Slashdot Mirror
Government Use of WiFi Not Secure
Terremoto writes "A Congressional report indicates that the use of WiFi by government agencies is being done with little regard for security. The article says, "Government Accountability Office investigators were able to pick up Wi-Fi signals from outside all of the six agencies they tested, and they were able to find examples of unauthorized activity at all six as well.""
Err, doesnt the FCC spank down anybody who does Wi-Fi access control (if it's NOT encrypted)?
YEah, breaking an auth scheme could be grounds of breaking/entering, but when its open invite, isnt it allowed?
You know, public airwaves and all..
It wasn't clear in TFA either, but do they mean a little pr0n surfing/p2p going on or active hack attempts were found?
SEO Firefox Extension
I would consider it to be criminally negligent.
It is a shame that they allow these agencies to recieve funding or for their IS / IT departments to still have jobs.
Lets stop talking about Filibusters and start talking National Security
I'm always a bit doubtful of these surveys. Some companies run an open network, but to reach any network resources you need to set up a VPN. This avoids possible problems with air-side encryption (yes, I know there are many other solutions) and allows visitors to use the network.
About the only solution I've seen is the airFortress product that utilizes a client that encrypts all data and decrypts it through a hardware device that interfaces with the access points. Military has been using it for a bit.
So, some government agencies use unsecured wireless networks, and some people might even be leeching off of them for internet access. That might or might not be a real security issue, depending on if they're using their wireless network for sensitive applications and if those applications aren't using end-to-end encryption for their applications and if their wireless networks aren't firewalled away from the rest of their network. Perhaps the actual report describes the vulnerabilities in greater detail than this article, but I don't see how the mere presence of an unsecured wireless network is necessarily something to get worked up about.
I know many disagree with me on this, but personally I think that open WIFI networks is a very good thing. And I encourage all Wifi administrators to Open up their networks for all! This is quite safe if you secure the private services on the networks so random people only have access to the Internet. Think of it like this: You allow a few people to use the Internet from your home in exchange of being able to use the Internet when you are other places. If everybody with a Wifi does this then we will eventually have a global free Internet available everywhere for all. Again, having a Open Wifi is no threat to you IF you simply secure the services running on the Wifi! And this is, in fact, a much better approach than having a firewall and relying on that for security...
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
A laptop without wireless is still a laptop. It isn't that difficult to use a network cable.
Of course it prevents you from bringing the laptop to the bathroom.
I have implemented wifi for several parks for a large city. We place the network on the outside of our internal network. We allow anyone to connect to the network after agreeing to a pop-up stating our acceptable use policy. Exactly how can this be conceived as insecure?
Quoted from parent mod'd off-topic:
Sadly, I really do not blame those that come in through the back door when so many are simply stealing from the front door.
WindBourne has a technical point, at the end of his non-slashdot-compative rant: even before wireless became useful/cheap/widespread, many folks feared any physical connection to a nework that was "insecure"....for example, a Sun JumpStart server allowed (gasp) annonymous ftp access for images.
For what it does, displacing/replacing the cost and aesthetics of cat5 cable, wireless does a very bad job of it.
Quite apart from the security aspect, which was handled by slapping WEP on it, its a mess.
It can and does work with extremely simple networks (one transmitters, many receivers,) but it is absolutely terrible at topologies with repeators.
Apple's Airport and 'Bonjour' (previously called 'RendezVous') is one of the worst at letting you build network topologies.
I have scrapped my AirPort base and a couple of 'pucks' because I, a friend AND a network guy I paid for were unable to set up my network.
I am now running a network of Macs and Windows PC on a single LinkSys wireless router because I'd had one since moving to my new place and NOT laying down some cable.
It was simple, secure (WEP & destination addresses so only a few IP addresses are actually exposed and port filtering,) and easy to install.
As for AirPort, Apple's vaunted skills at GUI utterly failed them this time. Its a dogs breakfast of confusing and seemingly contradictory options, 'build' directions and concepts which just don't friggin work.
I'm out $300 bucks on the Airort equipment but two guys and myself are much wiser when it come to wireless. Friends don't let friends buy Airport.
Nice try Apple, but building networks should not be magic where you're never sure if doing one thing just undid another.
Your current GUI approach is totally inadequate, TOTALLY.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
If they can ever get away from the "use two consulting firms in an adversarial role" implementation model, they might see some benefits to their IT advances.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
At least, not at Goddard where I work. NASA used to be an easy target for crackers, but we've tightened up a lot since those days. Network security around here wardrives the grounds, and people with guns (!) will show up if they detect an unauthorized access point.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.