[MLB-WIRELESS] Evangelism

Toliman toliman at ihug.com.au
Thu Feb 6 13:48:24 EST 2003

At 12:32 PM 6/02/2003,
sanbar wrote:
 >(iv) If you are who I think you are we're not just doing your research 
for you?
 >Again, apologies for the cynicism.

Kym Michael replied:
 >I have an opportunity for press exposure for myself and my business and I 
am offering MW a share in an opportunity for >blatant self promotion at no 
cost to you and some inconvenience to myself. I am a also a cynic but 
rarely challenge people for >their credentials before I answer a simple 
question in a collaborative environment.

 >Who are _you_ and why do you feel entitled to challenge my right to 
participate in this forum?

sanbar is exposed to the press in his occupation, the latent cynicism is an 
occupational hazard.

you are asking quite literally a bakers dozen of questions that a reporter 
would call background research, answers that make the reader familiar with 
the issues without having to actually research or have prior knowledge 
about it before reading the article, The theory also states that you can 
dumb-down several thousands of hours and pages of research into 2 
paragraphs (or 250 words) in a concise and illuminative article, if you can 
just add the right picture to accompany the 7 paragraph article.

To ask a forum about it's opinion on a subject is valid, even if its 
unrelated to the group's aims or current topic.

To ask them to write up a brief summary of the industry, its standards, 
security and jargon, is to invite both incredulity and attack, not shun it. 
All the information you are gathering can be gathered off public 
information sites such as ... the world wide web, magazine articles, 
newspaper articles, journals, forums, archival material, and sourced from 
thousands of others who have recycled and processed this information 
already. This could be summed up in one word, research.

To ask us as a community to do your research for you is not gratifying, it 
is insensitive. Participation in a forum is valued if it is constructive, 
not demeaning.

greenville armitage wrote:
 >> 7) How big a problem is security with wireless computer set-ups? What can
 >> be done to make them more secure?

 >A useful analogy is that running an 802.11b network out of the box
 >is like plugging a long run of cat5 into one of your home LAN router's
 >ports, hanging the free end out your window, and letting anyone standing
 >out on the street plug in to your home LAN.


 >[*] Actually the situation is slight worse, because passers-by can
 >record all your WEP-protected traffic for later decoding even after you
 >change your WEP key. So even if they can't inject packets _into_ your home
 >LAN at the time, people can certainly gather data today that might be used
 >against you weeks or months down the track.

Technically speaking, this vulnerability exists in mobile phone 
communications, cordless phones, telephone exchanges, EFTPOS, security card 
locks, and radio as well, but the hardware needed to do this cannot be 
purchased for $150 plus a can of pringles. The likelihood of a person 
trying to "pick the lock" on a WEP communication is proportional to the 
effort required. i.e. if you lock down the machine enough so that people 
you know can log in and use a VPN over the top of it, then it should be 
enough to work for your secure needs.

If you feel violated simply by seeing another SSID in your AP's connection 
list, then wireless is not a technology you should use. conversely, if you 
think that it is a technology you want to use, be aware that it is 
combining the security equivalent of a Microsoft IIS machine, with the 
privacy of a police scanner, and that any effort to secure it will require 
third party software or extra protocols and utilities that will greatly 
effect performance.


To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message

More information about the Melbwireless mailing list