Ah yes, diving into specific quotes now. Let me get my dissection kit
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroJunk
Only if you ignore the previous post that recommended the addition of MAC filtering to WPA2. It was not my intention to mean MAC alone and thankfully the rest of humanity got the point  |
In the previous post you're referring to, supernova1965 talks about "different security measures one is never enough" - note "measures" in plural.
Your reply started with "
+1 for MAC address blocking", followed immediately by "
That will all but sort out access to your network", and "
funny how that article never mentions this basic and fairly robust security measure".
Note the specific mention and recommendation of MAC address blocking by you, singular reference to "security measure" and no mention of WPA2, which naturally leads one to assume you are praising MAC address blocking for being "fairly robust" - which it isn't. If you really did mean both then I apologise for not being able to mind-read
<-- yes, humour involved as I'm not having a personal go at anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by supernova1965
In AstroJunk's quote you edited out most of what AstroJunk said selective quoting is too often used to skew what was said by someone if you quote someone at least don't edit out some of what they say when it doesn't support your point it's disrespectful.
|
Huh?? I don't know why you're saying that. There's nothing disrespectful nor sneaky about my edit. The second part of his post talked wireless security philosophy in general and sensitivity of what you're broadcasting (most of his points which I agree with) - which is not a line of discussion I am addressing nor intending to address in any of my posts.
My comments are about the implications of the security provided by WPA2 encryption. i.e. that since WPA2, the likelihood of being bruteforced with a good password is so remote compared to older standards (like WEP or WPA with TKIP), that extra security layers for home networks are mostly unnecessary and more of an annoyance for legitimate access. It's not like NCIS where all it takes is some whiz-kid with enough time in front of the keyboard to "crack" a network
There's a strong and real mathematical basis behind WPA2, but of course if news of an exploit is released, then it'll be time to re-evaluate things and move onto a stronger standard. Until then ....
Think we need to calm down a bit before throwing accusations about people's posting intentions around
EDIT: I would like to add that for business for government networks, it is of course good practice to have extra authentication/encryption on top of regular WPA2 (MAC filtering is of course not one of them), as having all the encrypted traffic recorded by someone and decrypted 10-20 years down the track when it's more feasible to crack .. can really be almost as bad as having it decrypted and accessible now. Not really an issue for home users with the typical stuff they would have on their computers.
