You've a narrow, restricted, view of anywhere, all the
time... under any circumstance.  You think everyone
should individually pay... for everything.  You don't
understand CRM, or public assistance, or a few other
minor points.  (Note: or even their effects on
security)

That's not my fault.  Read more.  Argument is fun,
maybe even provides a certain satisfaction.  But, the
time you're wasting in arguing would be better spent
reading the website I've repearedly suggested.  I'm
not being mean... I simply do not have the time to
both learn and lecture (repeatedly).  

Or, don't read the website.  Here... I admit you're
right... make you feel proud?  Doesn't bother me a
bit... or even change the facts.

Best, Alan

--- evilbunny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Alan,
> 
> AL> Well, instead of arguing and writing a long
> post, I again direct you to a very sufficient
> explanation... at the Service Factory website.  They

> provided a really impressive, full, explanation.  
> Best, Alan
> 
> First of all, my comments were a correction of
> yours, regardless of what was written on the 
> website, the fact remains that 802.1x DOES NOT
> require smart card ID's, more to the point that
> website pertains to GSM and GPRS integration which 
> uses a SIM (like in your GSM phone) rather then a 
> smart card ID for the authentication, there has been
> considerable debate on this on the BAWUG list as to
> how secure this type of authentication really is, 
> due to the fact it was presumed attackers would be 
> limited by GSM speeds while trying to crack SIMs in
> the past, once these become integrated into 802.11
> devices the ability to crack them becomes a lot 
> easier time wise.
> 
> 802.1x is a standard with many types of 
> authentication plugins allowed to authenticate both 
> user and access points to the users.
> 
> EAP/MD5 - password
> EAP/TLS - x.509 certificate
> EAP/SIM - GSM SIM
> to name but a few...
> 
> As most authentication is actually software based,
> password is obviously still the easiest method, 
> followed by x.509 certificates (some of these can 
> incur a cost, unless you use a free certificate
> provider such as CACert.org)
> 
> Any/All other methods are bound to be expensive to
> implement due to the need of uncommon 3rd party 
> hardware at both ends. Where as the previous methods

> only need software upgrades, or configuration.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
>  evilbunny                           
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Reply via email to