On 2006-05-17 Ebeling, Jr., Herman Frederick wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 May, 2006 07:49 Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
Okay, I'm confused. *Why* would anyone in his right mind want to do
this instead of just using a VPN or WPA or at least WEP, which would
not only *tell* anyone not invited to stay out, but also actually
*enforce* it?
Because sadly, not everyone who thinks that they "know" how to
deploy either a LAN, or a WLAN knows or understands how to secure said
LAN, or WLAN.
There are some people out there who assume that either the Wi-Fi
enabled router, or dedicated AP IS "secure" right out of the box. They
may be totally unaware that they're open and "inviting" everyone in
the neighborhood into their system. And those are the ones who really
need to be educated.
And I would say that the bottom line is that one sadly has to think
of the less knowledgeable person who may attempt to deploy some form
of a network.
Sorry, but I don't get your point at all. You were asking for a way of
setting up a banner to tell an intruder to "keep out". Why is that any
different from activating the (existing) mechanisms? Granted, WEP isn't
secure at all, but from a legal point of view it at least tells an
intruder much clearer than your banner that he isn't allowed to use the
network.
Also I entirely fail to see what advantages you see in setting up such a
banner. That would still require a user that is actually aware of his
network being insecure to begin with, so it doesn't solve anything that
isn't already solved. And solved in a much more reliable way, I might
add.
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
"All vulnerabilities deserve a public fear period prior to patches
becoming available."
--Jason Coombs on Bugtraq
