Re: Wireless Security (Part 2)

[Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers <bugtraq () planetcobalt net>]

On 2006-05-17 Ebeling, Jr., Herman Frederick wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 May, 2006 07:49 Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
> > Okay, I'm confused. *Why* would anyone in his right mind want to do
> > this instead of just using a VPN or WPA or at least WEP, which would
> > not only *tell* anyone not invited to stay out, but also actually
> > *enforce* it? 
>
>   Because sadly, not everyone who thinks that they "know" how to
> deploy either a LAN, or a WLAN knows or understands how to secure said
> LAN, or WLAN.
>
>   There are some people out there who assume that either the Wi-Fi
> enabled router, or dedicated AP IS "secure" right out of the box. They
> may be totally unaware that they're open and "inviting" everyone in
> the neighborhood into their system.  And those are the ones who really
> need to be educated.
>
>   And I would say that the bottom line is that one sadly has to think
> of the less knowledgeable person who may attempt to deploy some form
> of a network.

Sorry, but I don't get your point at all. You were asking for a way of
setting up a banner to tell an intruder to "keep out". Why is that any
different from activating the (existing) mechanisms? Granted, WEP isn't
secure at all, but from a legal point of view it at least tells an
intruder much clearer than your banner that he isn't allowed to use the
network.

Also I entirely fail to see what advantages you see in setting up such a
banner. That would still require a user that is actually aware of his
network being insecure to begin with, so it doesn't solve anything that
isn't already solved. And solved in a much more reliable way, I might
add.

Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
-- 
"All vulnerabilities deserve a public fear period prior to patches
becoming available."
--Jason Coombs on Bugtraq