Re: Wireless security
- From: goarilla <"kevin DOT paulus AT skynet DOT be">
- Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:17:08 +0100
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Moe Trin wrote:huh ?
Rational security policy must take some accountIf that action can be prevented (or at least the risk minimized) at no
of the statistical probability of hostile action.
cost, why not? Most "modern" systems come with SSL, which has virtually
eliminated use of 'telnet'. Likewise, most modern systems come with WPA
authentication capability. Why not use it?
I agree completely.
People would be silly not to use WPA if it is as simple as WEP.
Unfortunately it is not in many (probably most) cases, under Linux or Windows, as many postings here testify.
My argument was with those who say that WEP is useless.
It is actually easier to use ssh/scp than rsh or telnet,
so the issue does not arise there.
telnet is a lot easier than ssh !
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Wireless security
- From: Joe Pfeiffer
- Re: Wireless security
- From: Timothy Murphy
- Re: Wireless security
- References:
- Wireless security
- From: Baho Utot
- Re: Wireless security
- From: Wolfgang Draxinger
- Re: Wireless security
- From: Timothy Murphy
- Re: Wireless security
- From: Moe Trin
- Re: Wireless security
- From: Timothy Murphy
- Re: Wireless security
- From: Moe Trin
- Re: Wireless security
- From: Timothy Murphy
- Wireless security
- Prev by Date: Re: Connecting to Internet through a Windows box
- Next by Date: Re: comments abour outgoing SSH blocking
- Previous by thread: Re: Wireless security
- Next by thread: Re: Wireless security
- Index(es):