Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Jolly Roger Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Date: 12 Feb 2015 16:03:18 GMT Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates Lines: 83 Message-ID: References: <110220150824085780%michelle@michelle.org> X-Trace: individual.net RYObT68hDh7EtQG4374/ygBku0/K75GIpIboDmeNu7o4EyEFrk Cancel-Lock: sha1:STdJMP7lvbJmJJ8ZV/klnzlv2ys= X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e up1/bO{=-) User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:69737 On 2015-02-12, Lewis wrote: > Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger was all, like: > >> While *you* certainly can consider it "useless" for your own uses, you >> don't get to impose your beliefs on the rest of the world. > > "Useless" is not a belief, it is a value judgment based on facts. There > is absolutely no security offered by MAC address filtering on a secured > network. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. The fact remains that manufacturers overwhelmingly place it in the "security" section of router configuration pages. Call it whatever you like, but that's where it shows up, and people tend to think of access controls as part of security. You are arguing semantics, which is not at all constructive. >> If someone decides to give their network password to their family >> living in the same house, and they also decide that they want to white >> list the MAC addresses of known devices in the house so that they can >> control which devices can connect without changing that password, >> that's certainly their prerogative, and they will almost certainly >> debate your "useless" assessment. > > I am happy to debate how adding MAC address filtering to their LAN will > increase their security. You clearly refuse to concede that some people may find MAC address filtering to be useful, even though you have already admitted it can be an effective way of blocking unknown devices from connecting to a network. And you are hell bent on this silly semantic argument about "security". Talking with you about this is becoming a waste of time. >>> If you are using encryption, MAC filtering gains you exactly nothing >>> in securing your access point. And if you are not using encryption, >>> MAC filtering gains you exactly nothing in securing your access point. > >> No, it adds another level of access control (since you seem to have such >> a problem using the word "security" in this context) to the system. > > We are talking about security. If you'd like to change the topic, go > ahead. No, we are talking about "MAC address filtering", because someone asked whether Apple's access points supported it. You and nospam seem to be the ones wanting to change the subject to general security. >> That's what key-based encryption is for. And as I'm sure you are aware, >> even key-based encryption can be cracked with enough time, know-how, and >> determination. > > Millions of years for even a 9 character password. Not always - depends on the router and security measures in place: "Tews and his co-researcher Martin Beck found a way to break the Temporal Key Integrity Protocol (TKIP) key, used by WPA, in a relatively short amount of time: 12 to 15 minutes, according to Dragos Ruiu, the PacSec conference's organizer." "In my successful test, Reaver took 2 hours and 30 minutes to crack the network and deliver me with the correct password." And I have little doubt that one day someone will find a way to crack even the most secure encryption available at the moment. The point is that while some are stronger than others, anyone who is determined can bypass a number of access control methods. Some people find MAC address filtering to be a useful feature, and those people will use it, whether you like it or not. Anyway, we've surpassed the point of usefulness of this conversation, so I'll go ahead and bow out of this discussion now. Enjoy having the last word. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR