On Mi, 05 ian 11, 09:49:38, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: > On Ter, 04 Jan 2011, Andrei Popescu wrote: > >The wireless encrypts the traffic only between my laptop and my AP. > >Beyond my AP the wireless encryptions does not bring any additional > >security. > > That's true, but that's exactly the point: if the wireless network > is not encrypted it is trivial to capture the plain-text traffic > between user's computers and the AP: you just need another computer > with a wireless adapter nearby. > > Sniffing traffic past the AP is harder: generally the connection is > cabled, so you need physical access to the network, some technique > to route packages to your machine (not difficult to do, but also > means your action might be detected), etc.
By "physical access to the network" you mean the internet, right? Because that's what's past my AP... AFAIK it's just a bit more difficult to intercept the traffic, that's all. As far as I'm concerned my home wireless is encrypted for two reasons: 1. I don't want to share my internet connections with my neighbors (for various reasons) 2. I want to be able to run unsecured services, if needed, behind the relative protection of the AP's firewall Whenever I'm connected to an open AP I just consider my laptop connected directly[1] to the internet, with all inherent risks. [1] even though most APs have at least NAT Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
