That's a good point. But, we talk about wireless as an "extension" of the network. It's a heck of a lot easier to nail down a data jack that Evil User has plugged into than it is to find Evil User out in the woods, within range of a 30mW RF signal. It's easy to put cameras in a Library, for example, and Evil User might be cognizant of that.
So, "appreciably" is the functional term. Certainly, there's trouble lurking about anywhere, but VPN is still WAY better than WEP (which was the initial reason I made the comments below). Kirt Kirt Guinn Wireless Project Analyst University Information Technology Services Indiana University (812) 855-1784 -----Original Message----- From: Cal Frye [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Wireless Survey At 08:52 AM 11/22/2002 -0500, you wrote: >I think it's fair to say that our (NOC) concerns are more based on >unauthorized access to our network than whether someone's individual >data is secure. ONE bad guy can cause LOTS of damage with unauthorized >access. This one bad guy, should he feel the need to kill a server, for >example, would certainly have the skill to beat WEP. That's why we use >VPN. How is this appreciably different from an evil user on the wired network, say, in the Library? Except it's a bit easier to turn that port off ;-) Are you authenticating wired users, too? --Cal Frye, Network Administrator, Oberlin College "Just because something doesn't do what you planned it to do doesn't mean it's useless." --Edison, Thomas A (1847-1931) ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/memdir/cg/. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/memdir/cg/.
