[wplug] wireless vs non?

[Bill Moran]

"Michael P. O Connor" <mpop at mikeoconnor.net> wrote:

> True, and that is what I am tring to say, you can not have a secure
> network if some one really wants in, you just want to make your network
> pointless to get into, as I said before be more secure then the other
> open networks (not that hard to do these days now) so that the war
> drivers will pass over you and go to the network with the ssid's of
> "linksys" or "dlink"

If you're a big, obvious target (like a bank, or an ISP) then you need
professionals monitoring your network activity.  If you're monitoring,
you _will_ detect anomolies, and if you're competent, you'll track those
anomolies down and realize they're attacks and react properly to them.
These big-name jerks who get hacked are just trying to be cheap by not
doing the monitoring and reacting that's their responsibility.

If you're not a big target, you can apply enough deterrents to make the
crook go elsewhere (as has already been discussed).

For all _practical_ cases, you _can_ have a 100% secure network.

Yes, in the perfect, mathematical sense, it's impossible to have 100%
anything, but that's not reality, that's math.

> 
> > Given the right tools and time no network is 100% secure.  
> > 
> > > Yes you are right wireless networks are more insecure, mainly
> because you
> > > don't need physical access to the network to gain access to it, or to do
> > > packet sniffing.  I would say a wireless network is about as secure
> as the
> > > internet.  There are a few common sence things you can do that will keep
> > > the kiddy scripters off, and there are more stuff you can do that will
> > > keep more advance hackers off, but it is an open network and any one can
> > > gain access given the right tools and the time.  I am not saying
> don't use
> > > wireless just know what you are getting yourself into.
> > > 
> > >> Is there something fundamental I'm missing in this discussion? There 
> > >> seems to be an implication that wireless RF networks are somehow 
> > >> fundamentally more insecure than say X.25, fiber optic or copper wire 
> > >> networks. Maybe I'm just dense :)
> > >> 
> > >> Zach _______________________________________________ wplug mailing
> list 
> > >> wplug at wplug.org http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > -- Michael P. O'Connor mpop at mikeoconnor.net http://www.mikeoconnor.net
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________ wplug mailing list 
> > > wplug at wplug.org http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > wplug mailing list
> > wplug at wplug.org
> > http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Michael P. O'Connor
> mpop at mikeoconnor.net
> http://www.mikeoconnor.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wplug mailing list
> wplug at wplug.org
> http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug


-- 
Bill Moran
Potential Technologies
http://www.potentialtech.com