Re: Wi-Fi: Essential Checklist

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 05:07:00 -0600, Char Jackson <none@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

What do you mean, 'instead of commenting on the validity of [your]
interpretations'? Just 2 lines above you seemed to understand that I
was questioning your (logic and) interpretations.

Do you really need an answer as to how I derived my conclusion?

We're making progress. In your first response, you denied making a
conclusion. But yes, I was curious as to how you arrived where you
arrived, since your position didn't logically follow from what you
quoted in your OP.

In the interest of global harmony and universal peace, I'll explain
how I derived my conclusion.

1. I read the article at:
from which I quoted and commented:

Do you subscribe to this manner of FUD (fear uncertainty doubt):
"This is not to say that the new wireless security protocol,
WPA, isn't very good. It is. But there are going to be
security flaws in it; there always are."
Swell. Leave your access point wide open because your neighbors might
need it and because your chances of experiencing a problem is minimal.
Never mind with encryption because it *MIGHT* be cracked in the
future. While you're at it, leave your car doors unlocked for the
same reasons. Door locks are easily picked, so why bother to use

2. To generate the above, I disassembled the quotation in the order
presented as:
"This is not to say that the new wireless security protocol,
WPA, isn't very good. It is."
which the author affirms and re-affirms that WPA is a good security
protocol. I just noticed that his use of the word "new" is rather
odd, especially since WPA was introduced in late 2002 and has been
available since 2003. Also, not the double negative. From this, I
initially concluded that the author thinks highly of WPA encryption
and being a security expert, would advocate it's use.

3. However, that was countered in the next sentence:
"But there are going to be
security flaws in it; there always are."
which refers to his own previous praise of WPA. It implies that WPA
*MIGHT* have some fatal flaw in the future which hints that it might
not be suitable for general consumption. If someone suggested that
Brand X of some product *MIGHT* have some some fatal flaw, one would
not generally consider such a testimonial as a recommendation.

4. At this point, I declared this to be FUD (fear, uncertainty,
doubt) on the basis of the sentence in #3. No facts are presented.
Only hints of doom and disaster. From my perspective, that's FUD.

5. Note that the original article (which you haven't read) would have
been equally effective at making his points without this sentence.
There's no connection between potential security flaws in WPA and
running an open network. If you're going to run an open network, it's
a non-issue. Yet, the author found it necessary to take a pot shot at
WPA, which I find interesting. My guess(tm) is that he wasn't so sure
of his recommendation to run an open network was all that good, and
needed some more ammunition. So, he hints that the main method of
securing a wireless network, is somehow useless because it *MIGHT* be
flawed in the distant future.

4. At this point, I expected a discussion by the author of on
wireless security. Instead, he instantly changes topic to:
"I spoke to several lawyers about this, and in their
lawyerly way they outlined several other risks with
leaving your network open."
Huh? What happened to wireless security? It's for this reason and
similar abrupt topic changes that I suspect that the original article
may have been heavily edited or grafted together from bits and pieces.
In any case, this change effectively ended any discussion on WPA by
the author.

5. There rest of the article is about various risks and methods of
running an open network. In the last paragraph, he announces:
"In my opinion, securing my wireless network isn't worth it."
which I presume to be the authors conclusion based on prospective
flaws in WPA and that he and others have successfully "gotten away
with it" by running an open wireless network without incident. I
concluded that he is recommending that we also do the same, however he
doesn't have the guts to say that.

If you fail to appreciate my logic, that's fine. I don't expect
everyone to think in precisely the same way. What I would find
interesting is if you would conscend to read the original article, and
comment on the authors advice, purpose, logic, and anecdotes.

Every election, some of my friends usually complain that this or that
measure didn't pass or that their favorite politician wasn't elected.
After listening to the logic and rationalizations, I ask "Did you
vote"? Quite often, the answer is "no", at which point I follow with
"Then you don't have a right to an opinion". Read the article.

Jeff Liebermann jeffl@xxxxxxxxxx
150 Felker St #D
Santa Cruz CA 95060
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558