Windows 2000 virus

[Char Jackson]

Wireless is not a necessity nor is it mandatory in a router solution.

No, but like I said, it's included in many/most of the more popular
NAT routers, usually at the same or lower cost than routers without
that capability. Like it or not, a lot of people end up with it.

The
risks of being hacked on the wireless side of the wire/wireless AP router
are far greater than it will ever be on the wire side of the equation.

Right, which is why I said to disable the wireless capability if it's
included in the unit that was purchased, (and if it's not needed by
the end user), especially since it will almost certainly be enabled by
default and its security will be DISabled by default.

If I am going to use a wireless solution, then it's going to be a standalone
solution such as a standalone WAP device.

My choice is a WRT54GL running dd-wrt firmware. If I had a wired
router and needed wireless capability, I'd be more likely to replace
the router rather than adding a standalone AP.

 

[Char Jackson]

'Arnold' wrote:
| Wireless is not a necessity nor is it mandatory in a router solution. The
| risks of being hacked on the wireless side of the wire/wireless AP router
| are far greater than it will ever be on the wire side of the equation.
|
| If I am going to use a wireless solution, then it's going to be a
standalone
| solution such as a standalone WAP device.
_____

Not true. Depends on circumstance, doesn't it? There is a huge difference
between the exposure through the Internet as compared to exposure in the
limited space within which an 8.11x signal is usable, then there is the
necessity to discover the key, not something that can be done in a few
hours.

WEP keys can be discovered in a few minutes (2-4 mins in my tests
against my own AP), and in under a minute according to numerous videos
posted on youtube. WPA/WPA2 takes significantly longer.

Most targerts just aren't worth the trouble, and anti-malware
applications are still there. Since this whole discussion deals with a
time-limited vunerablity for a new install, then WEP wireless is not a
problem.

If it's a wireless router with the wireless capability enabled
(default) and security disabled (again default), then that
vulnerability doesn't completely go away by itself just by patching
the OS of the PC connected to it. You still have the Internet access
sitting there wide open, even if the local PC is no longer the main
target.

 

[Phil Weldon]

'Char Jackson' wrote, in part:
| WEP keys can be discovered in a few minutes (2-4 mins in my tests
| against my own AP), and in under a minute according to numerous videos
| posted on youtube.
_____

Depends on the circumstances, doesn't it? If you stack all the conditions
to fit your statement, well, that's an entirely different set of
circumstances. And if you want to cite 'YouTube' as authority ...

Phil Weldon

| On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 21:18:23 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
|
| >'Arnold' wrote:
| >| Wireless is not a necessity nor is it mandatory in a router solution.
The
| >| risks of being hacked on the wireless side of the wire/wireless AP
router
| >| are far greater than it will ever be on the wire side of the equation.
| >|
| >| If I am going to use a wireless solution, then it's going to be a
| >standalone
| >| solution such as a standalone WAP device.
| >_____
| >
| >Not true. Depends on circumstance, doesn't it? There is a huge
difference
| >between the exposure through the Internet as compared to exposure in the
| >limited space within which an 8.11x signal is usable, then there is the
| >necessity to discover the key, not something that can be done in a few
| >hours.
|
| WEP keys can be discovered in a few minutes (2-4 mins in my tests
| against my own AP), and in under a minute according to numerous videos
| posted on youtube. WPA/WPA2 takes significantly longer.
|
| >Most targerts just aren't worth the trouble, and anti-malware
| >applications are still there. Since this whole discussion deals with a
| >time-limited vunerablity for a new install, then WEP wireless is not a
| >problem.
|
| If it's a wireless router with the wireless capability enabled
| (default) and security disabled (again default), then that
| vulnerability doesn't completely go away by itself just by patching
| the OS of the PC connected to it. You still have the Internet access
| sitting there wide open, even if the local PC is no longer the main
| target.
|

 

[Mr. Arnold]

'Arnold' wrote:
| Wireless is not a necessity nor is it mandatory in a router solution.
The
| risks of being hacked on the wireless side of the wire/wireless AP
router
| are far greater than it will ever be on the wire side of the equation.
|
| If I am going to use a wireless solution, then it's going to be a
standalone
| solution such as a standalone WAP device.
_____

Not true. Depends on circumstance, doesn't it? There is a huge
difference
between the exposure through the Internet as compared to exposure in the
limited space within which an 8.11x signal is usable, then there is the
necessity to discover the key, not something that can be done in a few
hours. Most targerts just aren't worth the trouble, and anti-malware
applications are still there. Since this whole discussion deals with a
time-limited vunerablity for a new install, then WEP wireless is not a
problem.

The discussion was about a router period when I stepped in, and it had
nothing to do about wireless, which was brought up by someone else I might
add. Put a router there period for protection from the Internet against
unsolicited scans and attacks is the point.

I don't care if the router is wired, wireless or it's using dirt.

 

[Mr. Arnold]

No, but like I said, it's included in many/most of the more popular
NAT routers, usually at the same or lower cost than routers without
that capability. Like it or not, a lot of people end up with it.

Who cares about what I like or don't like?

I was only talking about my needs, and a wireless solution will never be in
the trusted zone of any solution I am dealing with.

Right, which is why I said to disable the wireless capability if it's
included in the unit that was purchased, (and if it's not needed by
the end user), especially since it will almost certainly be enabled by
default and its security will be DISabled by default.

I don't have a wireless solution. I use to have one, a wire/wireless AP
router. And I might get wireless again someday, but it will be a standalone
solution not setting in the trusted zone of my network.

My choice is a WRT54GL running dd-wrt firmware. If I had a wired
router and needed wireless capability, I'd be more likely to replace
the router rather than adding a standalone AP.

I would just keep the wireless solution out there in the untrusted zone, but
on the other hand, I don't have a need for wireless.

I will stick with the non wireless Watchguard FW appliance to protect my
interest. If I ever need wireless, then it's going to be standalone with a
connection from the untrusted zone to the WG.

 

[Char Jackson]

'Char Jackson' wrote, in part:
| WEP keys can be discovered in a few minutes (2-4 mins in my tests
| against my own AP), and in under a minute according to numerous videos
| posted on youtube.
_____

Depends on the circumstances, doesn't it?

I can't answer that unless you describe what you mean.

If you stack all the conditions
to fit your statement, well, that's an entirely different set of
circumstances.

Again, I don't know what you mean by that.

And if you want to cite 'YouTube' as authority ...

I wouldn't call it an authority.