Michaelwagner Wrote:
> I was saying that a computer scientist should have known enough to know
> that he didn't know enough.
You'd think so, but I've met many smart people with computer science
degrees who think nothing of attempting to design a secure system (I
work for a major Swiss [read: sec
Fair enough.
I wasn't saying a computer scientist would do.
I was saying that a computer scientist should have known enough to know
that he didn't know enough.
--
Michaelwagner
Michaelwagner's Profile: http://forums.sli
Michaelwagner Wrote:
> I'm no cryptographer, but I studied computer science back in the day,
> and every undergrad had to know some encoding theory. There was always
> a short bit on encryption (because we encrypt passwords and so on) and
> even that short bit told us that repeated, predictable b
I'm no cryptographer, but I studied computer science back in the day,
and every undergrad had to know some encoding theory. There was always
a short bit on encryption (because we encrypt passwords and so on) and
even that short bit told us that repeated, predictable bits, especially
at fixed locat
Michaelwagner Wrote:
>
> In a sense, once I read the paper about how insecure wep was and how
> easy it was to break, I'm a bit concerned about the 802.11 committee
> and how web ever got out the door of a standards setting committee.
>
There were no cryptographers present on the committe that
yeah, there is that.
But Bush believes everything they did is legal.
Don't you feel better already?
--
Michaelwagner
Michaelwagner's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=428
View this thread: http://f
Michaelwagner Wrote:
>
> The other requires a significant security breach at your ISP or at the
> major carriers, and even then, they'd have to trace it back to you.
> This at the very least requires more skill and equipment than the
> average teenager drives around in his car.
Or access to AT&
I guess how secure the "open internet" is after it leaves your cable
modem or whatever is something only your ISP can tell you about (and I
bet they don't).
However, wardriving would appear to be a bigger thread than internet
tapping. The one requires a laptop and a car, something most teenagers
Michaelwagner Wrote:
> It depends what you want to secure.
>
> If you just don't want to have someone masquerade as you, you're
> right.
>
> If you want to prevent people from reading your email as your stream it
> wirelessly to your laptop in the bedroom, what you have described
> accomplishes
snarlydwarf Wrote:
> most wireless cards will let you set your mac to anything you want.
> They just need to wait until you turn a machine off to fully take over
> the MAC.
Even better, most wireless cards can be put into promiscuous mode,
where they will listen to packets not intended for them.
It depends what you want to secure.
If you just don't want to have someone masquerade as you, you're
right.
If you want to prevent people from reading your email as your stream it
wirelessly to your laptop in the bedroom, what you have described
accomplishes nothing. Anyone in the neighbourhood
Except anyone can find out your SSID even if you turn broadcast off
(it's sent all the time in other packets), and most wireless cards will
let you set your mac to anything you want. They just need to wait until
you turn a machine off to fully take over the MAC.
--
snarlydwarf
snarlydwarf Wrote:
> Well I'm of the school that believes it should be a crime to sell
> WEP-only stuff. The only people it stops are people who don't download
> netstumbler. That's like selling locks and telling people this is
> 'security' when the only security is "well, the burglars do have
If you only send your music over the wireless, at worst you have poor
security for your music.
In a sense, once I read the paper about how insecure wep was and how
easy it was to break, I'm a bit concerned about the 802.11 committee
and how web ever got out the door of a standards setting committ
Well I'm of the school that believes it should be a crime to sell
WEP-only stuff. The only people it stops are people who don't download
netstumbler. That's like selling locks and telling people this is
'security' when the only security is "well, the burglars do have to
turn the knob to get in!"
But they did say essentially that
> they'll prevent users from dumbing down their wireless networks to
> slower speeds and less secure encryption--both of which need to be done
> with most competing products.
--
Michaelwagner
-
And being CNET it's expected, but tragic, that WPA vs WEP is so played
down. They'll never say "if you insist on using WEP, anyone can break
into your network in less than a minute."
Despite it being true.
--
snarlydwarf
Nice review, but the SB3 is worth the premium over the Roku. The latter
is sonically inferior. Their review is understandable being CNet and
not stereophile!
--
crooner
crooner's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/memb
18 matches
Mail list logo
