more on Unsecured Wi-Fi would be outlawed by N.Y. county

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Marc <marcaniballi () hotmail com>
Date: November 6, 2005 6:04:01 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: RE: [IP] more on Unsecured Wi-Fi would be outlawed by N.Y.  
county

Hi Dave

Over here in France Dave, when we aren't watching the riots on CNN and
laughing, most of the ISPs here provide WiFi routers with their  
service -
the security features are already implemented and you can't change them
(without some skill at hacking). Essentially, if you want to connect  
to the
AP with a wifi card, you need to go to the "main" (trusted) machine  
in your
network and get a key for the new machine. I have noticed something
interesting though. Everyone I know runs some sort of AV/AS/Aad/Firewall
suite on their machines. No one buys actual dedicated security hardware
(aside from the larger businesses). So the question begs - what's the  
big
deal about security at the router/AP?

I have a theory - this is a backhanded way at ensuring that densely
populated areas (like cities) don't spontaneously turn into free  
large area
wireless networks, simply because everyone leaves their AP in OPEN  
mode and
doesn't really care if others are piggy-backing on their connection from
time to time.

It works in my neighborhood - where we "opened" our APs to share our  
wifi
radii among our little community.

Marc

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 12:12 PM
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: [IP] more on Unsecured Wi-Fi would be outlawed by N.Y. county



Begin forwarded message:

From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Date: November 5, 2005 8:21:13 PM EST
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Unsecured Wi-Fi would be outlawed by N.Y.
county
Reply-To: dewayne () warpspeed com

[Note:  This comment comes from reader Thomas Leavitt.  DLH]

> From: Thomas Leavitt <thomas () thomasleavitt org>
> Date: November 5, 2005 4:48:56 PM PST
> To: dewayne () warpspeed com
> Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Unsecured Wi-Fi would be outlawed by
> N.Y. county
>
> Gah. Next, they'll make it illegal to leave your door unlocked.
>
> We need a Constitutional amendment along the lines of "Congress shall
> make no law regarding technology without having a clue."
>
> Or perhaps a law requiring that an appropriate private sector
> standards
> body should vet all laws related to the Internet prior to
> introduction...
>
> With regards to this particular example of stupidity: people should be
> free to implement the security measures they feel are appropriate - a
> firewall may or may not be necessary (although I certainly would
> rather
> be running one).
>
> Tort liability for negligent administration of confidential personal
> information is the proper means of addressing the problem.
>
> Mandating that people install a "network gateway server" equipped
> with a
> "firewall" is stupid, on many levels - technically, the presence of a
> "firewall" means little or nothing, passage of such a law will
> encourage
> the that folks have taken care of potential security problems by
> installing one. A firewall is useless if it isn't configured properly,
> and often requires holes be punched in it for the network to be
> useable
> (which defeats much of the original purpose of installing one).
>
> Furthermore, there are security models that don't put a "network
> gateway
> server" and a "firewall" on the same box... are companies that have
> implemented such going to have to throw away thousands of dollars
> worth
> of equipment because it is in technical non-compliance? What about
> folks
> who run firewalls on individual servers without a centralized
> firewall?
> Or who run ZoneAlarm on their PCs? Does a Windows box running Windows
> Firewall and offering Internet Connection Sharing qualify? How do you
> define "firewall" anyway? Is a NAT box a "firewall"?
>
> Further, it doesn't serve the end it is intended to: the vast majority
> of security breaches and privacy protection violations occur *behind*
> the firewall (or where a firewall might be).
>
> And the idea that people would have to put up signs saying,
> essentially:
> "we've put a security precaution in place, but it may very well be
> utterly pointless, so please be careful" is hilarious... although the
> idea of having to "register" Internet connections with the
> government is
> NOT funny at all.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Leavitt

Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as marcaniballi () hotmail com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
people/

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/