Security Basics mailing list archives
RE: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2)
From: Murad Talukdar <talukdar_m () subway com>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 09:17:09 +1000
Sorry Mike, I don't understand whether you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me here. Are you saying that I was suggesting that Herman SHOULDN'T investigate? I wasn't saying that and I apologies if I wasn't clear. I was saying that securing is as important as monitoring. What does this mean?
It is reasons like yours that democracy exists.
As for being 'responsible' for someone who has tapped your connection there have been cases which leant in both directions as to the legal outcome. I don't have the link to the story but the Register did run a story about a guy who was cleared of child pr0n charges as he he had spyware on his machine. That downloaded some dialer I believe which downloaded stuff he had no idea about. Forensics helped in this case. Obviously if one could show that there had been some tapping then that would count in one's favour if a charge did arise. I don't actually remember telling Herman he couldn't check to see who it was and even work out where he was if he had the right tools. I do remember saying that he can't access the intruder's computer by law. As Craig pointed out, two wrongs and all that. If someone breaks into my house I can't break into their house for revenge or to find evidence. I don't remember suggesting that he shouldn't 'cut him off' (the intruder). In fact by suggesting WPA as a conf/authentication mechanism I think that was exactly what I was doing. Your suggestion about weakening the signal strength is a good start and no, I don't think you're being paranoid. Regards Murad Talukdar -----Original Message----- From: mikem () mentges org [mailto:mikem () mentges org] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 5:08 AM To: security-basics () securityfocus com Subject: Re: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Murad Talukdar - It is reasons like yours that democracy exists. It is your right in the USA (if so you live here) and several other countries to evaluate anything you want on any system attaching to something you own. (I am not very knowledgeable about other countries IT policies.) I feel as the owner of any network system that one must take it upon themselves to monitor/maintain/evaluate your network constantly for possible threats or rogue devices. If the proper steps are taken to ensure proper client registration/authentication/verification then all unknown devices should be identified in any way possible to prevent unauthorized/malicious content. If your wireless is seeing too many users try reducing your signal strength, and if it is for a neighbors benefit I suggest cutting them off. As security moves forward it is a matter of time before "IP tapping" begins (It already is beginning for some of you I know). With that said every time you call tech support and give them your name, address or even in some cases your SS# they place that information in to a database that accesses all information they need to identify you and the hardware they installed or you registered at your house. Somewhere in your agreement you signed (digitally or physical) it states you are responsible for anything connected to the device. So I ask you, is it still an issue to find out who is using your internet access at all times? What would happen if your guest grabbed some child pornography, yes you would have some definite issues that is for certain. Or with the laws on "National Security" you have someone jump on your network, download plans for a nuclear attack all the while spoofing your machine just because they need to hide. It is not very hard and could happen more than you o r I would want to know. Now I know this might sound paranoid or obsessive compulsive but what happens when you get raided and they take everything and scare the hell out of your family/friends. No they don't give you your stuff back and you might get off without any issues. That is if you can prove you don't know who is on your system. Please do what you can to secure your information; convenience is not always a good thing!
Current thread:
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2), (continued)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Craig Wright (May 17)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Murad Talukdar (May 17)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ebeling, Jr., Herman Frederick (May 20)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Craig Wright (May 20)
- Re: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ian Scott (May 23)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ebeling, Jr., Herman Frederick (May 23)
- Re: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ian Scott (May 23)
- Re: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) mikem (May 20)
- RE: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ebeling, Jr., Herman Frederick (May 23)
- RE: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Lloydm (May 23)
- Re: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers (May 24)
- RE: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ebeling, Jr., Herman Frederick (May 23)
- RE: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Murad Talukdar (May 23)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Craig Wright (May 23)
- Re: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ian Scott (May 24)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Craig Wright (May 24)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Craig Wright (May 24)
- Re: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ian Scott (May 24)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Craig Wright (May 24)
- Re: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ian Scott (May 24)