It is the nuttiest thing I have ever heard. Anybody have a clue where
somebody would have gotten the idea that using a wireless LAN for their
laptop "protected" them from viruses, worms, and trojan horses. These folks
(my wife's cousins) do not have much of a clue R.E. computers... but they
paid a tidy sum to some "professional" who "fixed" their system after they'd
had 3 separate rounds of identity theft and viruses.

For better or worse I made some suggestions and now I have been asked to
check out their systems. One concern is that one machine, (their Win ME,
not the XP) is used in their business.

I bit my tongue when their "computer literate" friend said they didn't
need anything on their XP machine since Windows SP2 supplies all "that
security stuff" and these folks are on AsOL.

I've been married long enough to know when to keep my mouth shut... but
shesh!

Any ideas on the wireless concept? I wonder if they are confusing the
fact that they have encryption set up (to avoid getting hijacked) with being
"safe" from viruses?
-

TIA
-
KWW

Actually, wireless can LOWER security if not properly configured. The concept is called War
Driving (search Google for topics)

Imagine, someone cruising the neighborhood with a notebook. They are searching for an
unsecured Wireless Access Point (WAP) and that's your wife's cousins WAP. The car stops
near by and grabs an IP from the Router. They then start doing nefarious networking. Guess
who would be held responsible - your wife's cousins.

They need protection and if they were already victims. They should be wired, not wireless.

Dave



"KWW" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:CO7od.130330$R05.125363@attbi_s53...
| It is the nuttiest thing I have ever heard. Anybody have a clue where
| somebody would have gotten the idea that using a wireless LAN for their
| laptop "protected" them from viruses, worms, and trojan horses. These folks
| (my wife's cousins) do not have much of a clue R.E. computers... but they
| paid a tidy sum to some "professional" who "fixed" their system after they'd
| had 3 separate rounds of identity theft and viruses.
|
| For better or worse I made some suggestions and now I have been asked to
| check out their systems. One concern is that one machine, (their Win ME,
| not the XP) is used in their business.
|
| I bit my tongue when their "computer literate" friend said they didn't
| need anything on their XP machine since Windows SP2 supplies all "that
| security stuff" and these folks are on AsOL.
|
| I've been married long enough to know when to keep my mouth shut... but
| shesh!
|
| Any ideas on the wireless concept? I wonder if they are confusing the
| fact that they have encryption set up (to avoid getting hijacked) with being
| "safe" from viruses?
| -
|
| TIA
| -
| KWW
|
|

Thanks! I believe they are confused by the multiple layers of security
needed.

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:%230$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Actually, wireless can LOWER security if not properly configured. The
concept is called War
> Driving (search Google for topics)
>
> Imagine, someone cruising the neighborhood with a notebook. They are
searching for an
> unsecured Wireless Access Point (WAP) and that's your wife's cousins WAP.
The car stops
> near by and grabs an IP from the Router. They then start doing nefarious
networking. Guess
> who would be held responsible - your wife's cousins.
>
> They need protection and if they were already victims. They should be
wired, not wireless.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> "KWW" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:CO7od.130330$R05.125363@attbi_s53...
> | It is the nuttiest thing I have ever heard. Anybody have a clue where
> | somebody would have gotten the idea that using a wireless LAN for their
> | laptop "protected" them from viruses, worms, and trojan horses. These
folks
> | (my wife's cousins) do not have much of a clue R.E. computers... but
they
> | paid a tidy sum to some "professional" who "fixed" their system after
they'd
> | had 3 separate rounds of identity theft and viruses.
> |
> | For better or worse I made some suggestions and now I have been asked
to
> | check out their systems. One concern is that one machine, (their Win
ME,
> | not the XP) is used in their business.
> |
> | I bit my tongue when their "computer literate" friend said they didn't
> | need anything on their XP machine since Windows SP2 supplies all "that
> | security stuff" and these folks are on AsOL.
> |
> | I've been married long enough to know when to keep my mouth shut...
but
> | shesh!
> |
> | Any ideas on the wireless concept? I wonder if they are confusing the
> | fact that they have encryption set up (to avoid getting hijacked) with
being
> | "safe" from viruses?
> | -
> |
> | TIA
> | -
> | KWW
> |
> |
>
>

"KWW" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:CO7od.130330$R05.125363@attbi_s53...
> Any ideas on the wireless concept? I wonder if they are confusing the
> fact that they have encryption set up (to avoid getting hijacked) with
being
> "safe" from viruses?

The only thing I can think of is.... Perhaps they have a wireless router and
were told this is better because it's got a firewall. Perhaps their expert
exagerated the advantages of the firewall to make the sale.

KWW wrote:

>
> For better or worse I made some suggestions and now I have been asked to
>check out their systems. One concern is that one machine, (their Win ME,
>not the XP) is used in their business.
>
> I bit my tongue when their "computer literate" friend said they didn't
>need anything on their XP machine since Windows SP2 supplies all "that
>security stuff" and these folks are on AsOL.

Well, they are wrong, wrong , wrong. And if their Wireless net is not
set up to use at least WEP level encryption, add another couple of
wrongs. I suggest a read of http://rgharper.mvps.org/cleanit.htm (the
MVP author is IT manager of a hospital complex)


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (E-Mail Removed) (remove the D8 bit)