Re: [NTLK] What the h...(Wireless:WEP vs NOT) help, please....

From: mark (mark_at_imap-partners.net)
Date: Fri Feb 20 2004 - 06:43:36 PST


Alan Toops wrote:

> MAC address filtering is more secure than either the low level
> WEP supported by the Silver wavelan card or the 128 WEP
> supported by the Gold but as as been discussed on newtontalk,
> none will prevent a dedicated snooper from decoding enough
> network traffic to get information.

I think we should probably be careful when issuing this sort of information.

MAC address filtering is NOT more secure than WEP. This is not to say that WEP is more secure than MAC address filtering. It depends what you are trying to secure. If you are trying to "shut the front door" on network access, you are probably better off with MAC address filtering (though this is also a function of the tools and skills of the "burgler"). If, on the other hand, you are more concerned about securing the data which is in transit, then WEP (though rather weak of itself) is better than MAC address filtering (which provides no security at all).

The obvious answer is to run both, or to do everything per SSH, or to try to persuade Hiroshi to add WPA support for his driver, or, or, or...

mark.

-- 
This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries
List FAQ/Etiquette/Terms: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html
Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 20 2004 - 07:30:01 PST