Re: New Protection for 802.11
--- "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am struck the contrast between the seemingly > strong demand for wifi security, compared to the almost complete > absence of demand for email security. > > Why is it so? Because people generally understand the concept that Wifi is open, and that that's risky for them because people can get on their networks, and scary cryptographers from Berkeley go announcing that the security's cracked, and scary hackers from Berkeley go war-driving and publish about it, and other people follow it up with the scary war-chalking conspiracy, and columnists write scare stories about drive-by-spamming, and to the extent that anybody has corporate security practices, this obviously sounds scary to them (unless they're clueful people who understand to put the Wifi outside the firewall, but most companies not only have fewer clues, they have less control over their users, and people might just plug these things in because it's easy, convenient, and off-the-shelf.) Email security, on the other hand, may inspire some people to do encryption, but most people outside the financial biz aren't really worried about wiretappers, and their big security concern with email isn't eavesdroppers, it's either insiders mailing things to people who shouldn't have them (hard problem to solve), or spammers mailing things in to them that they don't want.
RE: New Protection for 802.11
> James A. Donald[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > > > Reading the Wifi report, > http://www.weca.net/OpenSection/pdf/Wi- > Fi_Protected_Access_Overview.pdf > it seems their customers stampeded them and demanded that the > security hole be fixed, fixed a damned lot sooner than they > intended to fix it. > > I am struck the contrast between the seemingly strong demand > for wifi security, compared to the almost complete absence of > demand for email security. > > Why is it so? > > --digsig > James A. Donald > How many stories have you read in the last year about non-LEOs stealing email? How many stories in the last year have you read about wardriving? Further, tapping into 802.11b nets * gives the attacker access to your internal network. You already know what you're sending in email, and eavesdropping on data you've already decided to send to someone else feels different than someone trolling through your file system without your knowledge. * requires that the tapper be more or less nearby physically. This feels a lot different than worrying that a distant router is compromised. Peter Trei
Re: New Protection for 802.11
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, James A. Donald wrote: > -- > Reading the Wifi report, > http://www.weca.net/OpenSection/pdf/Wi- > Fi_Protected_Access_Overview.pdf > it seems their customers stampeded them and demanded that the > security hole be fixed, fixed a damned lot sooner than they > intended to fix it. > > I am struck the contrast between the seemingly strong demand > for wifi security, compared to the almost complete absence of > demand for email security. > > Why is it so? Because e-mail goes over a wire and Wifi is broadcast. Tapping wires is harder than setting up an antenna in a truck outside your building. It has a lot to do with psycology and magazine articles. It has nothing to do with security. If a lot of people were getting screwed because their e-mail was being read, and it got written up in PC magazine, security would be a much bigger issue. A lot of Wifi users have been screwed and it's showed up in trade journals. That's all! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: New Protection for 802.11
At 05:46 AM 11/7/02 -0800, Sarad AV wrote: >hi, > >Wi fi customers are more paranoid than comparingly >ordinary web users who are not so concerened of their >security. That's just plain silly. Its like saying a cellphone user is more paranoid than a landline user. It was entirely convenience, with security problems thought about only after adoption.
Re: New Protection for 802.11
hi, Wi fi customers are more paranoid than comparingly ordinary web users who are not so concerened of their security. If we make a product,it should sell or the least a large number of people should use it(personal satisfaction),so it sells better with 'Wi Fi ' customers. Regards Sarath. --- "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -- > Reading the Wifi report, > http://www.weca.net/OpenSection/pdf/Wi- > Fi_Protected_Access_Overview.pdf > it seems their customers stampeded them and demanded > that the > security hole be fixed, fixed a damned lot sooner > than they > intended to fix it. > > I am struck the contrast between the seemingly > strong demand > for wifi security, compared to the almost complete > absence of > demand for email security. > > Why is it so? > > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > IWe4JFeDeor04Pxb96ZsQ7xX+JAwxSs8HQfoAeG5 > 4rQX6tgLhAvAwLjF+SXlRswSmphBhw4cOXLe9Y4r5 > __ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Re: New Protection for 802.11
-- Reading the Wifi report, http://www.weca.net/OpenSection/pdf/Wi- Fi_Protected_Access_Overview.pdf it seems their customers stampeded them and demanded that the security hole be fixed, fixed a damned lot sooner than they intended to fix it. I am struck the contrast between the seemingly strong demand for wifi security, compared to the almost complete absence of demand for email security. Why is it so? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG IWe4JFeDeor04Pxb96ZsQ7xX+JAwxSs8HQfoAeG5 4rQX6tgLhAvAwLjF+SXlRswSmphBhw4cOXLe9Y4r5
