<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>FAQ on Wireless Security in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r9320055</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:48:42 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:48:42 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>FAQ on Wireless Security</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,9320055</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/304237"><b>keith2468</b></A> : Nerd is 100% correct that no security standard or encryption algorithum will help if the default is for the equipment to be unsecured.<br><br>I'd also add that new security standards should require that the material enclosed with the approved device or software include relevant user education on security measures.<br><br>If there is one thing we can all learn from cracker attacks on M$ products it is that:<br><br>1.  The default configuration must be safe.<br><br>2.  Install scripts or a nag window should force or nag the user to replace default passwords with complex non-default passwords.<br><br>3.  The user should be able to reduce security from the default as necessary, but there should be a warning that security is being reduced (with a link to an explanation and suggestions on what can be done to reduce the exposure).<br><br>Definitely wired is more secure than wireless, but some installations insist on wireless and we have to provide it.<br><br>Here is the BBR FAQ on secure wireless setup:<br>&raquo;<A HREF="/faq/security">Security</A> &raquo;<A HREF="/faq/8698">How do I secure a wireless network (wireless router)?</A>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,9320055</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2004 21:19:28 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
