CNN Notices that WiFi is Insecure

josh3736 writes "From CNN comes an article that makes painstakingly obvious to the public what we already knew: 802.11 security is horrible. The article points out that nearly 40% of wireless network APs haven't even been changed from defaults and as many as 80% of home APs have encryption disabled. The article goes on to say that '[t]o make matters worse, users who don't secure their networks are often the very people who don't keep their computers up to date with the latest security patches and antivirus software.' It also accuses WiFi manufacturers of disabling security measures by default to make wireless easy to the lowest common denominator. My favorite quote? 'Experts say that while Wi-Fi hardware makers have made initial setup easy, the enabling of security is anything but. Meanwhile, average users are no longer tech savvy.' Which is to say that they at one point were?"

Comments

Re:Sure...

[rudeboy1]

You know what? I work in the wireless industry, for a manufacturer, doing tech support. This will probably sound like a typical tech support statement, but if an AP user can't figure out how to secure (I use that term loosly, given the nature of WEP) their systems, then they have only themselves to blame. I'm not really sure why the media is chastizing the AP manufacturer for not turning on encryption by default. First of all, it would require added initial setup time and expertise, neither of which does the end user tend to tolerate very well, and second, because at some point, some of the higher-end luser/users are going to realize that adding encryption to their wireless protocol just cut their bandwidth down considerably. That will result in customers accusing the manufacturers of "being dishonest/misleading about actual throughput." This is a touchy subject in the industry, since the protocol is clearly listed as 11MB, but average throughput for most wireless devices measures in the neighborhood of 1-2MBPS on Wifi, and up to 6MBPS on some other, more expensive wireless gear. You have to take inot account the overhead caused by dropped/delayed packets, FCS errors, interference, hidden nodes, etc. Most people think multipath is something you learn about in Boy Scouts.
Anyway, I digress. My point is, if they are too ignorant to know they need to encrypt their network, then they deserve to reap the results. These are the same people that put up a computer behind a cable modem without thinking to add a firewall. Hello?!?

Why should I care about wireless security at home?

[kuwan]

I mean seriously, I live in a high-rise luxury apartment building and only have Macs. Why should I care about securing my access point?

At the moment I'm sharing a neighbor's connection (who hasn't changed his router from its default settings) until my broadband arrives on Saturday. I'm of the opinion that if other people want to use my Internet connection then go right ahead. I make sure that all of my machines are secured and fire-walled.

So why is it so bad if my network is not secured? I leave it open on purpose.