Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #167553 > unrolled thread

libpepflashplayer.so

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  libpepflashplayer.so Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 11:40 +0200
    Re: libpepflashplayer.so Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-05-07 18:30 +0200
      Re: libpepflashplayer.so Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2016-05-07 19:40 +0200
        Re: libpepflashplayer.so Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-05-07 20:10 +0200
          Re: libpepflashplayer.so Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 23:50 +0200
            Re: libpepflashplayer.so Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 23:50 +0200
            Re: libpepflashplayer.so Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2016-05-08 00:30 +0200
              Re: libpepflashplayer.so Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 13:50 +0200
                Re: libpepflashplayer.so Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2016-05-08 14:10 +0200
                  Re: libpepflashplayer.so Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 14:30 +0200
                    Re: libpepflashplayer.so Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2016-05-08 15:20 +0200
                    Re: libpepflashplayer.so Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2016-05-08 22:00 +0200
                      Re: libpepflashplayer.so Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2016-05-09 00:10 +0200
                        Re: libpepflashplayer.so David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-05-09 01:00 +0200
                          Re: libpepflashplayer.so Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2016-05-09 02:40 +0200
                            Re: libpepflashplayer.so Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2016-05-09 03:10 +0200
                              Re: libpepflashplayer.so Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 10:10 +0200
                                Re: libpepflashplayer.so Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2016-05-09 15:10 +0200
                            Re: libpepflashplayer.so David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-05-09 03:20 +0200
                  Re: libpepflashplayer.so Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2016-05-08 18:20 +0200
                    Re: libpepflashplayer.so Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2016-05-08 19:30 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#167553 — libpepflashplayer.so

Has anyone got the 32 bit file of libpepflashplayer.so?  If so, are you 
willing to send it to me?  Please, if you do, could you tell me which version 
it is.  Thank you.

Lisi

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#167563

On 2016-05-07, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> Has anyone got the 32 bit file of libpepflashplayer.so?  If so, are you 
> willing to send it to me?  Please, if you do, could you tell me which version 
> it is.  Thank you.
>
> Lisi
>
>
Quickly looking at this it seems that google-chrome-stable_48.0.2564.116-1_i386.deb
was the last 32 bit version, which you can find here

http://mirror.ufs.ac.za/google-chrome/deb/pool/main/g/google-chrome-stable/

and simply extract the libpepflashplayer.so file which is found in opt.

-- 
Hypertext--or should I say the ideology of hypertext?--is ultrademocratic and
so entirely in harmony with the demagogic appeals to cultural democracy that
accompany (and distract one’s attention from) the ever-tightening grip of 
plutocratic capitalism. - Susan Sontag

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167565

Curt <curty@free.fr> wrote:
> On 2016-05-07, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Has anyone got the 32 bit file of libpepflashplayer.so?  If so, are you 
>> willing to send it to me?  Please, if you do, could you tell me which version 
>> it is.  Thank you.

> Quickly looking at this it seems that google-chrome-stable_48.0.2564.116-1_i386.deb
> was the last 32 bit version, which you can find here

> http://mirror.ufs.ac.za/google-chrome/deb/pool/main/g/google-chrome-stable/

> and simply extract the libpepflashplayer.so file which is found in opt.

Which also means that since there will be no new Chrome-32bit versions,
there will also be no new 32bit Pepper Flash versions, making you more
and more vulnerable as time passes.

The correct action would be to remove everything Flash from your 32bit
system or switch to a 64bit one.

Grüße,
Sven.

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167567

On 2016-05-07, Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> wrote:
> Curt <curty@free.fr> wrote:
>> On 2016-05-07, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Has anyone got the 32 bit file of libpepflashplayer.so?  If so, are you 
>>> willing to send it to me?  Please, if you do, could you tell me which version 
>>> it is.  Thank you.
>
>> Quickly looking at this it seems that google-chrome-stable_48.0.2564.116-1_i386.deb
>> was the last 32 bit version, which you can find here
>
>> http://mirror.ufs.ac.za/google-chrome/deb/pool/main/g/google-chrome-stable/
>
>> and simply extract the libpepflashplayer.so file which is found in opt.
>
> Which also means that since there will be no new Chrome-32bit versions,
> there will also be no new 32bit Pepper Flash versions, making you more
> and more vulnerable as time passes.
>
> The correct action would be to remove everything Flash from your 32bit
> system or switch to a 64bit one.

100 percent agreement.

> Grüße,
> Sven.
>


-- 
Hypertext--or should I say the ideology of hypertext?--is ultrademocratic and
so entirely in harmony with the demagogic appeals to cultural democracy that
accompany (and distract one’s attention from) the ever-tightening grip of 
plutocratic capitalism. - Susan Sontag

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167573

On Saturday 07 May 2016 19:00:54 Curt wrote:
> On 2016-05-07, Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> wrote:
> > Curt <curty@free.fr> wrote:
> >> On 2016-05-07, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Has anyone got the 32 bit file of libpepflashplayer.so?  If so, are you
> >>> willing to send it to me?  Please, if you do, could you tell me which
> >>> version it is.  Thank you.
> >>
> >> Quickly looking at this it seems that
> >> google-chrome-stable_48.0.2564.116-1_i386.deb was the last 32 bit
> >> version, which you can find here
> >>
> >> http://mirror.ufs.ac.za/google-chrome/deb/pool/main/g/google-chrome-stab
> >>le/
> >>
> >> and simply extract the libpepflashplayer.so file which is found in opt.

Thank you.
> >
> > Which also means that since there will be no new Chrome-32bit versions,
> > there will also be no new 32bit Pepper Flash versions, making you more
> > and more vulnerable as time passes.
> >
> > The correct action would be to remove everything Flash from your 32bit
> > system or switch to a 64bit one.
>
> 100 percent agreement.

Granted - but my client won't be in a hurry to buy a new computer.  And Google 
says: "We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build configurations on 
Linux to support building Chromium."  Chromium still being available on 
Wheezy, the Debian Chromium Maintainers are presumably still supporting it, 
so it is not that much larger a risk than it was before.  Google Chrome, of 
course, will simply not get updates.

Lisi

> > Grüße,
> > Sven.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167574

On Saturday 07 May 2016 22:41:39 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> Granted - but my client won't be in a hurry to buy a new computer.  And
> Google says: "We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build
> configurations on Linux to support building Chromium."  Chromium still
> being available on Wheezy, the Debian Chromium Maintainers are presumably
> still supporting it, so it is not that much larger a risk than it was
> before.  Google Chrome, of course, will simply not get updates.

Sorry, should have given the reference:
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-dev/FoE6sL-p6oU

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167576

Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:

> Granted - but my client won't be in a hurry to buy a new computer.
> And Google says: "We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build
> configurations on Linux to support building Chromium."  Chromium still
> being available on Wheezy, the Debian Chromium Maintainers are
> presumably still supporting it, so it is not that much larger a risk
> than it was before.  Google Chrome, of course, will simply not get
> updates.

You may get an up-to-date Chromium from Debian, but you will _not_
get an up-to-date 32bit Pepperflash Plugin for it anymore.

Grüße,
Sven.

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167582

On Saturday 07 May 2016 23:25:35 Sven Hartge wrote:
> Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Granted - but my client won't be in a hurry to buy a new computer.
> > And Google says: "We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build
> > configurations on Linux to support building Chromium."  Chromium still
> > being available on Wheezy, the Debian Chromium Maintainers are
> > presumably still supporting it, so it is not that much larger a risk
> > than it was before.  Google Chrome, of course, will simply not get
> > updates.
>
> You may get an up-to-date Chromium from Debian, but you will _not_
> get an up-to-date 32bit Pepperflash Plugin for it anymore.

Not even security updates?  Quotation?  "to support building Chromium" could 
include it, when it is an intrinsic part of Google Chrome.

But anyway, it is not relevant.  Which is more insecure?  Chromium on Debian 
updated as far as I can, or Windows with an improperly managed security 
system?

Hoi polloi are not going to choose their mothers' birthday presents in order 
to be as secure as possible on Debian.  

Upgrading to Jessie wouldn't solve it because but I would still have the 32 
bit problem.

I am open to suggestions for a solution, but "never use Flash" is not 
realistic.  Even once she has done this photo album on her husband's 
computer, there will be something else some time.

She does no banking etc on her computer, and her husband does none while she 
has her computer switched on, because she accesses the router wirelessly, and 
I do not consider home wireless ever totally secure.  If it were my own 
router, the wireless would be turned off when not in use, but it is not my 
router.

This Flash is a flipping* nuisance.  The sooner it is finally laid to rest the 
better.

Lisi

* http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/flipping

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167583

Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday 07 May 2016 23:25:35 Sven Hartge wrote:
>> Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Granted - but my client won't be in a hurry to buy a new computer.
>> > And Google says: "We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build
>> > configurations on Linux to support building Chromium."  Chromium still
>> > being available on Wheezy, the Debian Chromium Maintainers are
>> > presumably still supporting it, so it is not that much larger a risk
>> > than it was before.  Google Chrome, of course, will simply not get
>> > updates.
>>
>> You may get an up-to-date Chromium from Debian, but you will _not_
>> get an up-to-date 32bit Pepperflash Plugin for it anymore.

> Not even security updates?  Quotation?  "to support building Chromium"
> could include it, when it is an intrinsic part of Google Chrome.

Pepper Flash is separate and not even distributed with sources. Flash
was also only ever a part of Chrome and not Chromium.

Google promises that you will be able to build Chromium on 32-bit
systems, but that does not include the binary-only Flash plugin.

> But anyway, it is not relevant.  Which is more insecure?  Chromium on
> Debian updated as far as I can, or Windows with an improperly managed
> security system?

There have been numerous Flash exploits which work on either operating
system. So my opinion would be "both are insecure".

> Upgrading to Jessie wouldn't solve it because but I would still have
> the 32 bit problem.

Time to do a backup and reinstall. Unless the computer is more than 10
years old, it should be able to run 64bit.

> I am open to suggestions for a solution, but "never use Flash" is not
> realistic.  Even once she has done this photo album on her husband's
> computer, there will be something else some time.

Well then, time to upgrade.

> She does no banking etc on her computer, and her husband does none while she 
> has her computer switched on, because she accesses the router wirelessly, and 
> I do not consider home wireless ever totally secure.

A long enough passphrase combined with WPA2 is virtually unhackable, as
long as you switch of WPS.

S°

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167584

On Sunday 08 May 2016 12:59:27 Sven Hartge wrote:
> Unless the computer is more than 10
> years old, it should be able to run 64bit.

It must be because it won't!  It's certainly pretty old.  I'll try again - I 
have to admit it is a while, but I am pretty sure I tried.  None-the less, 
I'll try again.  Or perhaps check the model - it is an old Dell, but the 
crucial question is what chip that model had, so which exact model.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167585

Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 08 May 2016 12:59:27 Sven Hartge wrote:

>> Unless the computer is more than 10 years old, it should be able to
>> run 64bit.

> It must be because it won't!  It's certainly pretty old.  I'll try
> again - I have to admit it is a while, but I am pretty sure I tried.
> None-the less, I'll try again.  Or perhaps check the model - it is an
> old Dell, but the crucial question is what chip that model had, so
> which exact model.

The output of /proc/cpuinfo will help. If you are able to grab the
contents and post them to this list, we will be able to answer that
question.

Grüße,
S°

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167590

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Lisi Reisz [2016-05-08 13:25:46+01] wrote:

> Or perhaps check the model - it is an old Dell, but the crucial
> question is what chip that model had, so which exact model.

For 64 bit CPUs "lscpu" command prints:

    CPU op-mode(s):        32-bit, 64-bit

-- 
/// Teemu Likonen   - .-..   <https://github.com/tlikonen> //
// PGP: 4E10 55DC 84E9 DFF6 13D7 8557 719D 69D3 2453 9450 ///

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167591

On Sun, 08 May 2016, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> Lisi Reisz [2016-05-08 13:25:46+01] wrote:
> > Or perhaps check the model - it is an old Dell, but the crucial
> > question is what chip that model had, so which exact model.
> 
> For 64 bit CPUs "lscpu" command prints:
> 
>     CPU op-mode(s):        32-bit, 64-bit

The output of "cat /proc/cpuinfo", as well as that of "dmidecode" is usually
a lot more useful for diagnostics.  The dmidecode output might have serial
numbers and UUIDs, which you should not post to the list, so feel free to
XXXXX them out beforehand.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167592

On Sun 08 May 2016 at 19:00:29 (-0300), Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2016, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> > Lisi Reisz [2016-05-08 13:25:46+01] wrote:
> > > Or perhaps check the model - it is an old Dell, but the crucial
> > > question is what chip that model had, so which exact model.
> > 
> > For 64 bit CPUs "lscpu" command prints:
> > 
> >     CPU op-mode(s):        32-bit, 64-bit
> 
> The output of "cat /proc/cpuinfo", as well as that of "dmidecode" is usually
> a lot more useful for diagnostics.  The dmidecode output might have serial
> numbers and UUIDs, which you should not post to the list, so feel free to
> XXXXX them out beforehand.

This is all rather ambiguous.

If dmidecode says:

Handle 0x0400, DMI type 4, 40 bytes
Processor Information
        Socket Designation: Microprocessor
        Type: Central Processor
        Family: Pentium M
        Manufacturer: Intel
        ID: [...]
        Signature: Type 0, Family 6, Model 15, Stepping 2
        Flags:
                FPU (Floating-point unit on-chip)
[...]
        Part Number: Not Specified
        Core Count: 2
        Core Enabled: 2
        Thread Count: 2
        Characteristics:
                64-bit capable

and the machine is only running a 32-bit Debian system and kernel,
would cpuinfo still say "CPU op-mode(s):        32-bit, 64-bit"?

Or does cpuinfo only mention "CPU op-mode(s):        32-bit, 64-bit"
when the OS actually running has those two modes available to it now?

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167594

On Sun, 08 May 2016, David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 08 May 2016 at 19:00:29 (-0300), Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 May 2016, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> > > Lisi Reisz [2016-05-08 13:25:46+01] wrote:
> > > > Or perhaps check the model - it is an old Dell, but the crucial
> > > > question is what chip that model had, so which exact model.
> > > 
> > > For 64 bit CPUs "lscpu" command prints:
> > > 
> > >     CPU op-mode(s):        32-bit, 64-bit
> > 
> > The output of "cat /proc/cpuinfo", as well as that of "dmidecode" is usually
> > a lot more useful for diagnostics.  The dmidecode output might have serial
> > numbers and UUIDs, which you should not post to the list, so feel free to
> > XXXXX them out beforehand.
> 
> This is all rather ambiguous.

If you mean the dmidecode and /proc/cpuinfo output, it is not ambiguous at
all, as long as you know why you want that info and what you will do with
it.

If you mean lscpu, it has its reasons to exist: it outputs easy-to-grasp
synthetic information.  But it lacks too much detail to be of use for
debugging.

>         Signature: Type 0, Family 6, Model 15, Stepping 2

It tells me it is a Core2 processor of some kind.  Which is 64-bit capable,
as long as the BIOS is not too oudated or outright braindamaged, which is
something else I usually get out of the output of dmidecode + google search.

I don't think anyone shipped a Core2 with that bad a BIOS, let alone Dell,
but I could be wrong about it.

The output of /proc/cpuinfo would have told me more than that, likely the
exact processor model and microcode revision at the very least.

And the full output of dmidecode would usually have told me which
motherboard and BIOS version.

> and the machine is only running a 32-bit Debian system and kernel,
> would cpuinfo still say "CPU op-mode(s):        32-bit, 64-bit"?

That's lscpu output, not the contents of the /proc/cpuinfo "special file".

> Or does cpuinfo only mention "CPU op-mode(s):        32-bit, 64-bit"
> when the OS actually running has those two modes available to it now?

*lscpu* will output that when it finds the "lm" flag (long mode, aka 64-bit
mode) in the "flags" field of /proc/cpuinfo.  So, it is about the processor
itself, not the kernel.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167596

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2016, David Wright wrote:

>>         Signature: Type 0, Family 6, Model 15, Stepping 2

> I don't think anyone shipped a Core2 with that bad a BIOS, let alone Dell,
> but I could be wrong about it.

Beware: this is David who has this CPU, not Lisi, wo has not yet
provided any further info in her CPU.

Grüße,
Sven.

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167601

On Monday 09 May 2016 02:01:28 Sven Hartge wrote:
> Beware: this is David who has this CPU, not Lisi, wo has not yet
> provided any further info in her CPU.

I have not yet gained access to the computer again, which is not mine.  I have 
confirmed (just now) that it is a Dell Inspiron 9300
http://www.cnet.com/uk/products/dell-inspiron-9300/specs/
which had an Intel Pentium M Processor 750, which was 32 bit.
http://ark.intel.com/products/27593/Intel-Pentium-M-Processor-750-2M-Cache-1_86-GHz-533-MHz-FSB

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167614

Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday 09 May 2016 02:01:28 Sven Hartge wrote:

>> Beware: this is David who has this CPU, not Lisi, wo has not yet
>> provided any further info in her CPU.

> I have not yet gained access to the computer again, which is not mine.  I have 
> confirmed (just now) that it is a Dell Inspiron 9300
> http://www.cnet.com/uk/products/dell-inspiron-9300/specs/
> which had an Intel Pentium M Processor 750, which was 32 bit.
> http://ark.intel.com/products/27593/Intel-Pentium-M-Processor-750-2M-Cache-1_86-GHz-533-MHz-FSB

If this is the case, then you are out of luck.

Concerning Flash you have then only one option left:

Flash 11.2 with Firefox, which is still supported on 32bit and Linux by
Adobe.

Unfortunately some sites want a newer Flash and won't work with that
old version. You cannot use those sites then with Firefox.

Newer and supported Flash versions for Chromium are only available for
64bit which you can't use because of the ancient CPU in that laptop.

The last 32bit version of Pepper Flash was in Chrome 48, which was
version 20.0.0.306-r2.

Chrome 50 contains Flash 21.0.0.216, so it is already a major version of
bug and security fixes ahead.

And those Flash updates are usually security flaws, most times already
being exploited in the wild.

I personally would rather live without Flash than use an old version
because of the security problems it has caused in the past.

Grüße,
Sven.


-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167597

On Sun 08 May 2016 at 21:30:51 (-0300), Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2016, David Wright wrote:
> > On Sun 08 May 2016 at 19:00:29 (-0300), Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Sun, 08 May 2016, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> > > > Lisi Reisz [2016-05-08 13:25:46+01] wrote:
> > > > > Or perhaps check the model - it is an old Dell, but the crucial
> > > > > question is what chip that model had, so which exact model.
> > > > 
> > > > For 64 bit CPUs "lscpu" command prints:
> > > > 
> > > >     CPU op-mode(s):        32-bit, 64-bit
> > > 
> > > The output of "cat /proc/cpuinfo", as well as that of "dmidecode" is usually
> > > a lot more useful for diagnostics.  The dmidecode output might have serial
> > > numbers and UUIDs, which you should not post to the list, so feel free to
> > > XXXXX them out beforehand.
> > 
> > This is all rather ambiguous.
> 
> If you mean the dmidecode and /proc/cpuinfo output, it is not ambiguous at
> all, as long as you know why you want that info and what you will do with
> it.
> 
> If you mean lscpu, it has its reasons to exist: it outputs easy-to-grasp
> synthetic information.  But it lacks too much detail to be of use for
> debugging.

You're right; my mis-recalling a command and assuming the output
belonged to the other command.

> >         Signature: Type 0, Family 6, Model 15, Stepping 2
> 
> It tells me it is a Core2 processor of some kind.  Which is 64-bit capable,
> as long as the BIOS is not too oudated or outright braindamaged, which is
> something else I usually get out of the output of dmidecode + google search.
> 
> I don't think anyone shipped a Core2 with that bad a BIOS, let alone Dell,
> but I could be wrong about it.

I shall have a go at 64-bit then.

> > and the machine is only running a 32-bit Debian system and kernel,
> > would cpuinfo still say "CPU op-mode(s):        32-bit, 64-bit"?
> 
> That's lscpu output, not the contents of the /proc/cpuinfo "special file".

Yep; sorry.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167586

On Sun, 08 May 2016, Sven Hartge wrote:
> A long enough passphrase combined with WPA2 is virtually unhackable, as
> long as you switch of WPS.

Only as long as your smartphone or any other device using that network
decides to leak the password to the cloud.

There's always ipsec, of course.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web