Slashdot Mirror
Secure Wireless Through Infrared Antennas
oogamrm writes "Everyone knows the main problem with Wi-Fi: Security. It's relatively easy for intruders to sniff packets out of the air and even connect to the wireless net. While most wireless companies have responded by trying to beef up the encryption, the University of Warwick's engineering department has developed an optical antenna that operates in the infrared band. This means almost no energy leaking through walls, and simple filters to block it from exiting through windows. The antennas can be so well tuned that several networks can be co-located in the same physical space. The whole story is available at news.com.com."
This would have been great a while ago, but what I don't understand why its so difficult to have created truly secure wireless networks in the first place. I mean, come on guys, there's tons of public key cryptography stuff out there, I don't see why that wasn't used from zero day.
Granted, I'm not a wireless engineer, I just play one on slashdot, so I could very well be talking out my ass.
I thought the great advantage of 802.11x was it *wasn't* on the infared spectrum like every wireless proticol prior.
Then again perhaps some people enjoy only having line of sight networking, to each his own.
I live in a giant bucket.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this require line of sight? Doesn't that limit the usefullness of a wireless network? I thought one of the benefits of wi-fi was that it went through wall and windows.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
As I'm sure anyone with infrared equipment will know, it dosen't travel around objects very well. So I can't see this being useful indoors.
Outdoors as a point-to-point link, it's a bit more useful. But may fail because of the same reason. A light rain or snow shower could probably block one of these links.
Everyone knows the main problem with Wi-Fi: Security. It's relatively easy for intruders to sniff packets out of the air and even connect to the wireless net. While most wireless companies have responded by trying to beef up the encryption, smart people a long time ago developed a device called a "network cable". This means no energy leaking through walls, and no extra precautions necessary to block it from exiting through windows. The cables can be laid so that several networks can be co-located in the same physical space.
It's been done, okay? If you're going to carefully aim IR antennas and put up filters on windows, just lay some Cat-5 already. It's cheaper, faster, and more secure.
Its all about trade offs. Speed vs security vs mobility. If you are lucky you can pick a network system that has any 2 of the above 3. With IR you would get security and *limited* mobility, with wired you would get speed and security, and with WiFi you get *limited* speed and good mobility. You cant have your cake and eat it too people. I see no point in going wireless if it requires line of sight.
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
...the University of Warwick's engineering department shows some spanking new technology that replaces those nasty and still interceptable wireless signals with a brand new concept called "cabling".
Come on people, this is a terrible approach (as it kills the *only* Wi-Fi advantage), based on security through obscurity, *and* at the same time a questionable achievement, cuz ya know... IR isn't a new technology/concept/medium...
it seems to me that an office building could theoretically be built to fairly effectively dampen any wireless going on within it - the problem being that it would also dampen any wireless waves trying to come in. So - we lose the following:
Radio: mount an antennae on the roof, setup some radio streaming servers inside the building that people can point [insert fav. audio player] at.
CellPhones: This is a little trickier, but there once was the idea that your cell could transfer calls to your desk phone automatically. I know some cellphones offer a forwarding option, I don't know how automatic this is - perhaps you could set it to be scheduled?
TV: Shouldn't be watching TV at work, if you should be - they probably have cable anyways, problem solved.
I mean, really, the only problem you have beyond that is when you're in a large shared office building - and when you're mixing interests like that anyways you don't much damned security anyways, and maybe you shouldn't be using wireless except during that all important meeting, when you connect ad-hoc to a predetermined server that's not tied to the company intranet.
Surely I've missed something or put something inaccurate out there - so let the replys flow
cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
What's the point of wireless if you think the ability to be in another room is a disadvantage? If it's so awful, why not just plug the computers in physically like in the olden days?
Already being done.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/dslalt
If you are worried enough about security that you'd switch to infra-red, why not just stick to wired? With IR, you're stuck with line of sight which basically defeats the purpose of WiFi. You can't reliably move around (if your body comes between the base station and your computer, you've just broken your network connection, if you walk into the next room, you've just broken your network connection, if a piece of paper falls off your desk, and blocks your antenna, you've just broken your network connection, ...)
This seems to me to have all of the drawbacks of CAT-5, with none of the benefits (namely, you can't tap into a wired ethernet connection unless you have a physical connection)
There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.