Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #69610 > unrolled thread
| Started by | TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-02-08 21:47 -0600 |
| Last post | 2015-02-09 20:58 +0000 |
| Articles | 11 on this page of 51 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2015-02-08 21:47 -0600
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-08 20:37 -0800
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-02-08 21:37 -0700
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2015-02-09 14:05 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-09 09:19 -0500
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-09 13:01 -0500
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-02-10 10:55 +0100
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-10 14:00 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-02-10 20:08 +0100
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-10 14:42 -0500
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-10 20:03 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-10 16:05 -0500
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-10 21:17 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-10 19:51 -0500
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-10 20:54 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-10 21:18 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-10 22:37 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-11 00:04 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-11 12:37 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-11 15:07 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-11 15:16 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-02-11 08:32 -0700
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-11 15:53 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-02-11 08:24 -0700
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-02-11 15:27 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-11 15:53 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-11 12:22 -0500
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-11 18:00 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-12 01:51 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-12 14:11 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-12 14:52 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-12 15:11 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-12 15:38 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-12 16:03 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-14 11:00 -0500
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-14 19:44 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-14 10:58 -0500
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-14 16:47 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-15 01:10 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-15 01:39 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-15 09:24 -0500
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-15 14:56 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-15 11:13 -0500
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-15 16:53 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-15 18:01 -0500
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-16 01:38 +0000
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-16 12:04 -0500
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-09 09:21 -0500
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2015-02-09 14:05 -0600
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-09 15:32 -0500
Re: Apple Time Capsule -- Unknown User Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-09 20:58 +0000
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-15 09:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tdqdnY13pte5MX3JnZ2dnUU7-LudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #69770 |
On 2015.02.14 11:47 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-02-14, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015.02.12 10:11 , Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>>> Not someone who is really determined and has the know-how. WPA has been
>>> cracked before by those who really want to get in:
>>>
>>> <http://www.pcworld.com/article/153396/wifi_hacked.html>
>>
>> WPA2 is what people use. Should be, anyway. It's no surprise that that
>> article is nearly 7 years old.
>
> The point is eventually it can and probably will be done by someone who
> is determined with the right resources.
>
>>> As much as I hate repeating myself: MAC address filtering is there to
>>> prevent casual users from connecting unknown devices, and is meant to
>>> augment key-based encryption security already in place on a router. The
>>> two are not mutually exclusive and can be legitimately used together.
>>> Why you guys continue to argue as if anyone is claiming MAC address
>>> filtering should be used by itself is beyond me, since nobody here has
>>> made such a suggestion TMK. Very strange!
>>
>> I reject the blacklist/whitelist approach for the same reason that SSID
>> hiding should (generally) be rejected.
>
> The idea that features you don't happen to appreciate should
> automatically be rejected by others seems silly to me.
I did appreciate them in the past. And used them. And then came to my
senses.
They are akin to prayer to prevent pregnancy. Doesn't hurt, but
certainly not proven to have any effect.
>
>> Strong WPA2 passwords. That's all that's needed. Keep both the expert
>> hackers and the accidental accessers off of the network.
>
> Again, nobody here, as far as I can tell - and certainly not me - has
> suggested that one should not use strong encryption keys. And if someone
> sees utility in using other features like MAC address filtering, who am
> I to say they should not? I gave an example of one potential situation
> where a family shares an encryption key, but the parents want to control
> which devices can connect, so use the MAC address filtering feature to
> do so without having to change and re-distribute the key among family
> members. I'm sure others can find other legitimate uses for the feature.
> Just because *you* don't appreciate this feature doesn't mean it has
> absolutely no value for *others*.
That's not the prior context of security - I did use MAC addresses
solely to block internet access to my son from 23:00 to 06:00 so he
would get off the net and go to sleep. <sigh> Don't need that now.
But as a (in context) means of security, b/w listing is a placebo for
the user and meaningless to a determined hacker. It's extra work for
the admin for no security gain.
>
>> A determined hacker who believes he has even a modicum of a chance at
>> brute forcing WPA2 will walk through b/w-listing quickly once he's
>> discovered the hidden SSID. Those two steps are just irritants - sort
>> of insulting to him.
>
> Again, the feature isn't for determined hackers, but for casual users.
And again, the only thing really needed is WPA2. The casual user is not
getting past that given a strong pw.
>> That they add to more complexity in managing a WiFi network is just more
>> reason to avoid them. They cost you more (over time) than they cost the
>> capable hacker.
>
> According to you, who never uses them. Others can decide for themselves
> whether using these features is worth the added complexity, and don't
> need you to make that decision for them.
I did. When I first set up a WiFi I used both SSID hiding and white
listing. At the time, IIRC, WEP was the wall. Over time upgraded to
WPA, then WPA2 and dropped the whitelisting and SSID hiding as it became
clear they were pretty useless for anything related to preventing
intrusions while increasing my need to "manage" the network.
>> But if you get more warm and fuzzy out of b/w-listing and possibly
>> hidden SSID's, then go for it - and the added management.
>
> You seem like you'd rather nobody use them. Make up your mind. : )
I don't care if you or anyone uses them - I just advise that it's added
burden to the owner and no burden to anyone trying to get in.
That it may turn away a casual connection is no added benefit when the
same casual connection can't get through WPA2. Just as fast as turning
them away.
As an aside, for a while I used to tell jokes using the SSID and one of
my neighbors would see them every time she connected. (Could take a
couple weeks to tell the joke, but that made it more fun). That all
ended as the number of connected devices rose ...
--
"Your net worth to the world is usually
determined by what remains after your
bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
Benjamin Franklin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-15 14:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ckbqd6Fhhg3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69806 |
On 2015-02-15, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2015.02.14 11:47 , Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2015-02-14, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2015.02.12 10:11 , Jolly Roger wrote: >>> >>>> As much as I hate repeating myself: MAC address filtering is there to >>>> prevent casual users from connecting unknown devices, and is meant to >>>> augment key-based encryption security already in place on a router. The >>>> two are not mutually exclusive and can be legitimately used together. >>>> Why you guys continue to argue as if anyone is claiming MAC address >>>> filtering should be used by itself is beyond me, since nobody here has >>>> made such a suggestion TMK. Very strange! >>> >>> I reject the blacklist/whitelist approach for the same reason that SSID >>> hiding should (generally) be rejected. >> >> The idea that features you don't happen to appreciate should >> automatically be rejected by others seems silly to me. > > I did appreciate them in the past. And used them. And then came to my > senses. Actually you used them for a specific purpose, which they did serve, and you no longer need them now. See below. > They are akin to prayer to prevent pregnancy. Doesn't hurt, but > certainly not proven to have any effect. Wrong. They do have an effect. The effect of hiding the SSID is that the network is omitted in listings from utilities and programs that scan for wireless SSIDs. A casual user might never find the network whose SSID is hidden. The effect of MAC address white lists is that devices with MAC addresses that are not on the white list are not allowed to join the network, even if they have the right encryption passkey. A casual user would be unable to connect even if they had the encryption key. Why lie about it stating there are no effects? While you may choose to pretend these effects are non-existent, they are real and may be useful for their limited purposes. You act as though you are doing others a service, but by being dishonest you are only spreading misinformation. That's not constructive. >>> Strong WPA2 passwords. That's all that's needed. Keep both the expert >>> hackers and the accidental accessers off of the network. >> >> Again, nobody here, as far as I can tell - and certainly not me - has >> suggested that one should not use strong encryption keys. And if someone >> sees utility in using other features like MAC address filtering, who am >> I to say they should not? I gave an example of one potential situation >> where a family shares an encryption key, but the parents want to control >> which devices can connect, so use the MAC address filtering feature to >> do so without having to change and re-distribute the key among family >> members. I'm sure others can find other legitimate uses for the feature. >> Just because *you* don't appreciate this feature doesn't mean it has >> absolutely no value for *others*. > > That's not the prior context of security It's the context of this thread in this news group, where the OP asked if Apple's routers support MAC address filtering, which they do. You are injecting your own context into the mix, claiming that the feature is absolutely useless, when it does have utility for limited situations. > I did use MAC addresses solely to block internet access to my son from > 23:00 to 06:00 so he would get off the net and go to sleep. <sigh> > Don't need that now. Finally, you admit the feature can be useful. > But as a (in context) means of security, Lies. General security was *not* the context of the OP. The OP simply asked whether Apple's routers supported MAC address white lists. You and one or two others here injected the general security context into the conversation, which would have been fine, except you then made further claims that someone was promoting MAC address filtering as the sole means of security - nobody has done that, as far as I can see - least of all me. > b/w listing is a placebo for the user and meaningless to a determined > hacker. It's extra work for the admin for no security gain. You and one or two others keep saying this over and over again, even though not a single person here has suggested that MAC address filters should be used as the sole method of access control. It's not constructive. >>> A determined hacker who believes he has even a modicum of a chance at >>> brute forcing WPA2 will walk through b/w-listing quickly once he's >>> discovered the hidden SSID. Those two steps are just irritants - sort >>> of insulting to him. >> >> Again, the feature isn't for determined hackers, but for casual users. > > And again, the only thing really needed is WPA2. The casual user is not > getting past that given a strong pw. Again (and as you just admitted above), sometimes people want to have both, so they can secure the network *and* allow only specific device MAC addresses to connect. MAC address filtering and encryption are not mutually exclusive. I'm really tired of repeating myself. >>> That they add to more complexity in managing a WiFi network is just more >>> reason to avoid them. They cost you more (over time) than they cost the >>> capable hacker. >> >> According to you, who never uses them. Others can decide for themselves >> whether using these features is worth the added complexity, and don't >> need you to make that decision for them. > > I did. When I first set up a WiFi I used both SSID hiding and white > listing. At the time, IIRC, WEP was the wall. Over time upgraded to > WPA, then WPA2 and dropped the whitelisting and SSID hiding as it became > clear they were pretty useless for anything related to preventing > intrusions while increasing my need to "manage" the network. The OP never said anything about *how* he wanted to use MAC address filtering. You and a couple others here seem to insist that those who use MAC address filtering are doing so with no other protections in place, despite the fact that not a single person has made that claim here. Please stop. It's not constructive. >>> But if you get more warm and fuzzy out of b/w-listing and possibly >>> hidden SSID's, then go for it - and the added management. >> >> You seem like you'd rather nobody use them. Make up your mind. : ) > > I don't care if you or anyone uses them I think you definitely care a lot, or you wouldn't be railing against it so strongly here. > I just advise that it's added burden to the owner and no burden to > anyone trying to get in. Wrong. It's definitely a burden to someone using a device that cannot change its MAC address, or someone who does not even know how to change one, or someone who is not even aware of what MAC filtering is. And with a well-secured router, even if a stranger knows how to get passed MAC address filtering, they still can't get past the encrypted key that they do not know. And if they are a skilled enough person with enough resources to bypass encryption protections, then encryption is an "added burden" to the owner of the access point as well, in your own words. Stop pretending the feature has absolutely no utility. It does have limited utility, and may be useful for certain situations. And you have admitted that you have used it in the past when you needed it. > That it may turn away a casual connection is no added benefit when the > same casual connection can't get through WPA2. Just as fast as turning > them away. Wrong again. It's an added benefit that that casual user would not have access even if they had the password to the router. You just admitted above that you have used it to do exactly that. You saw the benefit of it yourself and now admit you no longer need it. Good for you. Others, like the OP, might want it for their own uses. Good for them that it's available. Must we really have this circular conversation yet again? I'm *really* bored with it. -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-15 11:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5rmdnf1M_7MtWH3JnZ2dnUU7-QGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #69808 |
On 2015.02.15 09:56 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-02-15, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015.02.14 11:47 , Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2015-02-14, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2015.02.12 10:11 , Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As much as I hate repeating myself: MAC address filtering is there to
>>>>> prevent casual users from connecting unknown devices, and is meant to
>>>>> augment key-based encryption security already in place on a router. The
>>>>> two are not mutually exclusive and can be legitimately used together.
>>>>> Why you guys continue to argue as if anyone is claiming MAC address
>>>>> filtering should be used by itself is beyond me, since nobody here has
>>>>> made such a suggestion TMK. Very strange!
>>>>
>>>> I reject the blacklist/whitelist approach for the same reason that SSID
>>>> hiding should (generally) be rejected.
>>>
>>> The idea that features you don't happen to appreciate should
>>> automatically be rejected by others seems silly to me.
>>
>> I did appreciate them in the past. And used them. And then came to my
>> senses.
>
> Actually you used them for a specific purpose, which they did serve, and
> you no longer need them now. See below.
>
>> They are akin to prayer to prevent pregnancy. Doesn't hurt, but
>> certainly not proven to have any effect.
>
> Wrong. They do have an effect. The effect of hiding the SSID is that the
> network is omitted in listings from utilities and programs that scan for
> wireless SSIDs. A casual user might never find the network whose SSID is
> hidden. The effect of MAC address white lists is that devices with MAC
> addresses that are not on the white list are not allowed to join the
> network, even if they have the right encryption passkey. A casual user
> would be unable to connect even if they had the encryption key. Why lie
> about it stating there are no effects? While you may choose to pretend
> these effects are non-existent, they are real and may be useful for
> their limited purposes. You act as though you are doing others a
> service, but by being dishonest you are only spreading misinformation.
> That's not constructive.
>
>>>> Strong WPA2 passwords. That's all that's needed. Keep both the expert
>>>> hackers and the accidental accessers off of the network.
>>>
>>> Again, nobody here, as far as I can tell - and certainly not me - has
>>> suggested that one should not use strong encryption keys. And if someone
>>> sees utility in using other features like MAC address filtering, who am
>>> I to say they should not? I gave an example of one potential situation
>>> where a family shares an encryption key, but the parents want to control
>>> which devices can connect, so use the MAC address filtering feature to
>>> do so without having to change and re-distribute the key among family
>>> members. I'm sure others can find other legitimate uses for the feature.
>>> Just because *you* don't appreciate this feature doesn't mean it has
>>> absolutely no value for *others*.
>>
>> That's not the prior context of security
>
> It's the context of this thread in this news group, where the OP asked
> if Apple's routers support MAC address filtering, which they do. You are
> injecting your own context into the mix, claiming that the feature is
> absolutely useless, when it does have utility for limited situations.
>
>> I did use MAC addresses solely to block internet access to my son from
>> 23:00 to 06:00 so he would get off the net and go to sleep. <sigh>
>> Don't need that now.
>
> Finally, you admit the feature can be useful.
>
>> But as a (in context) means of security,
>
> Lies. General security was *not* the context of the OP. The OP simply
> asked whether Apple's routers supported MAC address white lists. You and
> one or two others here injected the general security context into the
> conversation, which would have been fine, except you then made further
> claims that someone was promoting MAC address filtering as the sole
> means of security - nobody has done that, as far as I can see - least of
> all me.
>
>> b/w listing is a placebo for the user and meaningless to a determined
>> hacker. It's extra work for the admin for no security gain.
>
> You and one or two others keep saying this over and over again, even
> though not a single person here has suggested that MAC address filters
> should be used as the sole method of access control. It's not
> constructive.
>
>>>> A determined hacker who believes he has even a modicum of a chance at
>>>> brute forcing WPA2 will walk through b/w-listing quickly once he's
>>>> discovered the hidden SSID. Those two steps are just irritants - sort
>>>> of insulting to him.
>>>
>>> Again, the feature isn't for determined hackers, but for casual users.
>>
>> And again, the only thing really needed is WPA2. The casual user is not
>> getting past that given a strong pw.
>
> Again (and as you just admitted above), sometimes people want to have
> both, so they can secure the network *and* allow only specific device
> MAC addresses to connect. MAC address filtering and encryption are not
> mutually exclusive. I'm really tired of repeating myself.
>
>>>> That they add to more complexity in managing a WiFi network is just more
>>>> reason to avoid them. They cost you more (over time) than they cost the
>>>> capable hacker.
>>>
>>> According to you, who never uses them. Others can decide for themselves
>>> whether using these features is worth the added complexity, and don't
>>> need you to make that decision for them.
>>
>> I did. When I first set up a WiFi I used both SSID hiding and white
>> listing. At the time, IIRC, WEP was the wall. Over time upgraded to
>> WPA, then WPA2 and dropped the whitelisting and SSID hiding as it became
>> clear they were pretty useless for anything related to preventing
>> intrusions while increasing my need to "manage" the network.
>
> The OP never said anything about *how* he wanted to use MAC address
> filtering. You and a couple others here seem to insist that those
> who use MAC address filtering are doing so with no other protections in
> place, despite the fact that not a single person has made that claim
> here. Please stop. It's not constructive.
>
>>>> But if you get more warm and fuzzy out of b/w-listing and possibly
>>>> hidden SSID's, then go for it - and the added management.
>>>
>>> You seem like you'd rather nobody use them. Make up your mind. : )
>>
>> I don't care if you or anyone uses them
>
> I think you definitely care a lot, or you wouldn't be railing against it
> so strongly here.
>
>> I just advise that it's added burden to the owner and no burden to
>> anyone trying to get in.
>
> Wrong.
Not wrong. Maintaining such is definitely more work for the network owner.
"Which one's your WiFi?"
"It's hidden - type in FollyRoger for the SSID,
and select WPA2
and the password is 'whydon'tilist3n2commonsense'.
But wait a sec, give me your phone I need the MAC address
to whitelist you."
That gets old PDQ.
And for anyone who knows their stuff - the only wall is the strong WPA2.
B/W listing/SSID hiding are not qualified "defense in depth" anymore
than prayer.
>It's definitely a burden to someone using a device that cannot change
> its MAC address, or someone who does not even know how to change one, or
> someone who is not even aware of what MAC filtering is. And with a
It's irrelevant facing a good WPA2 password.
> well-secured router, even if a stranger knows how to get passed MAC
> address filtering, they still can't get past the encrypted key that they
> do not know. And if they are a skilled enough person with enough
> resources to bypass encryption protections, then encryption is an
> "added burden" to the owner of the access point as well, in your own
> words. Stop pretending the feature has absolutely no utility. It does
> have limited utility, and may be useful for certain situations. And you
> have admitted that you have used it in the past when you needed it.
When I didn't know better, when security was weaker (WEP), when I wanted
to schedule one user's access.
The later was not a security issue and I was not B/W-listing anyone else.
>
>> That it may turn away a casual connection is no added benefit when the
>> same casual connection can't get through WPA2. Just as fast as turning
>> them away.
>
> Wrong again. It's an added benefit that that casual user would not have
> access even if they had the password to the router. You just admitted
> above that you have used it to do exactly that. You saw the benefit of
That was not a "security" case.
> it yourself and now admit you no longer need it. Good for you. Others,
> like the OP, might want it for their own uses. Good for them that it's
> available.
>
> Must we really have this circular conversation yet again? I'm *really*
> bored with it.
Certainly. I mean drop it. But it would never change my opinion about
the use of b/w listing and SSID hiding for security purposes. Indeed
the more important the thing being protected, the less useful it is - as
such a facility is more likely attract the more talented specialists -
so not worth the added effort and management.
--
"Your net worth to the world is usually
determined by what remains after your
bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
Benjamin Franklin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-15 16:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ckc18cFhhg3U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69812 |
On 2015-02-15, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2015.02.15 09:56 , Jolly Roger wrote: >> >> I think you definitely care a lot, or you wouldn't be railing against it >> so strongly here. >> >>> I just advise that it's added burden to the owner and no burden to >>> anyone trying to get in. >> >> Wrong. > > Not wrong. Maintaining such is definitely more work for the network owner. The part where you are wrong is that it's no burden to anyone trying to get in. I won't bother repeating what is directly below: > >It's definitely a burden to someone using a device that cannot change >> its MAC address, or someone who does not even know how to change one, or >> someone who is not even aware of what MAC filtering is. And with a > > It's irrelevant facing a good WPA2 password. Nope. Any situation where the password is known, but you wish to restrict the MAC addresses of devices that may connect is relevant to MAC address filtering. Just because you want to pretend it's irrelevant doesn't make it irrelevant for the rest of the world. >> well-secured router, even if a stranger knows how to get passed MAC >> address filtering, they still can't get past the encrypted key that they >> do not know. And if they are a skilled enough person with enough >> resources to bypass encryption protections, then encryption is an >> "added burden" to the owner of the access point as well, in your own >> words. Stop pretending the feature has absolutely no utility. It does >> have limited utility, and may be useful for certain situations. And you >> have admitted that you have used it in the past when you needed it. > > When I didn't know better, When you didn't know better? Your kid knew the encryption key, but you wanted to further control access, so you used MAC address filtering. You used a feature that worked for you. Are you now going to claim that you thought it worked, but it did not work, so you "know better" now because your kid was still able to access the internet despite your use of the feature? I doubt it. > when security was weaker (WEP), The OP did not ask about security; he asked whether MAC address filtering was supported in Apple routers, and it is. MAC address filtering and encryption security are not mutually exclusive by any means. You keep injecting general security into the picture as if it's not used when MAC address filtering is used. That's generally not the case; and nobody here has stated that is the case except you and a couple others who seem hell bent on discrediting this useful feature. > when I wanted to schedule one user's access. So it was useful for a purpose. Imagine that. First you say it's useless, then you say it's more work than it's worth, then you say you used it, and then you go back to your useless/irrelevant/too much trouble arguments. It's a boring, circular logical trip to take from this end, I gotta tell you. > The later was not a security issue and I was not B/W-listing anyone else. The only one trying to make this into a general security issue is *you*. The OP simply asked if MAC address filtering was supported by Apple's routers. It is. Period. >>> That it may turn away a casual connection is no added benefit when the >>> same casual connection can't get through WPA2. Just as fast as turning >>> them away. >> >> Wrong again. It's an added benefit that that casual user would not have >> access even if they had the password to the router. You just admitted >> above that you have used it to do exactly that. You saw the benefit of > > That was not a "security" case. The OP didn't ask about general security. You are injecting that into the equation. >> it yourself and now admit you no longer need it. Good for you. Others, >> like the OP, might want it for their own uses. Good for them that it's >> available. >> >> Must we really have this circular conversation yet again? I'm *really* >> bored with it. > > Certainly. I mean drop it. I wish you would. > But it would never change my opinion about the use of b/w listing and > SSID hiding for security purposes. The OP did not ask about security. The OP asked if MAC address filtering was supported in Apple's routers, and it is. You and a couple others have tried to change the conversation into security, which would be fine if you weren't also suggesting that somehow MAC address filtering is used without other security measures in place (which nobody here has suggested) and therefore should be avoided. The fact is it can be a useful feature, and you yourself have admitted that you have used it and it served you well. > Indeed the more important the thing being protected, the less useful > it is - as such a facility is more likely attract the more talented > specialists - so not worth the added effort and management. You yourself admitted MAC address filtering came in handy for you. Now you are trying to claim it's not worth it for everyone else? Are we done yet? -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-15 18:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uaWdnT-mZsXauHzJnZ2dnUU7-dGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #69815 |
On 2015.02.15 11:53 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-02-15, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015.02.15 09:56 , Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you definitely care a lot, or you wouldn't be railing against it
>>> so strongly here.
>>>
>>>> I just advise that it's added burden to the owner and no burden to
>>>> anyone trying to get in.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> Not wrong. Maintaining such is definitely more work for the network owner.
>
> The part where you are wrong is that it's no burden to anyone trying to
> get in. I won't bother repeating what is directly below:
>
>>> It's definitely a burden to someone using a device that cannot change
>>> its MAC address, or someone who does not even know how to change one, or
>>> someone who is not even aware of what MAC filtering is. And with a
>>
>> It's irrelevant facing a good WPA2 password.
>
> Nope. Any situation where the password is known, but you wish to
> restrict the MAC addresses of devices that may connect is relevant to
> MAC address filtering. Just because you want to pretend it's irrelevant
> doesn't make it irrelevant for the rest of the world.
Again (below) the context is security (whether you see that or
otherwise). And that is the context I drew from the OP's post. (again,
below).
>
>>> well-secured router, even if a stranger knows how to get passed MAC
>>> address filtering, they still can't get past the encrypted key that they
>>> do not know. And if they are a skilled enough person with enough
>>> resources to bypass encryption protections, then encryption is an
>>> "added burden" to the owner of the access point as well, in your own
>>> words. Stop pretending the feature has absolutely no utility. It does
>>> have limited utility, and may be useful for certain situations. And you
>>> have admitted that you have used it in the past when you needed it.
>>
>> When I didn't know better,
>
> When you didn't know better? Your kid knew the encryption key, but you
> wanted to further control access, so you used MAC address filtering. You
> used a feature that worked for you. Are you now going to claim that you
> thought it worked, but it did not work, so you "know better" now because
> your kid was still able to access the internet despite your use of the
> feature? I doubt it.
No. Now you're really twisting in the wind.
>
>> when security was weaker (WEP),
>
> The OP did not ask about security; he asked whether MAC address
He said : "Today I noted that there is a fourth user, unkknown, who is
accessing the Time Capsule. I have no idea who this user is but I'm
assuming that it must be someone close enough to connect wirelessly."
That sounds to me like someone worried about an intruder. (In the end
we seem to have deduced it's a WiFi printer ... no confo to date).
> filtering was supported in Apple routers, and it is. MAC address
> filtering and encryption security are not mutually exclusive by any
> means. You keep injecting general security into the picture as if it's
> not used when MAC address filtering is used. That's generally not the
> case; and nobody here has stated that is the case except you and a
> couple others who seem hell bent on discrediting this useful feature.
>
>> when I wanted to schedule one user's access.
>
> So it was useful for a purpose. Imagine that. First you say it's
> useless, then you say it's more work than it's worth, then you say you
It's useless for security. No value. Prayers work just as well.
> used it, and then you go back to your useless/irrelevant/too much
> trouble arguments. It's a boring, circular logical trip to take from
> this end, I gotta tell you.
>
>> The later was not a security issue and I was not B/W-listing anyone else.
>
> The only one trying to make this into a general security issue is *you*.
> The OP simply asked if MAC address filtering was supported by Apple's
> routers. It is. Period.
See above.
Which brought up its uselessness for security. It's utter, total
uselessness for security.
>
>>>> That it may turn away a casual connection is no added benefit when the
>>>> same casual connection can't get through WPA2. Just as fast as turning
>>>> them away.
>>>
>>> Wrong again. It's an added benefit that that casual user would not have
>>> access even if they had the password to the router. You just admitted
>>> above that you have used it to do exactly that. You saw the benefit of
>>
>> That was not a "security" case.
>
> The OP didn't ask about general security. You are injecting that into
> the equation.
See above.
>
>>> it yourself and now admit you no longer need it. Good for you. Others,
>>> like the OP, might want it for their own uses. Good for them that it's
>>> available.
>>>
>>> Must we really have this circular conversation yet again? I'm *really*
>>> bored with it.
>>
>> Certainly. I mean drop it.
>
> I wish you would.
>
>> But it would never change my opinion about the use of b/w listing and
>> SSID hiding for security purposes.
>
> The OP did not ask about security. The OP asked if MAC address filtering
See above.
> was supported in Apple's routers, and it is. You and a couple others
> have tried to change the conversation into security, which would be fine
> if you weren't also suggesting that somehow MAC address filtering is
> used without other security measures in place (which nobody here has
> suggested) and therefore should be avoided. The fact is it can be a
> useful feature, and you yourself have admitted that you have used it and
> it served you well.
>
>> Indeed the more important the thing being protected, the less useful
>> it is - as such a facility is more likely attract the more talented
>> specialists - so not worth the added effort and management.
>
> You yourself admitted MAC address filtering came in handy for you. Now
> you are trying to claim it's not worth it for everyone else?
That was not a security issue.
The OP had an "unknown" user on his network. That, in any case, is at
first instance a security issue until otherwise ruled out.
> Are we done yet?
Not as long as you keep replying.
--
"Your net worth to the world is usually
determined by what remains after your
bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
Benjamin Franklin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-16 01:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ckd00eFrln3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69821 |
On 2015-02-15, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2015.02.15 11:53 , Jolly Roger wrote: >> >> The OP did not ask about security; he asked whether MAC address > > He said : "Today I noted that there is a fourth user, unkknown, who is > accessing the Time Capsule. I have no idea who this user is but I'm > assuming that it must be someone close enough to connect wirelessly." > > That sounds to me like someone worried about an intruder. (In the end > we seem to have deduced it's a WiFi printer ... no confo to date). My bad. The OP was asking about an unknown user. It was Paul Sture who asked if Apple's routers can do MAC address filtering. And that's who nospam originally replied to stating it is a "complete waste of time". And it is that blanket statement with which I disagree. It's not a complete waste of time for certain situations. -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-16 12:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <47SdnRmnVYGavn_JnZ2dnUU7-VWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #69825 |
On 2015.02.15 20:38 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-02-15, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2015.02.15 11:53 , Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>
>>> The OP did not ask about security; he asked whether MAC address
>>
>> He said : "Today I noted that there is a fourth user, unkknown, who is
>> accessing the Time Capsule. I have no idea who this user is but I'm
>> assuming that it must be someone close enough to connect wirelessly."
>>
>> That sounds to me like someone worried about an intruder. (In the end
>> we seem to have deduced it's a WiFi printer ... no confo to date).
>
> My bad. The OP was asking about an unknown user. It was Paul Sture who
> asked if Apple's routers can do MAC address filtering. And that's who
> nospam originally replied to stating it is a "complete waste of time".
> And it is that blanket statement with which I disagree. It's not a
> complete waste of time for certain situations.
For that we're in violent agreement. ;-)
--
"Your net worth to the world is usually
determined by what remains after your
bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
Benjamin Franklin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-09 09:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m8adnZZi-a7OX0XJnZ2dnUU7-fUAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #69610 |
On 2015.02.08 22:47 , TaliesinSoft wrote:
> I have an Apple Time Capsule managed from my iMac. The Time Capsule is
> the prior model. At this time it is being shared by three users, myself,
> and two others. Our primary use of the capsule is to access the
> internet. Access to the Time Capsule requires the password. Today I
> noted that there is a fourth user, unkknown, who is accessing the Time
> Capsule. I have no idea who this user is but I'm assuming that it must
> be someone close enough to connect wirelessly.
Did you verify if someone is using two devices. For example their
computer and a mobile phone?
Is the iMac both wired and wirelessly connected to the TC?
Is there a wireless printer connected?
--
"Your net worth to the world is usually
determined by what remains after your
bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
Benjamin Franklin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-09 14:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <cjsi7oFj7ujU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69620 |
On 2015-02-09 14:21:07 +0000, Alan Browne said: > On 2015.02.08 22:47 , TaliesinSoft wrote: >> I have an Apple Time Capsule managed from my iMac. The Time Capsule is >> the prior model. At this time it is being shared by three users, myself, >> and two others. Our primary use of the capsule is to access the >> internet. Access to the Time Capsule requires the password. Today I >> noted that there is a fourth user, unkknown, who is accessing the Time >> Capsule. I have no idea who this user is but I'm assuming that it must >> be someone close enough to connect wirelessly. > > Did you verify if someone is using two devices. For example their > computer and a mobile phone? The three legitamate users, me and two others, are only connecting computers and not a mobile phone. > > Is the iMac both wired and wirelessly connected to the TC? The iMac (my computer) is connected to the Time Capsule only wirelessly. > > Is there a wireless printer connected? My HP Envy is connected both directly to my iMac and wirelessly so others can use it. -- James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-09 15:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <79KdnYhiWZvthETJnZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #69629 |
On 2015.02.09 15:05 , TaliesinSoft wrote:
>> Is there a wireless printer connected?
>
> My HP Envy is connected both directly to my iMac and wirelessly so
> others can use it.
Then it should show as a wireless connection in addition to your iMac
and the two others users.
(Does on mine (not a Time Capsule or AirPort but a Tomato based
router/WiFi)).
--
"Your net worth to the world is usually
determined by what remains after your
bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
Benjamin Franklin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-09 20:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cjslbbFk19uU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69629 |
On 2015-02-09, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: > On 2015-02-09 14:21:07 +0000, Alan Browne said: > >> On 2015.02.08 22:47 , TaliesinSoft wrote: >>> I have an Apple Time Capsule managed from my iMac. The Time Capsule is >>> the prior model. At this time it is being shared by three users, myself, >>> and two others. Our primary use of the capsule is to access the >>> internet. Access to the Time Capsule requires the password. Today I >>> noted that there is a fourth user, unkknown, who is accessing the Time >>> Capsule. I have no idea who this user is but I'm assuming that it must >>> be someone close enough to connect wirelessly. >> >> Did you verify if someone is using two devices. For example their >> computer and a mobile phone? > > The three legitamate users, me and two others, are only connecting > computers and not a mobile phone. >> >> Is the iMac both wired and wirelessly connected to the TC? > > The iMac (my computer) is connected to the Time Capsule only wirelessly. >> >> Is there a wireless printer connected? > > My HP Envy is connected both directly to my iMac and wirelessly so > others can use it. Is it possible one of those connections is the suspicious one? -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web