Thanks for all the replies, I see now that I should explain myself further.
 The scenario I am thinking of is when you run a public WiFi access point at
let's say a campus with many new visitors from different organisations and
you don't want to start messing around with WAP, WEP, IPSec, PPP or L2TP,
having staff/manuals to help visitors setting up tunnels on their Windows XP
/ 2000 laptops is just not feasible. I am after a zero configuration
solution for just the HTTP traffic, and if the sites browsed does not
support https then there is little I can do on my end.


 On 7/15/05, Nick Holland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 06:03:01PM +0200, Johan P. Lindstrvm wrote:
> ...
> > I'm not too familiar with the inner workings of the needed technologies
> > (sometimes a pro, often a con) but what if one would use a https proxy,
> like
> > say squid with SSL/TLS support, to obfuscate the http traffic leaving
> your
> > laptop over the WiFi LAN to your local OpenBSD box that runs the proxy,
> that
> > would then with some magic serve you the pages. So that http traffic
> could
> > not be intercepted on the open WiFi network.
> ...
>
> Before you worry about this too much...
>
> IF you are worried about people packet sniffing your wireless
> connection, you should probably be running some kind of encryption on
> the traffic already, wireless or not. What's the point of encrypting
> from your laptop to the firewall, if it is then sent plain-text to the
> remote end over the common cable that many of your neighbors are also
> attached to.
>
> By this point in time, any communications over the internet which should
> not be sniffed should be encrypted end-to-end.
>
> That was a specific answer to a specific question.
> the above reply is not meant to imply wireless security issues "don't
> matter". IF the question is, "How do I keep people out of my wireless
> network", or "how do I keep them from sniffing internal traffic in my
> network", my answer would be very different...but that wasn't the
> question.
>
> Nick.

Reply via email to