On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 21:30 -0700, JD wrote: > Tim, your points are way too generalized. I've made specific points, already in this thread. > No one said not broadcasting alone will make you > safer. It is advised as part of the larger defense > scheme of choosing a strong protocol, a strong encryption > scheme, a 63 byte string, preferably random if user can > work with it, ...etc ...etc. I've seen posts where it declares not broadcasting a SSID makes it safer. It does not. It does not in any way. As such, it is not part of any broader scheme of making it safer. All it is, is a waste of time. And that is ALL that it is. Get it through your head, you and everyone else, that messing with the SSID has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY SORT OF SECURITY. Arguing with me, and anyone else about this does NOT change the *facts*. That's a very specific statement, and I've made it before. There are no counter arguments to it. Every single attempt that people have made to try and justify the bogus claim about hiding the SSID being a security step has been wrong. Perhaps we need to be even clearer: Security means locking out unwanted connections. It means steps that actually fulfil that purpose. It does not include anything that doesn't actually have that ability. SSID *cannot* be used to "restrict access," it is not part of its function. > You keep harping about a point Clueless people keep harping on about doing something that doesn't do what they think it does, but does actually cause other problems. > You proceed on the assumption that everyone who wants to connect to > your wlan is a savvy hacker with the right tools. No I do not. I've said, several times, and so have others, that you do not need to be any sort of tech savvy hacker to bypass this fallacy. It can by sidestepped by those who have no idea about how it even works. If you can install a new program on your computer, which doesn't require any sort of computing knowledge, then you can install a *thing* that lets you connect to someone else's WLAN. It's as simple as that. Even a really dumb Windows user can do it. I dare say that there's programs for doing so on the Mac, as well, for the really minimally tech savvy point and click crowd. ... *I* haven't said anything about breaking WPA2 being easy, nor posted any such bogus links. As it currently stands, encryption is the *ONLY* thing that can secure a WLAN, and using WPA2 with sensible options is the only one that remains secure. I've already said that, too. Paint your WLAN access point bright pink with green polka dots. That'll make it more secure. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
