On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-17 at 10:37 -0500, wrote:
It doesn't make it the slightest bit hard. My computer find networks
without an SSID being broadcast. They're harder to work out which is
the right network to use, only in as much as you've got to try them all
out one by one. But they're listed, and selectable.
Bill Davidsen:
Amazing how your words agree with me while your tone says you don't.
You agree that it makes it harder to connect, and seem to see no
benefit to making an AP less inviting. Any step to make access even a
little harder or less appealing will deflect some portion of the
hackers who are looking for an easy target.
You're interpreting words, rather than taking them at face value.
It doesn't make it *harder* to "connect". It's just as *easy* to
connect to one with or without out. That's the false security side of
things.
Working out which is the right one can be more difficult, for someone
trying to connect to the right one (e.g. you, or your neighbour, who're
trying to connect to their own). That's the networking problems side of
things.
For someone just wanting to misuse someone else's wireless LAN, that's
not even an issue. They'll try them all, they won't care which. So
there's the fallacy that you're falling into kicking the bucket.
You read different security books than I do, mine say you should make every
single step as hard as possible, even if there's a workaround the intruder
may not know it.
I'm not generally in favor of book burning, but in this case I might
make an exception. Security is all about tradeoffs. Making things
harder and less reliable for legitimate users has to offer real
security benefits -- hiding SSID's makes things harder with at best
minimal benefits. It you to makes things harder on yourself, spend
your time on things with better payoffs.
--
George N. White III <aa056@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
