I disagree. Kind of. Obviously, end-to-end encryption is the only way to be [mostly] secure. Certainly. But, the last 100 feet in a wireless network is VERY INSECURE AND VERY EASY TO INTERCEPT. The same cannot be said of wired networks or even of most traffic on the Internet. If I had $10 to spend on a solution, I'd rather spend it on encrypting my wireless traffic than spend it elsewhere. Now, if I had $20, I'd encrypt everything. :)
--- Puryear Information Technology, LLC Baton Rouge, LA * 225-706-8414 http://www.puryear-it.com Author: "Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers" "Spam Fighting and Email Security in the 21st Century" Download your free copies: http://www.puryear-it.com/publications.htm Thursday, February 1, 2007, 4:13:35 PM, you wrote: > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, willhill wrote: >> The political part of the battle has been pushed very far into negative >> territory by the bad guys. The usefulness of encrypting the last 100 feet of >> network is laughable in the larger battle for user privacy, but that's what >> is being pushed for. > I agree 100%. Encrypting the last 100 feet of your unsecured > POP/IMAP/HTTP connection is silly. While wireless security is important, > the big push for it is just FUD to give people warm fuzzies that they are > "secure". You have to look at the entire transmission, and secure all > points of interception to be "secure". I have always told people, even > before wireless, that you need end-to-end encryption. Use ssh, SSL, TLS, > and VPNs to secure your data transmission. > Never trust that port in the wall. By the same token, never trust that > radio on the ceiling. > ray
