poken of on
> the NANOG list yet...that's a good idea too...hmm
>
> - Erik
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Andy Grosser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 11:02 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: WLAN shielding
>
>
od ol' WEP for you!
I haven't thought of the VPN idea that others have spoken of on
the NANOG list yet...that's a good idea too...hmm
- Erik
-Original Message-
From: Andy Grosser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 11:02 AM
To: [EMAIL
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Stupid pen-test tricks, instead of using an expensive WiFi scanner and
> >cracking WEP; often you can collect better intelligence with a radio
> >turned to the frequency used by wireless lapel mics used by executives
> >during briefings.
>
> Or by lecturers forget
At 9:51 PM -0500 11/26/03, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, David Lesher wrote:
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
> My company is investigating the use of wireless in a couple of our
> conference rooms. Aside from limiting the scope of reception with various
>
At 9:06 PM -0500 11/26/03, David Lesher wrote:
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
My company is investigating the use of wireless in a couple of our
conference rooms. Aside from limiting the scope of reception with various
directional antennae, does anyone have any su
Thanks to all who responded to my query. I suppose I should have added
that the brass in my company are somewhat loathe to work a little harder
at things like using SecurID tokens, firing up VPN software, etc. "I want
a single login solution" is a common mantra on the top floor. OK, OK,
we're w
There is an adage in the Wireless industry. If it will hold water it will
hold RF Energy. Unfortunately this is true and the only method by which
you can prevent the egress of 2.4 GHz signals from a defined area is by
the use of a faraday cage and since the wavelength is short you need a
very
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
>
>
> Uhm, dumb question. If it is that important, why are you using
> wireless at all? Why not install a cheap switch/hub in the middle of the
> conference table and let people plug a patch cord from the hub to their
> laptops?
I ha
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, David Lesher wrote:
> Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
> > My company is investigating the use of wireless in a couple of our
> > conference rooms. Aside from limiting the scope of reception with various
> > directional antennae, does anyone have an
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
>
>
>
> My company is investigating the use of wireless in a couple of our
> conference rooms. Aside from limiting the scope of reception with various
> directional antennae, does anyone have any suggestions or pointers for
> other wa
> Andy Grosser wrote:
>> My company is investigating the use of wireless in a couple of our
>> conference rooms.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Davids (SARA)) [Wed 26 Nov 2003, 21:30 CET]:
> What is wrong with the 'good old' 802.1x with EAP or WPA solution?
There is a difference between keeping sign
Andy Grosser wrote:
My company is investigating the use of wireless in a couple of our
conference rooms. Aside from limiting the scope of reception with various
directional antennae, does anyone have any suggestions or pointers for
other ways to limit the propagation of signals (i.e. special shie
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Planning on limiting signal using a physical
> mechanism of some sort's
> just
> >a little too scifi to be useful.
>
> It's too much effort to shield the room itself, but
> you
> might want to try making the inverse square law work
> for
> you by shielding al
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 12:01 -0500, Andy Grosser wrote:
> Apologies in advance if this may not quite be the proper list for such a
> question...
>
> My company is investigating the use of wireless in a couple of our
> conference rooms. Aside from limiting the scope of reception with various
> dir
>Planning on limiting signal using a physical mechanism of some sort's
just
>a little too scifi to be useful.
It's too much effort to shield the room itself, but you
might want to try making the inverse square law work for
you by shielding all of the wireless antennae so that
the signal is too
Unless you are looking to isolate a small box for such purposes as testing
RF devices, I would not use a shielding technique to limit access to your
wireless network. Containing 2.4GHz signals within a room of any
reasonable size is extremely difficult. You would probably have to cover
it with a
Apologies in advance if this may not quite be the proper list for such a
question...
My company is investigating the use of wireless in a couple of our
conference rooms. Aside from limiting the scope of reception with various
directional antennae, does anyone have any suggestions or pointers for
17 matches
Mail list logo
