wifi security tmi: part i

DarkoV left a comment on the previous post suggesting I write about wifi security in easy to understand language. I don’t know if he was joking or what, but I thought I’d give at a go anyway.

Why did I make such a decision? Certainly not because I’m an expert. I know what a WEP is and we use one here on our household wireless thingamabob… I mean, router. And that statement pretty much exhausts my knowledge of wifi security. So DarkoV’s semi-intentional challenge has provoked me to learn a bit more.

I went to wikipedia and looked at the their entry. It took about three seconds for me to go all cross-eyed. Too much information! How about a topline or abstract, people? Doesn’t anyone know how to write research articles anymore? In search of something simpler, I turned to google which led me to a c|net article. I began reading about this IT dude by the name of Ingrassia who had major wifi security concerns about his home network even though he is an expert. The article says he’s pretty sure that…

there are a lot of less-experienced people out there with no clue just how vulnerable their wireless systems may be.

Hey, that’s me! So far so good. But I had to read a lot of words before I got to this…

people can surf unsavory content from your unique, traceable Internet location–and slow your Internet performance down at the same time.

Which I already knew. It’s why I put that WEP (wired equivalent privacy or wireless encryption protocol) on my thingamabob. Tell me something I don’t know!

Eventually, the article did, but it wasn’t what I expected…

In one less-conventional approach, Force Field Wireless has begun marketing latex house paint it claims will block wireless radio waves from escaping through the walls of a home. Known as DefendAir, the paint is laced with bits of copper and aluminum that help form an electromagnetic shield around your house, Force Field said. The paint, which sells for $69 a gallon, is certified nontoxic and lead free, and comes only in one color–gray.

Well, that sure was helpful. They also talked about a couple of software and hardware security products available to consumers. But here’s what I wanted to know: how at risk are you in DarkoV’s nightmare scenario? I quote:

if I’m sitting in a cute little cafe, doing my pitiful shell game of moving money from one bank acct to another on the ‘net, how do I know someone within wifi-ing distance is not happily getting my acct codes, log-ons, etc?

My inner statistician would like to know what is the likelihood that my information will be stolen in such a situation? And how possible is it for me to actually monitor my own stream of information to see if someone else 1.) can see it, and 2.) is looking at it.

These initial forays into the morass of wifi security information served only to show that this is going to be a continuing story. Unfortunately I’ve run out of coffee, so the next installment will have to wait.

Since we’re all about user friendly here, I’ll close this first chapter of the saga with the following from the c|net article:

Jonathan Penn, an analyst at Forrester Research, feels that in requiring so much attention to be made secure, wireless networks will remain something of a hassle for consumers until more effective, easy-to-use methods of self-defense are created. He argues that consumers should not have to face the challenge of dealing with technology defaults and keeping up with industry standards.

I like the sound of that. Maybe this Jonathan Penn guy needs an email from me. More to come!