Re: Intruder in my wireless network? / intrusion detection programs

In article <da3dj3-t27.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Derek Broughton <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rico wrote:

In article <4c6cj3-n83.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Derek Broughton
<news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I really don't believe James Bond is trying to get into my network (and as
John says, the NSA won't bother at that level). But I can't agree
that "the simplest passphrase" is enough. Dictionary attacks are
simplicity. WEP can be hacked automatically.

The sun could explode also, what are you doing about that?

Let's leave off the logical fallacies. I can't do anything about the sun
exploding (though there is a prof. in California who's working on the
problem) while I _can_ do something about wireless network hacking.

In an
office environment this might be different, but if you have that large a
concern at the office, stick to a wired network.

You _should_ have that concern in any office. Most countries now have
privacy legislation that requires that you protect information on
corporate systems. That shouldn't prevent use of wireless.

I'm confused here, where in the post you are responding to was there any
mention of NOT securing the office lan?

You said that if you were that concerned, you shouldn't use wireless. I
disagreed.

And yet, you can't show wher ethis has ever happened can you. Using the
dogs name or the word cat or even a single letter.

Actually, (a) you never asked for examples where it had happened to me or
anyone else on the group, and (b) you didn't ask _me_ to provide
citations - you asked John.

What do you want to bet that had you been able to find one, John or not you
would have shared the link?

I can, in fact, say it _hasn't_ happened to me.

Relieved to hear that, hope it stays that way (unless YOU decide to open
your router)

I'm not even very concerned that it _will_ happen to me. It's just plain
insane not to take basic precautions - which means a reasonable secure,
non-dictionary, password if you use WPA. I agree that you _don't_ need to
go so far

My point, just basic security, but even here, I just don't see the
neighbors going after your AP with some sort of brut force attack. What's
to gain from the effort.


No, _your_ position is nuts. The odds of it happening are pretty small,
but (a) your neighbors' kids are already installing Linux on their laptops
and (b) your neighbors' kids are already hacking.

Back this up with a single documented instance of even minimal security
being applied to a home network and it being hacked. Not asking for two,
just a single one. The boogie man is not hidden behid the tree in your
back yard.

OK, so now you're asking me - and I'll say I don't need to know it's
happened to somebody else to want to protect my system from it. The tools
exist. A sysadmin of my acquaintance _does_ use them for security audits.
My (non-wireless) system has been hacked before. So _why_ would I leave my
system wide open?


It has, from within the network or some penetrated the firewall on your
internet connection (the other side of the WAP)? Also please quote where I
suggest doing nothing. (use google groups if needed)


I'm not concerned about
people intentionally breaking into my network to steal anything - I'm
concerned about bored teenagers (or at least, I would be if I didn't live
so far off the beaten track that the only bored teenagers I see are on
ATVs or drinking beer & smoking dope in dad's car).

And you think the dpoers are going to be breaking into home networks?

Duh? Didn't I just say that I would be worried _IF_ there were any other
types of teenagers around? The worst I worry about from these guys is the
broken beer bottles. I wish they'd put them back in the case and just dump
it at the end of my driveway.

Probably would work and would just act as a target for vandalism, but set a
(cheap) trash can out for them to use. As I said likely won't work, but
maybe...


fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Theory Question
    ... > Without agreeing with John or anyone else, ... > reply that that isn't a techincal problem, you don't get security, ... > different trade-offs involving the network security of your security ... > legitimate reason to be paranoid enough to build this sort of thing, ...
    (FreeBSD-Security)
  • Re: Cable Modem Router problem
    ... :o) Glad you have it sorted, John. ... My network was working previously via Internet Sharing ... >>> router, all pc's can access the internet but cannot see each other on ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: NET USE in 2k3
    ... Security Options ... Network Security: Minimum session security for NTLM SSP (there will be one ... map a drive to a Cellera NAS server. ... "John Schneider" wrote: ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.networking)
  • Re: LF Gain Stepping RC Network Calculator
    ... John and I see eye to eye on most things but alter ego I ... Gain Stepping RC Network Calculator" that I posted here about a month ... designs to stabilize them at low frequencies when applying NFB. ...
    (rec.audio.tubes)
  • LAN auditing???
    ... cheaper is always better when budget is concerned. ... this network was really insecure. ... John ... like "security ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.security)