RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Crack'n WEP

["Spurling, Shannon" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

All right, it sounds like semantics. What should be said is, there is no
predictable limitation in accessing it. You may have a certainty that
the signal is not useable at ground level outside your building, but
construction on your building or changes to your environment out side
your control may change all that. Things you would never associate with
your network security. Besides, signals from elevated sources, such as
an AP on the fourth floor, usually travel further. And who is to say
that someone might not juice up his WiFi card and attempt to access your
network? The problem is that there is no predictable way to determine
who is in your network. 


Shannon Spurling
WAN Engineer -Specialist

MOREnet, Network Services, Core Network
3212 LeMone Industrial Blvd.
Columbia, MO 65201

Main:(573) 884-7200   Fax:(573)884-6673

EMAIL:PROTECTED
EMAIL:PROTECTED


-----Original Message-----
From: EMAIL:PROTECTED
[mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Miller
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 3:09 PM
To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion
Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Crack'n WEP

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Rick Buford wrote:

> The wireless signal flat out violates rule #1 in security in that
there 
> is no physical limitation in accessing it.

I don't want to start a fight about it - but to clarify:  Wireless
signals 
are physically limited in that they don't travel all that far.  For us
on 
the 4th floor of a building, I'm not sure they can see our network out 
side the building at ground level.  This does limit somewhat who can 
access your network.

I'm not trying to say that this makes it secure.  I don't know squat!

Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion