From: "Geo" 

Ok, so basically I have to gain access to your computer before you consider
it an unpatched OS exploit, if it just lets me DOS or Crash it repeatedly
then your machine is secure?

Is this your view of how security for wireless networks works?

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. And even the
wireless devices are being exploited, there are hacks out for pretty much
every wireless hub. When was the last time you flashed yours?

Geo.


"/m"  wrote in message
news:oe4sd219sndrsvlsvretdabeflom35mtc4{at}4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 10:31:47 -0400, "Geo"
 wrote:
>
> >"/m"  wrote in message
> >news:nfgid2psqnh4hligoa6tgnlj115qs6g9o1{at}4ax.com...
> >
> >> Do you say that with a specific knowledge of the relative security of
> >> WEP compared to WPA/2, or do you say that with the concept of
"it's
> >> wireless, therefore it is insecure"?
> >
> >Define "secure". I can take down any wireless network.
>
> "Secure" is relative.
>
> With regard to my home wireless network, I think of two main things when
> I say secure:
>
> 1) the ability to intercept my communications
>
> 2) the ability to become a node on my network.
>
>
> Your "take down a network" is a different matter entirely. 
My microwave
> oven can take down my 802.11g network with ease.
>
>
> I know that nothing is completely secure, it's all relative.  Just like
> I cannot make my house completely secure from someone who wants to get
> in, I cannot make my wireless network completely secure from someone who
> wants to break into it.
>
> I can, however, make my wireless network and/or house more difficult to
> break into than my neighbors' house and/or network.   That's my reason
> for going with WPA/2 instead of WEP.
>
>  /m

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