Prev: Terminal wedged: "Can't open display: :0.0"
Next: Confusion about MacSpeech Words-Per-Minute claims
From: nospam on 26 Jan 2010 13:57
In article <00dabb20$0$26774$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates
<warren.oates(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Any list of (home) wireless security best practices will tell you that
> SSID suppression and MAC filtering provide no _true_ security and can
> cause problems. I go with standards, not shamanism.

where did i say i *only* used that? wpa(2) is the key. the rest is
extra.
From: nospam on 26 Jan 2010 13:57
In article <barmar-4F2D50.12364726012010(a)nothing.attdns.com>, Barry
Margolin <barmar(a)alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> There's no such thing as absolute security, it's all a matter of whether
> some practice or policy adds sufficient security. By themselves SSID
> suppression and MAC filtering would not be considered adequate security,
> but they can be useful layers on top of WPA encryption. It can't hurt
> to add additional hurdles for the cracker to have to jump over.

exactly.

> Sure, MAC addresses are trivial to spoof, but you have to know what MAC
> address to spoof. Although if you managed to crack the encryption, you
> could just eavesdrop and see the MAC addresses of the authorized clients
> whizzing by.

mac addresses are sent in the clear. you only need to watch for a valid
device to connect.
From: Paul Sture on 26 Jan 2010 13:55
In article <me-3D64E3.13402426012010(a)news.supernews.com>,
Dan <me(a)here.net> wrote:

> When someone comes over with a laptop (which has happened exactly twice
> in 5 years), I enter their MAC address. Big deal. You all make it
> sound like its difficult or something.

Same story here.

--
Paul Sture
From: Richard Maine on 26 Jan 2010 15:52
nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <tom_stiller-D35270.07451626012010(a)news.individual.net>, Tom
> Stiller <tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Since nearby users don't see it, what are the odds that they will pick
> > an interfering channel when setting up their own WAP?
>
> so check it every once in a while and change the channel if necessary.
> how often do additional networks appear? are your neighbors that
> transient?
>
> > As been said, it adds no security and is a needless complication.
>
> as i said, i find it to be a useful improvement with no additional
> complications.

Your definition of "no" appears to be different from the traditional
one. Above, you discuss some complications, immediately after which you
say that there are "no" complications. Perhaps you consider them small
ones, but "no" seems directly contradicted. I suppose you might be
saying that you have never personally run into any of them. That I could
believe, but it is a long shot from saying that there are none.

--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: nospam on 26 Jan 2010 18:54
In article <1jcxfld.xm9es31tcbudyN%nospam(a)see.signature>, Richard Maine
<nospam(a)see.signature> wrote:

> > > Since nearby users don't see it, what are the odds that they will pick
> > > an interfering channel when setting up their own WAP?
> >
> > so check it every once in a while and change the channel if necessary.
> > how often do additional networks appear? are your neighbors that
> > transient?
> >
> > > As been said, it adds no security and is a needless complication.
> >
> > as i said, i find it to be a useful improvement with no additional
> > complications.
>
> Your definition of "no" appears to be different from the traditional
> one. Above, you discuss some complications, immediately after which you
> say that there are "no" complications. Perhaps you consider them small
> ones, but "no" seems directly contradicted. I suppose you might be
> saying that you have never personally run into any of them. That I could
> believe, but it is a long shot from saying that there are none.

i can only speak for myself and i've had absolutely no problems
whatsoever with ssid disabled. zero.

if someone finds it to be problematic, they can broadcast ssid.
fortunately, most routers offer the choice.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: Terminal wedged: "Can't open display: :0.0"
Next: Confusion about MacSpeech Words-Per-Minute claims