At 9:06 PM -0500 11/26/03, David Lesher wrote:
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
My company is investigating the use of wireless in a couple of our
conference rooms. Aside from limiting the scope of reception with various
directional antennae, does anyone have any
At 9:51 PM -0500 11/26/03, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, David Lesher wrote:
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
My company is investigating the use of wireless in a couple of our
conference rooms. Aside from limiting the scope of reception with various
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
Stupid pen-test tricks, instead of using an expensive WiFi scanner and
cracking WEP; often you can collect better intelligence with a radio
turned to the frequency used by wireless lapel mics used by executives
during briefings.
Or by lecturers forgetting them
I have been looking into the Cisco Aironet solution recently for
a project I'm working on. They seem to have some great security
features, if you want to take the time to configure it. Oh, another
caveat is that you have to use Cisco's wireless adapter as well,
otherwise, good ol' WEP
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 20:36:51 -0600
Erik Amundson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been looking into the Cisco Aironet solution recently for
a project I'm working on. They seem to have some great security
features, if you want to take the time to configure it. Oh, another
caveat is
There is an adage in the Wireless industry. If it will hold water it will
hold RF Energy. Unfortunately this is true and the only method by which
you can prevent the egress of 2.4 GHz signals from a defined area is by
the use of a faraday cage and since the wavelength is short you need a
very
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Uhm, dumb question. If it is that important, why are you using
wireless at all? Why not install a cheap switch/hub in the middle of the
conference table and let people plug a patch cord from the hub to their
laptops?
I have to
Unless you are looking to isolate a small box for such purposes as testing
RF devices, I would not use a shielding technique to limit access to your
wireless network. Containing 2.4GHz signals within a room of any
reasonable size is extremely difficult. You would probably have to cover
it with
Planning on limiting signal using a physical mechanism of some sort's
just
a little too scifi to be useful.
It's too much effort to shield the room itself, but you
might want to try making the inverse square law work for
you by shielding all of the wireless antennae so that
the signal is too
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Planning on limiting signal using a physical
mechanism of some sort's
just
a little too scifi to be useful.
It's too much effort to shield the room itself, but
you
might want to try making the inverse square law work
for
you by shielding all of the
Andy Grosser wrote:
My company is investigating the use of wireless in a couple of our
conference rooms. Aside from limiting the scope of reception with various
directional antennae, does anyone have any suggestions or pointers for
other ways to limit the propagation of signals (i.e. special
Andy Grosser wrote:
My company is investigating the use of wireless in a couple of our
conference rooms.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Davids (SARA)) [Wed 26 Nov 2003, 21:30 CET]:
What is wrong with the 'good old' 802.1x with EAP or WPA solution?
There is a difference between keeping signals
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
My company is investigating the use of wireless in a couple of our
conference rooms. Aside from limiting the scope of reception with various
directional antennae, does anyone have any suggestions or pointers for
other ways to
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, David Lesher wrote:
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
My company is investigating the use of wireless in a couple of our
conference rooms. Aside from limiting the scope of reception with various
directional antennae, does anyone have any
14 matches
Mail list logo
