But you have to admin that Obscurity = greater security, used in the correct context - it would protect you from the drive by crackers and script kiddies. Crackers, Hackers, script kiddies - what ever you want to call them are by definition lazy. So if its hard to get any info, they will move on, especially with the number of gaping open places there are now! But yes, as with any security scheme if a cracker is determined to get in - he will get in.
On Thu, 16 May 2002 13:52:36 -0400 Mike Kershaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Though all is strange ... > > It is possible to construct the WLAN_802.11b so, that for example, > > same kismet nothing will see and will not hear... > > It is especially convenient to do it on ATMEL based AP. > > How do you mean? > > Even cloaking the SSID and turning off beaconing won't make it hidden from > a passive sniffer, and if a client associates the passive sniffer can still > see the SSID in the probe req and response. You're not going to be able to > hide that and still be within (my understanding of) the 802.11 spec. > > Obscurity != security. Too many companies blindly trust that no beaconing > or hiding their SSID means they're automatically safe. > > -m > > -- > Censorship, like charity, should begin at home, but > unlike charity, it should end there. -- Clare Boothe Luce > > -- > general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> > [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Tom Woody Systems Administrator NationWide Flood Research, Inc. phone: 214-631-0400 x209 fax: 214-631-0800 If you have any trouble sounding condescending, find a Unix user to show you how it's done. --Scott Adams -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
