The driver is not specifically for the wind. That's the same chip used in cheap USB wireless adapters like this one and RealTek has been providing their OS X driver for some time. The driver and associated utility do not work very well, FWIW, and I don't suggest trying to use them with a Mac unless you really have no other option.
If people are too stupid and like to listen to their SALESman instead of forking over $200 to a real-estate lawyer (that's what it costed my parents 2 years ago) to review and make clear the paperwork to them then that's their own fault.
I'm not arguing with this; you're right on. I was simply disputing the notion put forth by the post I was responding to. geekmux said that if these legal agreements had teeth, people would read them and offered as an example the notion that people generally read the paperwork that they have to sign when they purchase a home. I maintain that the current financial mess is due, in part, to the fact that people don't read legalese even when not doing so can have dire consequences. So giving these agreements more teeth would be of little help in getting people to read and adhere to them
Why is it when we ask people to read through a 2-page user policy, they skip through and don't even bother reading to just sign it, yet those same people will sit down and pour through 3 inches of legal documents for 4 hours when buying a home?
If you want real security, then clearly explain the issues.
Bullshit. If you want real Security, enforce the punishment. Yes, it's that simple, and is also the answer to my previous question.
People read through 3 inches of legal docs when buying a home because they know damn well they could get burned legally.
Name the last time someone you know got fired for breaking a Security policy, or losing a laptop and not following protocol properly to report the company confidential data loss.
I thought so.
'Nuff said.
The current problems which are being, at least partially, blamed on deceptive lending practices in the mortgage industry would suggest that many people do not actually read through the legal documents they sign when they purchase a home. Do you think that for these deceptive loans, the stack of legal documents did not contain the truth? Of course it did. It was just buried in a pile of legalese, and people simply went with what the nice broker told them.
No, no, surely we don't get geek credit for starting with a 9600 baud modem. My first was a 2400 baud (US Robotics, maybe?), and I even used (but never owned) a 300 baud modem. I remember how blazing fast 14400 baud seemed when I first got my hands on it.
Heh. We probably started about the same time... the first modem I purchased was a 2400 baud modem ("Prometheus" I think), and I used but never owned a 1200 baud model. 9600 was just particularly memorable because it was obsoleted *so* immediately after what was, for me, a substantial purchase.
We need to stop trying to concoct schemes that are specific to wifi and just treat all media as untrusted.
There, fixed that for you. What makes you think wired networking is secure?
Men with guns, usually
I don't know that I'd say the difference is exactly fundamental. Sure, if you're talking about weaknesses a cipher, a general attack on might apply to any protocol that uses that particular algorithm. It's not just a cipher algorithm, though; getting secure key exchange right is a hard problem. You want the protocol you've selected for doing so to have been vetted by as many people for as long a time as possible. VPNs have been around for a great deal longer than these new wireless schemes, and more people have spent more time attacking them.
I simply don't see enough benefit (to having some wifi-specific scheme) to offset the risk that designing and implementing some new protocol introduces new weaknesses. In addition to that, I see that configuring your client to think your wifi adapter is a safe LAN rather than an untrusted network carries significant risk if you ever take that client to a public hotspot. Having some wifi-specific scheme makes that behavior more appealing to some people. Having your OS assume a wifi adapter is on a hostile network and the LAN is only over the VPN is by contrast much safer.
Attacks only get better, not worse. The right thing to do, IMO, is treat this as a warning. We need to stop trying to concoct schemes that are specific to wifi and just treat wireless media as untrusted. Harden the clients. Don't let them act like they're on a trusted local network until they're on your VPN. Besides getting more thoroughly vetted crypto, this leaves your road warriors in a much better position when they sign on in coffee houses, airports and hotels.
Sigh. I'm sure I'm not the only one here... I distinctly remember purchasing my first 9600bps modem. (A real Hayes, no less! I sent them a large manilla SASE and they shipped me the AT command manual for no charge.) I spent a few months mowing every lawn I could to raise the funds for it. Exactly a week after I got it installed and found a couple local BBSes I could connect to at 9600, Hayes shipped the very first 14400bps modem.
Apart from the nature and amount of labor involved in raising funds, that's been a pattern for so many equipment purchases since. That was the very first time I bought something so close to the release of the new shiny, though
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne