From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug 13 11:16:49 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75DE237B401
	for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net (rwcrmhc12.comcast.net [216.148.227.85])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F0BF43FAF
	for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from freebsd-chat-local@be-well.no-ip.com)
Received: from be-well.ilk.org (be-well.no-ip.com[66.30.200.37])
          by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP
          id <2003081318164701400kd4kne>; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:16:48 +0000
Received: from be-well.ilk.org (lowellg.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.200.37]
	(may be forged))
	by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7DIGkKS075653
	for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:16:46 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from freebsd-chat-local@be-well.no-ip.com)
Received: (from lowell@localhost)
	by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.9/8.12.6/Submit) id h7DIGkUj075650;
	Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:16:46 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: be-well.ilk.org: lowell set sender to
	freebsd-chat-local@be-well.ilk.org using -f
Sender: lowell@be-well.no-ip.com
To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030811133518.66226B-100000@fledge.watson.org>
	<3F37D493.9050604@potentialtech.com> <44lltyij8s.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
	<200308121910.59445.dkelly@HiWAAY.net>
From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-chat-local@be-well.no-ip.com>
Date: 13 Aug 2003 14:16:45 -0400
In-Reply-To: <200308121910.59445.dkelly@HiWAAY.net>
Message-ID: <44wudhbeya.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
Lines: 19
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-03:09.signal
X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Non technical items related to the community
	<freebsd-chat.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat>,
	<mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat>,
	<mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:16:49 -0000

David Kelly <dkelly@HiWAAY.net> writes:

> On Tuesday 12 August 2003 05:49 pm, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > WEP is sufficiently insecure that if and when I get around to using
> > wireless at home, I'll need to firewall the wireless net heavily in
> > any case.  I may just leave it without WEP for the convenience of
> > occasional visitors (as long as I don't notice strangers hopping onto
> > it much).
> 
> Has been my intent when/if I implement wireless to mandate IPsec and 
> forget about WEP.

That's more or less on the same page; it fits nicely in my comment
about needing to firewall in any case.

However, WEP and IPSec are not quite as interchangeable as David Kelly
makes them sound.  Even without access to the outside world, intruders
could make themselves a nuisance.