All one has to do is monitor some traffic when you're connected, and all of those things are revealed in clear text. Agreed. I am the last house in a Cul-de-sac, so not many ward drivers I don't think.Originally posted by: MoFunk
Do not worry about the neighbors, it's the war drivers and war walkers that I would be concerned with.
Originally posted by: gunrunnerjohn
Go with what? If you're thinking that disabling SSID broadcast, MAC filtering, and a different channel will protect you, you're incorrect.
When you're connected, you ARE broadcasting for all to hear. How do you think the data on the network connection gets to your wireless machines? Once they know the AP exists, they can connect to it. Surely you don't think it's that simple to secure a wireless network!Originally posted by: acemcmac
Monitor it with what? netstumbler and other such apps will be mute to a network that doesent broadcast... The wireless network is its own network anyway that wouldn't echo any of the backbone's traffic. The security of the actual data on the wireless is irrelevant... I just don't want someone stumbling into the point and trying to get at the backbone... What would you suggest?Originally posted by: gunrunnerjohnGo with what? If you're thinking that disabling SSID broadcast, MAC filtering, and a different channel will protect you, you're incorrect.
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: gunrunnerjohn
Go with what? If you're thinking that disabling SSID broadcast, MAC filtering, and a different channel will protect you, you're incorrect.
Monitor it with what? netstumbler and other such apps will be mute to a network that doesent broadcast... The wireless network is its own network anyway that wouldn't echo any of the backbone's traffic. The security of the actual data on the wireless is irrelevant... I just don't want someone stumbling into the point and trying to get at the backbone... What would you suggest?
More than likely you'll have problems with VPN and wireless when jumping from one subnet to another. VPN doesn't like that. I'd do PEAP and RSA with a new security key being generated every 10mins.Originally posted by: RhythmAddict
Agreed. For now, anyway, VPN over wireless is the way to go. WEP is doable, but not difficult enough to get around. At least utilizing VPN, you're using a method of security that (in comparison to WEP/WPA) is tried and true.
I used to work at a...lets just say somewhere HIPPA would be very interested in. They had the audacity to put up a fully un protected (no mac filtering, no wep, no radius - NOTHING) network. Thi soon came down when a local paper postedan article about a patient inadvertantly hopping on there wireless network with their personal laptop. Somehow, the security team decided to then install a .b network (first one was .a) with 64 bit encryption. Oh yeah, sounds
Also, this is a great question/topic. I oftened wondered about the degree of diifficulty pertaining to spoofing MACs on a Wifi Network - Cheers :beer:much more secure...
Originally posted by: mboy
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: gunrunnerjohn
Go with what? If you're thinking that disabling SSID broadcast, MAC filtering, and a different channel will protect you, you're incorrect.
Monitor it with what? netstumbler and other such apps will be mute to a network that doesent broadcast... The wireless network is its own network anyway that wouldn't echo any of the backbone's traffic. The security of the actual data on the wireless is irrelevant... I just don't want someone stumbling into the point and trying to get at the backbone... What would you suggest?
DEF. NOT TRUE!
So how is it on it's own network? Do you have it on a VLAN, firewalled off in some way?
Oh, netstumbler can pick up AP's that don't broadcast their SSID btw.
Originally posted by: gunrunnerjohn
If you're happy with your security with the measures you've taken, who are we to rain on your parade.
Facebook
Twitter