Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Crack'n WEP

[Mark Rages <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Apr 5, 2005 3:24 PM, Spurling, Shannon <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> 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.

How is your argument different than saying, the Internet is by
definition insecure because you can't control who is on it?  Yet we
still use SSL and consider it secure enough.  For that matter, how
about using SSL over a wireless network, like I'm doing to type this
email?  Secure or not?

Regards,
Mark
EMAIL:PROTECTED
-- 
You think that it is a secret, but it never has been one.
  - fortune cookie
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion