Comments on: Secure WI-FI Requires New Hardware

By: JC

JC — Tue, 11 May 2004 15:06:51 +0000

no, SSL *and* VPN. I was talking about secure websites, but obviously VPN traffic is also important. And yeah... sorry, I thought I was conveying that when I said "it's still going in cleartext all the way from the router to the server" but I see that wasn't very clear. But the bit before the router isn't as important on a wired network. Well, I suppose it could be if someone had popped one of these (via Wired) in an out of the way place in your network. But someone would have to have physical access, and at that point you're screwed anyway, no matter what.

By: Janne

Janne — Tue, 11 May 2004 12:58:09 +0000

No, no SSL.

VPN.

Use the CPU of the laptop to do the encryption, and you’re fine. I think it’s a nice balance anyway: keeps the chipsets cheap, and finds use for the massive CPU power you bought to run Word. :)

And your emails travel unencrypted in the wired internet, too.

By: JC

JC — Mon, 10 May 2004 13:29:18 +0000

Well, the people who really want the stronger security (outside of a few paranoids) are the corporate IT people, and they have the pockets for the more expensive hardware. Anything really sensitive on the web is going to be encrypted via SSL anyway... it's email that's the real headache... you can use SSL for your username and password if the server supports it... but the email's still sent in the clear unless you use pgp or something, and that's a headache most people don't want to deal with in every email, just in the really sensitive ones... and of course, a stronger wifi encryption standard won't change that very much, since it's still going in cleartext all the way from the router to the server. On the other hand, when I'm running a little linux install using custom firmware on my linksys 802.11g router... have to wonder what will be possible when more processing power is introduced.

By: Janne

Janne — Mon, 10 May 2004 11:59:12 +0000

It was. Unfortunately, the algorithm was chosen on the principle that they could be implemented cheaply with simple hardware and few gates.

Which means that it was weak from the beginning. But it did help WiFi to become more pervasive by allowing really cheap hardware. So whether it was a good or a bad thing is hard to say.