Talk:High-speed multimedia radio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Security != encryption
It's a common assumption that security requires encryption. Even the FCC seems to have this belief, given that it allows encryption in space command communications.
In fact this is incorrect. I've pointed this out to some people involved in HSMM work (and hope to write an article about it one of these days). Access control needs strong authentication. That can be done quite easily, without encryption of any kind. IPsec in authentication-only mode has all the necessary mechanisms.
I suspect in the HSMM context the picture gets muddled because there isn't an authentication-only mode in WEP or WPA. Then again, WEP at least is junk. WPA seems to be better, but personally I would just turn all that stuff off and rely on IPsec, which definitely has been designed by skilled cryptographers (unlike WEP).
73, ni1d. Paul Koning (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think the point is that if you've reason enough to use authentication, then you've reason enough to use encryption too. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but you wouldn't want anyone stealing your packets. --AB (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Not necessarily. In network security they are different services and the reasons for using one vs. the other are not the same. In any case, amateur radio is a special case: by law, amateur radio communication is not allowed to hide the content of the communication. So encryption is prohibited. On the other hand, there is no prohibition on authentication, and in fact in some places the regulations imply you are supposed to use it (for example auxiliary links).
-
- Also, what do you mean by "stealing your packets"? If it means (a) reading the contents -- then the answer is that the amateur radio service specifically requires that the contents be readable, and if you need to communicate something that shouldn't be publicly visible, your only option is to avoid the amateur radio service. If it means (b) having Y take a copy of the packets sent by X and pretend they were created by Y -- I agree, and that is precisely what authentication does. In fact, only authentication does that -- encryption alone does not. That's why the FCC's rule allowing encryption in space command traffic is flat out technically wrong. (See Bellovin, Steven M. (1996). "Problem Areas for the IP Security Protocols". Proceedings of the Sixth Usenix Unix Security Symposium: 1-16. for a detailed explanation of that point.) Paul Koning (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pros and cons??
Can the article be edited to remove the Pros and Cons sections? It currently reads like a product review rather than an encyclopedia article.--Kharker (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
"Also AMSAT has requested that HSMM operators stay away from 802.11b/g channel 1 to prevent interference to satellite operations. It was recommended in CQ magazine that users use channels 3 and 5."
This is no longer the case. In an email from John Champa he said "When the "Channel 1 is Ver Botten" message (HI) was sent out there was an active Phase 3 OSCAR using that band segment. That is no longer the case. So that guideline is outdated. Forget about it. ;o)" Kmoravec (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Kmoravec