From: /m 

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:01:52 -0400, "Geo"  wrote:

>"/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.

OK, I see where you're coming from.   We are not in disagreement.   We
might have some minor semantic differences (your use of "secure"
borders on my use of "reliable" at times), but overall I think we
are on similar pages.

Which is why I have nothing important on the wireless subnet.

 /m

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