Talk:Wireless LAN security
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Cleanup Tag
I added the cleanup-tag just because I don't have enough confidence in the work I've done here. I'd appreciate if somebody looked through this article and removed the cleanup-tag :-) tobixen 16:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think you did a pretty good job at it. It's all neatly organized and cataloged. Compared to the version when you first addedd the cleanup tag I think the article has been done nicely. I'd say remov the cleanup tag... you're work is done :) Ghostalker 20:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think some things still have to be re-written; it looks a bit 'unprofessional.' For instance, the last part that says "...the risk of people doing ***illegal stuff*** using your connection..." stuff? --Dave 07:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'How-to' information offered under heading Solutions
IMHO, the information under Solutions header is how-to. How-to does not belong to WP. Raanoo 18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] legal issues
i'd like to comment on the recent back and forth about legal responsibilities of the AP owner, I know in the US this is still an issue of some debate but my lawyers tell me that you're probably protected by the same laws that protect your ISP...and while im sure that the laws will vary from country to country I find it hard to believe that in the entire EU the law is the same (surely such a topic was not deemed important enough to make its way into the EU constitution?)...can we get someone who is a lawyer to speak on this subject, because, as with all security topics, such information is always of interest --Michael Lynn 20:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm no lawyer but i know for a fact that at least in germany, when someone uses your wireless for illegal purposes you can be pursued for "offering the possibility/infrastructure that made the crime possible. this is from several articles in germany magazine c't, which is highly reputed.
- also it should be noted that this mandates being able to prove that someome else actually committed the crime. failing that, legislation on this topic will not matter213.219.168.9 (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] POV pushing
some of the more recent edits regarding ediquete of open vs closed aps doesnt seem to be taking a neutral point of view, i think this should either be removed, or it should be balanced well (my vote is that it simply be removed)... --Michael Lynn 22:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- IMHO, it is OK to acquaint a general reader of encyclopedia with various schools of thoughts as far as none is given preferential treatment. That's neutral. I am not in favor of removing the text entirely. Suggest to make changes to keep it neutral. Raanoo 06:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah. I put in some of the edits in question. For the most part the article is from the point of view of a competent protector of corporate family jewels from nefarious thieves. This is an important POV and ought not be omitted, but most wireless routers are used at home, only for sharing Internet connections with laptops, and owned by consumers who don't know, among other things, that it's a LAN or that it can connect their printer. When they call me as a nerd acquaintance it's because they can't connect, and they can't connect because they don't understand that they must enter the WEP key in the laptop. Usually I just talk them through disabling the default WEP in the router. This fixes the problem once and for all, and incidentally opens the home DSL for anyone who happens to be in the neighborhood.
- For corporate campuses that share files and printers and have a nerd or three on staff to take care of everyone's configurations, this is the wrong way to go but for the majority of routers this is the right way. My own home router is open to all. My laptop usually sniffs between five and fifteen WiFi signals in my apartment, but usually my own signal is the only unencrypted one, and strangers use my DSL a couple hours most days. Perhaps those strangers would use their own if they knew how to enter their own WEP key. Yes, home computers too ought to be secure, but WiFi encryption does more harm than good, for the ignorant which is to say for most users. Jim.henderson 11:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- i think this should be removed. this is a page about wireless security systems, not about the merits of open systems. if it is not removed it should at least be re-written from scratch. or maybe as a compromise you could make a seperate article on open wireless networks (if that doesn't exist yet) and put a link on this page.
- anyway it should defenitely be rewritten from scratch fro ma neutral point of view. this is the first time i've ever entered the discussion on an article, just because that part is so grossly overbiased it's a disgrace to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.168.9 (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wrong way merge
Reading Wireless security makes me doubt the wisdom of merging this into that. This present article has little to add to that one, which is already a good thorough introduction for workers who manage a big corporate LAN and wish to learn how to secure it. This one is smaller and not so narrowly focused, so it only partly duplicates that one. I do not propose to keep it going forever, but propose to delete the parts that rightly belong in the more advanced article. Then move this one into Access point or Home network or other appropriate article, as a Security section supplying information appropriate to a reader who uses a home router to share a DSL or other home Internet connection and wants an elementary understanding of how and whether to control access. Anybody agree that the present merge flag ought to be taken down? Or disagree? Jim.henderson 03:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The End-to-end encryption section
I need some help with this. I'm unsure who authored this; it may have been someone who doesn't speak English as their first language. The section doesn't read well and I'm unclear on what the section is trying to say.
The disadvantage with this approach is that it can be difficult to cover all the traffic with encryption on the router level, or VPN, it's just one switch to get all traffic encrypted (even UDP and DNS lookups), while with end-to-end encryption, one has to "turn on encryption" for each and every service one wants to use, and quite often also for each and every connection. For sending emails, all the recipients must support the encryption and keys have to be exchanged. For web, not all web sites offer https - and even if using end-to-end-encryption on everything, the IP addresses you communicate with will go in clear text.
.
The ambiguity starts right away..."disadvantage" to what approach? Layer three or lower encryption or layer seven encryption? E_dog95 Hi 00:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- All right, I see it as a run-on sentence with a few dangling "its" parse it as follows
The disadvantage with the end to end method is, it may fail to cover all traffic. With encryption on the router level or VPN, a single switch encrypts all traffic, even UDP and DNS lookups. With end-to-end encryption on the other hand, each service to be secured must have its encryption "turned on," and often every connection must also be "turned on" separately. For sending emails, every recipient must support the encryption method, and must exchange keys correctly. For Web, not all web sites offer https, and even if they do, the browser sends out IP addresses in clear text.
- Whew, that was a tangle but even with my poor topical understanding I think I translated it into a semblance of clear technobabble, and with slightly fewer words. Jim.henderson 01:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- One could add, "For example, your mother in law can't decipher the pictures you are downloading, but can learn that they are from www.playboy.com". Jim.henderson 04:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chat regarding the "Related publications" items recently placed
I'm going to improve the references for this article as there are none. I'm going to do so by converting the external links.
I just don't think this was a good time to add non inline material to support the article. It doesn't need that. If you truly think these books are finer material than the external links provided, source them. I believe their usefulness here is limited otherwise.
This is especially true for an article that has {{Original research|article|date=December 2007}} placed on it.
Does this make sense? E_dog95 Hi 06:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- According to WP:External links, externals links are welcome as long as the materials contain further research that is accurate and on-topic. I don't think we need to remove external links or related publications just because you *think* that they do not look nice. Raysonho (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
