Slashdot Mirror


A Look at the State of Wireless Security

An anonymous reader brings us a whitepaper from Codenomicon which discusses the state and future of wireless security. They examine Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, and also take a preliminary look at WiMAX. The results are almost universally dismal; vulnerabilities were found in 90% of the tested devices[PDF]. The paper also looks at methods for vendors to preemptively block some types of threats. Quoting: "Despite boasts of hardened security measures, security researchers and black-hat hackers keep humiliating vendors. Security assessment of software by source code auditing is expensive and laborious. There are only a few methods for security analysis without access to the source code, and they are usually limited in scope. This may be one reason why many major software vendors have been stuck randomly fixing vulnerabilities that have been found and providing countless patches to their clients to keep the systems protected."

4 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. If only we could contain the wireless signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...in some kind of tube that we could install between the source and the destination.

  2. Re:Security is relative by erlehmann · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fact is, a skilled hacker/cracker can defeat any encryption or any security you set up, no matter how advanced.

    do you got some of these skilled hackers ? i have a large semiprime to factor ...
  3. Re:Security is relative by dubbreak · · Score: 3, Funny

    do you got some of these skilled hackers ? i have a large semiprime to factor ...

    plz send me teh codes. I need them for a schol project. thnx.

    do you aslo have teh codes for discrete logs? I need teh codes for that too. plzthnx.
    --
    "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
  4. My wireless security is fine by istartedi · · Score: 2, Funny

    I use WPA. I know it can't be GEt V1AgrA N()W cracked. I made sure this thing was set up GET YOUR p3n!s enlarged NOW!!! as it should be.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?