I am not positive however I believe alot these retail WLAN deployments were around before WECA or WiFi had been established.
Secondly yes using WEP might of prevented this story from coming out, but only for the additional time that it took someone to get their wep-key which would probably have been the same at every location. Yet another example of how if you design security into the application and encrypt the data at the app level, it can save your ass. Ken On Fri, 2002-05-03 at 15:17, Frank wrote: > 802.11b devices are not WiFi complient unless they support WEP. I'm > certain that all of their WLAN devices had this capability. Now we all > know that WEP is weak but even implementing this weak "encryption" would > have likley prevented this story from happening. > > AFAIK all Symbol WLAN equipment support WEP and almost all of their > equipment supports their kerberos authentication capability. BB uses Cisco > AP's and Symbol WLAN scanners at least this is what I remember seeing in > their stores. > > So why roll out a insecure implementation in the first place? If the > device has no security capabilities, why use it? > > There are many other retailers with the exact same problem > > > > On Fri, 3 May 2002, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > Not necessarily - if it's a ready-made wireless cash register which doesn't > > come with security features, it's down to the people who made it.. (and, if > > that is the case, it suggests other retailers have the same problem). > > -- > general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> > [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Ken Caruso http://ken.ipl31.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The telephone has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us," -Western Union Internal Memo -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
