAN is the way of the future, and now there’s another story revealing huge security holes in the wireless security protocol.

How about giving me a chance to comment on how poor my investments are doing. Given my luck today, maybe that will make them take off.

D.V. Henkel-Wallace says:

Firewalls are bogus anyway

A firewall has always been a dumb idea. You have to protect the terminals and equipment.
Not only can you have an unscrupulous employee, but any visitor can just plug his laptop
into the RJ-45 in the conference room and be on your net.
This applies to your home too. Your kid’s friend can bring by his PS-2 plug it into the net, and instead of playing Duke Nukem be scouring your PC’s disk for porn.
Maybe this will provide impetus for better-designed PCs and handhelds. But I doubt it.

Phillip says:

Re: Firewalls are bogus anyway

I don’t think firewalls are a bad idea. They provide a good level of security for little complexity and no cost. Eg PMFirewall took me less the 2 mins to install and configure. A firewall doesn’t have to be just between your LAN and the outside world, you can also do it on a per box basis. Eg only the IP addresses of your application servers can make DB socket connections to your Oracle server. That way you can restrict access to even someone on the LAN. If someone has physical access to your machine there is nothing you can do to protect yourself totally, be it a Windows or Linux box. And unless you explicity share something then unless the OS is broken even plugging a Dreamcast into your LAN won’t let them scan your hard drive. General rules of thumb: increasing security increases complexity, you will hit the law of diminishing returns, only make the cost of breaking the security more than the worth of the information being protected. My best advice is if you want to stop your kids looking at your porn then keep it on removable media such as ZIP disk or CD-ROM which you keep physically locked away somewhere.


Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...