From: "Geo" 

"/m"  wrote in message
news:erjud2tj9su1nqn9o4aft7rsr4c4k0chc2{at}4ax.com...

> >I do understand the distinction you are making, but wireless is so
fragile I
> >don't agree with that view. It's like if MS had never patched winnuke and
> >anyone could just bluescreen you whenever they wanted.
>
> I make the distinction between wireless and the OS.  You imply that
> because I have mentioned my wireless security, that I have neglected my
> OS security.   You should know better.

 I need a good example to explain this.

If I could crash your router, would you consider your router secure? I'm
not saying if I could log into your router, just crash it? I mean just
because you communicate with https or ssh does that make your router
secure? Ok, now what I'm saying is wireless networks are not secure, sure
you can use https or wpa/2 or whatever encryption you like but the network
itself can still be crashed, it does not filter out interference, it is not
self healing by routing around the area being interfered with, it is
fragile to the point of barely working.

Wireless still needs a lot of work.

Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5