Slashdot Mirror

Obviously, I'm in the minority here at Slashdot, but I've got to say, "So What! Why Should People Secure Their Wireless Network?" Sure corporations should or at least create set-ups where the wireless network is removed from the wired network and of course all that effort to secure the computers, but I've never understood the great push for security on a wireless networks.

For me I'm of the school that you shouldn't depend on your network for security for your computer. This view recently discussed by Jeff Schiller, MIT's Network Manager at Syllabus http://www.syllabus.com/article.asp?id=9193. I think he makes some great arguments.

Recently, it seems that people have just jumped on the bandwagon that YOU MUST secure your network, and I guess for the bevy of Windows users out there, with little options for ever successfully securing their computer, this is probably true and one way to get around it. But I find wireless network security to be the antithesis of what wireless connectivity promotes--freedom. So it makes great sense that people would not secure their networks.

Wired Networks by their nature are someone closed off, insuring their security or closing them off further is no big deal. You would expect to have to handle 2, 3, 5, 10 random clients on a wired network. Sure with laptops it happens more, but typically a wired network is somewhat more static in design. You have switches, ports, hubs--it's all very physical. So sure secure it.

But wireless networks promote freedom--you can use your laptop anywhere (anywhere with wireless). But security warps that message. Freedom has always had its limitations, but now the limitation is that someone else owns the air you need to use. What's the point of going to a coffee shop, an administrative building or even sitting on your neighbors porch with your laptop if you still can't get internet access when wireless connectivity is available.

Sure their should be tools to prevent abuse. I don't want someone to start downloading movies off my wireless network, but WHY WOULD SHOULD I CARE if they just use it. I expect the same reciprocity if I'm in the town square or at a coffee shop or just down the street at a friends.

Securing your network has become synonymous with securing your computer and its not. Someone decided that it was impossible to secure their computer, with all the software with bugs and wholes, with various operating systems working against your efforts. So the rallying cry became secure your network.

So fine. Secure your landline, but leave your wireless alone. Sure change the default settings, after all one neighborhood really shouldn't have 50 linksys access points. I'm all for letting people know whose wireless access point they're using. I'd don't want someone taking over my access point, but with various hacking tools, the effort is the same regardless if I've secured my access point.

But if Sue next door wants to use my wireless, go ahead. Don't ask me. Don't make me add you to an exception list or hand over a password. Just use it dammit and be respectful. It's there, and it doesn't really cost me anything more than what I'm currently paying to have you or 20-30 other guest using it.

Encryption, Authentication, and Authorization, and common sense work well enough for keeping the information I need to be secure, relatively secure. I'd rather have someone distracting by the beauty of playing Doom from their front porch using my access point, then banging on my access point try to hack my setup security so they can get free access, when I could have just offered it.

So I say, "Offer It!" Secure what you need secure and open everything else. It makes life easier, and produces good karma as well.

Here.. Quote from Ballmer "Why should code submitted randomly by some hacker in China and distributed by some open source project, why is that, by definition, better?"
Check that Nigerian 419 article (this was in last week's /.).. "These folks are some of the same great people who are supposed to be working for you anyway, plus a smattering of teenagers too young to work at Redmond, hackers, virus creators, and a menagerie of others with whom you will feel great pride in entrusting your IT infrastructure."
The marching orders have been given..
-B

according to a "study" done at princeton, We may have to give up project planning, quality control, coding standards, accountability, version control, and support with open source. so, you see, RH could not possible have any QA, much less quality QA

If I interpreted him correctly, his idea seems to be that the lure of open source software is the lack of licensing cost but this lure is too good to be true. As a result IT managers should not shrink from spending large amounts of money on propritary solutions.

He points out that the actual cost of managing and supporting an open source solution is not free. Thank you Capitan Obvious. Any IT manager worthy of the title would understand this. In fact a proper IT manager would factor in support costs, licensing cost, expected lifespan, risk to operation, expected user base, security and many ofther factors before making a decision on a particular solution. In some instances open source would be chosen, in others not.

To make a case against open source software, Strauss could have chosen some of those factors and provided examples where open source failed. He could have provided hypothetical situations in which the ability to modify source would be dangerous. Instead he chose the "Attack by Bad Analogy". While an analogy can be useful to illuminate a line of reasoning in an argument, it is no replacement for an argument. Indeed, an over-reliance on analogy is generaly a signal that the person lacks a clear understanding of the issue being debated. I would certainly expect better from a publication whose intended audience is involved in higher education.

Strauss goes on to discourage the use of student written software and the idea of user customization. Again, lacking any clear argument, anaolgy is used.

The ability to evaluate software solutions and choose the best fit for the problem is a critical skill for IT managers. A useful article could have explored the particular issues associated with evaluating open-source soultions. Instead a poorly argued rant occupies the space. Hopefully Strauss's article is the exception rather than the rule for the pulication.

If I interpreted him correctly, his idea seems to be that the lure of open source software is the lack of licensing cost but this lure is too good to be true. As a result IT managers should not shrink from spending large amounts of money on propritary solutions.

He points out that the actual cost of managing and supporting an open source solution is not free. Thank you Capitan Obvious. Any IT manager worthy of the title would understand this. In fact a proper IT manager would factor in support costs, licensing cost, expected lifespan, risk to operation, expected user base, security and many ofther factors before making a decision on a particular solution. In some instances open source would be chosen, in others not.

To make a case against open source software, Strauss could have chosen some of those factors and provided examples where open source failed. He could have provided hypothetical situations in which the ability to modify source would be dangerous. Instead he chose the "Attack by Bad Analogy". While an analogy can be useful to illuminate a line of reasoning in an argument, it is no replacement for an argument. Indeed, an over-reliance on analogy is generaly a signal that the person lacks a clear understanding of the issue being debated. I would certainly expect better from a publication whose intended audience is involved in higher education.

Strauss goes on to discourage the use of student written software and the idea of user customization. Again, lacking any clear argument, anaolgy is used.

The ability to evaluate software solutions and choose the best fit for the problem is a critical skill for IT managers. A useful article could have explored the particular issues associated with evaluating open-source soultions. Instead a poorly argued rant occupies the space. Hopefully Strauss's article is the exception rather than the rule for the pulication.

About Syllabus tells us you need to send your comment to:

Editorial
Mary Grush
Editor and Conference Program Director
(650) 941-1765
mgrush@syllabus.com

My guess is that would be the editor... From the :

Editorial
Mary Grush
Editor and Conference Program Director
(650) 941-1765
mgrush@syllabus.com

This guy has a monthly column of vaguely humorous ?advice?. But then, anyone with the job title manager of technology strategy and outreach must have lots of free time, and know he is pink-slip bait:

"How's it goin', Howie?"

"Well, managing outreach technology strategically is a real challenge. Ask anyone."

They have been publishing his stuff for a long time. Here is streaming audio from Sep-1997 where he is introduced as a "world wide web expert" and "manager of advanced applications at Princeton University".

http://www.syllabus.com/techtalks/events/970930pow er.asp

I just did a little Google Search and it turns out that Mr. Strauss has given quite a few talks on Internet technology in the past. He also co-Hosted a talk titled Research Computing and Linux Clusters. So which side of the fence are you on Howie?

Nothing hampers a programmer's creativity as much as a compiler.

Who is this Strauss guy? Is he yet another student-turned-teacher that has no real world experience? Nothing chaps my hide more than perpetual academics, who have never built or run a successful company preaching their superior wisdom and insight on business development.

Take a look at this guy - He can't even select a decent hairpiece. I certainly wouldn't trust his technical advice.

• No more institution centric home page
• There should only be one portal. (don't want the students using Yahoo! or Excite - we want them to use our portal)
• There must exist -complete- customization available to the user. Otherwise, they will continue to use another portal that allows them to do what they want.
• Replaces your desktop

link

Caveat lector; It is a commercial publication.