when last we saw our hero (Monday, Jun 07, 2004), Mike Ellsworth was madly tapping out: > Steve, > > Yeah, snorting traffic on public Websites is a risk that I have been > waiting for corporate America to finally realize. Yet I don't see > T-Mobile exploiting this possible advantage. If I were in charge of > corporate security for a company of any size, I'd forbid employee > use of public Wi-Fi. > forbidding the use of public WiFi networks seems particularly draconian. this is what IPSec is for. you tunnel all of the traffic to your corporate VPN concentrator and don't have to worry about folks sniffing the traffic. hence my remarks regarding the judicious use of crypto. i'm a _very_ mobile worker and i plug into service provider networks all over the place and i tunnel back to the vpn concentrator at corporate or home (depending on what i'm doing) i'm not worried about folks sniffing my traffic. > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-bounces at tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-bounces at tcwug.org] On > Behalf Of steve ulrich > Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 12:34 PM > To: mellsworth at stratvantage.com; Twin Cities Wireless Users Group List > Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Another point on the wifi hotspot business model > curve.. > > when last we saw our hero (Monday, Jun 07, 2004), > Mike Ellsworth was madly tapping out: > > The most interesting thing I got from this article is T-Mobile's > > claim that it is more secure (and more reliable) than free > > hotspots. Anybody got any idea how they can claim that? I've used > > their service and it wasn't running any security as far as I could > > tell. > > it's not just about link layer security. when you put your traffic > onto an open hotspot from john doe you really don't know what > they're doing with your traffic. it's not in the best interests of > a t-mobile or SP to harvest subscriber traffic for their nefarious > applications. > > i'm not saying that tmobile and other SPs can't sniff your traffic. > but wifi with a branded hotspot probably isn't going to be snorting > all the traffic that goes by. whereas you're more likely taking > your chance with the freebies. > > further, many reputable carriers have the ability to do things like > virus/worm mitigation in their access infrastructure. that's nice > if someone jacks into the same segment and starts to hose you down > with the virus of the day. such mechanisms would not be visible > from the users persepctive. > > as with many things in life if you're going have unprotected packet > exchange, you have risks. if you'd like to mitigate those risks, > slather on the protection with copious amounts of crypto and f/ws. { snipped - misc .signatures } > > -----Original Message----- > > From: tcwug-list-bounces at tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-bounces at tcwug.org] > On > > Behalf Of Andy Warner > > Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 9:44 AM > > To: wireless at tc-unwired.net; tcwug-list at tcwug.org > > Subject: [TCWUG] Another point on the wifi hotspot business model curve.. > > > > Apologies in advance if this ends up being one of those > > "subscriber-only" pages that drops you through to a login screen; > > but the NYTimes carried the following article about the growth of > > free hot-spots, contrasted with the fortunes of pay-per-use hot > > spots; along with the struggle to find a sustainable business model > > for the pay-per-use carriers. > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/07/technology/07wifi.html?8hpib=&pagewanted=a { snipped - misc .signatures } -- steve ulrich sulrich at botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list at tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list