North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Wireless insecurity at NANOG meetings
Actually, from a legal standpoint, you put locks on the door same reason as u would on the wireless. Otherwise an invitation could be implied. It's hard for someone to argue that they were invited if they had to use breakin tools. Otherwise I dont think anyone would have a case, public area, public use lan.... If I was walking through a hotel and found an open LAN I would assume it was there for a perk of the hotel.
I still dont see the problem with either side of this discussion. If we had a minor amount of security, I think the nanog goers could easily figure it out. If not, a little friendly assistance from the person sitting next to you and you might just have made a friend. Payoff with a simple beer later would suffice.
Actually I believe it was Bill Woodcock that sent me mac drivers back in 1997 for the wireless. I may still owe him a beer though.
At 9:04 -0500 9/23/02, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Sean Donelan" <firstname.lastname@example.org>There is no useful security mechanism that can be applied to NANOG wireless.The wireless networks at NANOG meetings never follow what the security professionals say are mandatory, essential security practices. The NANOG wireless network doesn't use any authentication, enables broadcast SSID, has a trivial to guess SSID, doesn't use WEP, doesn't have any perimeter firewalls, etc, etc, etc. At the last NANOG meeting IIRC over 400 stations were active on the network.
-- David Diaz email@example.com [Email] firstname.lastname@example.org [Pager] Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons