Re: encryption options for public networks?
Jim Thompson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.wireless.seattle.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Jan 22, 2005, at 11:31 PM, Rob Flickenger wrote: > On Jan 22, 2005, at 7:54 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: > > In Michael Mee's case, I still think the best bet is to leave it open. > Creating an expectation of privacy will only lead to heartache unless > you can do it right. > >> The above (a hacked RADIUS server combined with WPA, or at least >> 802.1x) would serve to avoid all those Microsoft "This network is not >> secure, are you sure you want to connect?" warnings. > > Indeed. Michael, if you think the users care, that might be > important. From the users I've met, they don't give a damn about > warnings. Most of them run IE and don't even realize when their box > starts spewing viruses and DoS'ing the intarweb. I think its best to remember that there are link-layer attacks in 802.11 that aren't normally considered in 802.3 (Ethernet) due to the need for 'physical access'. WPA isn't perfect, but its a lot better than running naked. _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/dev