You're Not As Secure As You Think... Except Maybe On Wireless Networks
from the myths dept
Stories that list out the top (insert random number here) myths about security seem to come out every other week or so. However, this latest one from Information Week is somewhat amusing in that it's basically a list of items saying you're not nearly as secure as you think you are, but then the last point basically says: except if you're on a wireless network. Apparently, the idea that wireless networks are insecure has been so drilled into so many minds that many people ignore the fact that you can be pretty secure on a wireless network if you know what you're doing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Need to Understand Wireless
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Say what?
It's the difference between a walky-talky and telephone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Say what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
read it again
did you not read this? if you encrypt your wireless, and block the things you need to block, its more secure than wired, mainly because wired does not have as many security features as wireless, becasue people think that it IS safe, and wireless is NOT, but id say its the opposite becasue of the hype.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: read it again
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: read it again
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: read it again
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
You're much better off using WPA since the key changes often enough to keep anyone from being able to figure it out. Unfortunately, not all wireless adapters support it. The standard IBM T42 laptop being one of them.
If all you have for encryption is WEP I'd suggest, MAC Address filtering, non-broadcast SSID, turning it off when not in use, and setting up a honeypot (an un-encrypted wireless router that is standalone and not connected to the Internet... to help slow most "war-drivers" down).
The biggest mistake you can make is thinking no one in your neighborhood is "tech savvy" enough to hop on your network. Not only can you not know that for sure... but war driving is becoming a popular hobby for a lot of people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: read it again
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
the internet is not safe.....there is no such thing as secure.............i run 2 servers....& im not safe....these damn kids these days hack everything they see..........
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: read it again
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
Don't forget turn off DHCP and also change the channels. With different channels having different strengths, a lot of people overlook the fact that you want the wireless to be in the range of where you are, but not past it.
Also.. I have seen countless number of people take those precautions BUT not change the default settings for the SSID and password <shakes her head>
As for if you have to use WEP.. unfortunately a lot of people still do. Netgear, Linksys, D-Link and others who did not have WPA on their firmware (or compatibility on the NIC) a few years ago... There are still people running the same WAPS. Heck there are still some that don't even care if it is unsecured.. and do not understand why.
I had to do demonstrations to teach how to install wireless a couple of years ago.. and I also did many installs.
Some may call it cheesy, but I made a flash video of some of it one night when I was bored.
http://www.girlgeekette.net/2005/09/04/wireless-networking-the-wifi-movie/
I even have some posts on the subjects on wireless from experiences I have seen and researched / taught
http://www.girlgeekette.net/category/wireless-info/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You are all missing the point here
On the other hand, for wireless, it is taken for granted that the network is not secure, and hence it is as secure as you "THINK" it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You are all missing the point here
(For the most part that is.. I have to agree there ARE ways to lock it down good and have it MORE secure than most believe it is(n't), but it will never have the security that wired does.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
And when reading packets, its not hard to find the MAC address to spoof or the ip scheme used..
it is not exactly the best defense around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WEP and WPA both suck
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
WPA.. now that is a different story. Especially combined with MAC filtering, no ssid broadcast, change the defaults, change channels to reduce the signal strenth, disabling dhcp, etc.. That is the one to use to make it "more" secure.
The whole point of the article anyway was to show that people realize how insecure wireless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]