Not really. Actually, I'd PROBABLY consider using that as an additional step, except that IIRC IPSec will handle all the auth. All this is really doing is preventing unauthorized users from using your net connection, whereas IPSec is actually establishing a tunnel, allowing you to send all of your data between the LEAF box and the client in an encrypted form.
The real difference is that NoCat is designed to allow folks to login and use the hotspot - making it great for a community project where you only want to charge a small upkeep fee or only let community residents access it (like, say, wireless for an apartment complex). You're still going to be sending all of your data in the clear or only using WEP encryption though. Which means that anyone with a little free time on their hands and a few handy tools is going to be able to pick up everything you're sending to the WAP in the first place.
George
Mike Noyes wrote:
On Fri, 2003-12-19 at 10:16, Mike Noyes wrote:
On Fri, 2003-12-19 at 09:24, George Metz wrote:
Yeah, I know. I was more replying to someone else saying that WEP was enough. It's clearly not.
George, Is NoCatAuth/NoCatSplash an acceptable solution to wireless security?
NoCat
http://nocat.net/
BTW, do we have a package for this yet?
Additional link:
NoCatSplash http://nocat.net/wiki/index.cgi?NoCatSplash
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click ------------------------------------------------------------------------ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
