Security. WPA?/-TKIP /-CCMP
in [Wireless Internet]
|
From: Char Jackson on 6 Dec 2008 01:46 On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:47:49 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: >On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:35:36 -0800 (PST), Chrisjoy ><ultralibertarianer(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On 5 Des, 18:53, Jeff Liebermann <je...(a)cruzio.com> wrote: >>> >>> Running an open access point is not exactly my idea of security, >>> especially since you apparently don't care who uses it. �I guess you >>> have to learn the implications the hard way. � >> >>The only implication I need to be concern about is the bandwidth used. > >Nope. There are plenty more risks. I'll admit that they're minimal >as the courts don't seem to be very interested in untangling complex >technical issues. Off the top of my head: >1. User downloads illegal content. Copyright holder sues the IP >address found in his logs, which is your router. >2. User engages in file sharing. RIAA and friends sue under DMCA. >3. User engages in file sharing and eats ALL your bandwidth. File >sharing software can be configured to minimize the bandwidth impact, >but when it's someone elses bandwidth, NBC (nobody cares). >4. User engages in spamming and gets your IP address blacklisted. >This has happened to me, so I know the implications. >5. USP gets irate that you're actually using the bandwidth they >advertises and pulls the plug for "excess use". Comcast limits >bandwidth to 100Mbytes/month, but others are less lenient. >6. User does something to hog ALL the available OUTGOING bandwidth. >Other users on system have plenty of download bandwidth available, but >because the ACK's don't make it back to the connected system, they get >disconnects and timeouts. > >That should be enough of a start. Nitpick mode: Regarding #5, Comcast has a 'soft' 250GB monthly cap now. If you exceed 250GB of total monthly up/down usage AND you are in the top 0.1% of users in your market, you are subject to a warning. A second warning within 6 months puts you at risk of getting kicked off the network for a year. <SNIP>
From: Char Jackson on 6 Dec 2008 01:58 On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:53:39 -0800 (PST), Chrisjoy <ultralibertarianer(a)gmail.com> wrote: >I want to PROTECT CLIENTS FROM OTHER CLIENTS. This doesn't mean I >want to stop all communication between clients. I hope someone dissects that because I'm curious as to how you get one without the other. I guess it comes down to a definition of "protect".
From: Chrisjoy on 6 Dec 2008 07:16 On 6 Des, 07:58, Char Jackson <n...(a)none.invalid> wrote: > On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:53:39 -0800 (PST), Chrisjoy > > <ultralibertaria...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >I want to PROTECT CLIENTS FROM OTHER CLIENTS. This doesn't mean I > >want to stop all communication between clients. > > I hope someone dissects that because I'm curious as to how you get one > without the other. I guess it comes down to a definition of "protect". No, this is not remotely a question about definition. To protect A's packets to access point by encryption so that B cannot sniff it off the air, got nothing to do with stopping all traffic between A and B.
From: Mark McIntyre on 6 Dec 2008 07:38 John Navas wrote: > It can be. And it's not a "broadcast network". You remember I plonked you? Please stop morphing your nyms.
From: Mark McIntyre on 6 Dec 2008 07:40
Jeff Liebermann wrote: > Yep. Now, roll back the clock to 1995 (when 802.11 was originally > inscribed) and try to remember what personal computing was like at the > time. I suspect that nobody could have predicted the current > technology and applications. It's now 2008. Could I trouble you to > tell me what security protocols, encryption technology, and > applications support will be required for the wireless products of > 2018? Take your time. A fine question Jeff - isn't it interesting how easy it is to complain with hindsight? |