THE primary rule remains: "If they want in bad enough, they will. The trick is to make it hard enough that they go after your neighbor instead." ... That's sort of a take off on the joke that you don't have to outrun the bear, just your friend.
Too often it seems we think we can rely on having big locks (aka "13 character passwords") on things. But, often better is:
1) Security through obscurity 2) Immediate notification (such as when a sign on is attempted or a new device connected or especially if there is an invalid attempt.)
For myself, I keep MAC authorization enabled so that, if I don't know your MAC address, you aren't getting in.
This is why I laugh every time I see someone from this forum talk with such confidence over something they think they know, when in reality they don’t...such as how trivial it is to spoof a MAC address.
OK, you can rely on your 13 character password. Feel safe my friend. But, actual security professionals know not to rely on a single barrier and put multiple layers into place.
That 13 character password is a better deterrent than the gimmicky “security” features in modern routers.
THE primary rule remains: "If they want in bad enough, they will. The trick is to make it hard enough that they go after your neighbor instead." ... That's sort of a take off on the joke that you don't have to outrun the bear, just your friend.
Too often it seems we think we can rely on having big locks (aka "13 character passwords") on things. But, often better is:
1) Security through obscurity 2) Immediate notification (such as when a sign on is attempted or a new device connected or especially if there is an invalid attempt.)
For myself, I keep MAC authorization enabled so that, if I don't know your MAC address, you aren't getting in.
I appreciate your vigilance, but you should know that it's trivial to locate a valid MAC address as they are sent with each and every packet, and they are easily spoofable since they are a virtual representation of the BiA (burn-in address). It's effectively just a speedbump for any would be attacker, and one so small that they don't even have to slow down.
To WPA2's credit, this protocol has been going strong since its release in the mid-aughts, and without a successor that greatly increases protection it looks like it'll be used for many years to come.
As I said, there are no bullet proof security schemes. If they want in bad enough, they will get in. The trick is to make it hard enough that they go elsewhere for easier pickings. Finding and spoofing a valid Mac address can be done, but it would be easier, quicker and cheaper to go pick on somebody else.
Do as you wish but this causes more work for you and is no real additional hurdle for anyone who may want to access your network or traffic. It's like having to choose to between carrying a backpack that is 10 kilos and one that is 10.01 kilos. Sure, one is technically heavier than the other, but you wouldn't waste a moment worrying about that extra weight because it's a non-issue. If they have to choose between to you or a neighbor with WPA2 then you locking your network down with a MAC address will not be a deterrent. If you want to keep your network secure just use WPA2-PSK (AES) and be done with it.
PS: If you're on any public network or one you can't completely trust then use a VPN service. You may also want to use a DNS that isn't supplied by your ISP.
No, I disagree with your analogy. Because it CAN be done doesn't make easy or quick to do. And, in this case, they are no more likely to want to hack my WiFi as any of the hundreds of houses around me. So, they are most likely to go elsewhere rather than spend the extra time and effort to figure out what is blocking them, how to get around it and then do all the work to do it. They are much more likely to simply to just go next door.
Don't conflate your inability to do something with its level of difficulty. Anyone who is able to grab your network packets in an attempt to try to break your wireless encryption will be able to adjust their MAC accordingly. In fact, this is already done specifically so that their BiA as a default MAC isn't logged by systems they are hacking.
Note: That's for a manual change which is more effort but still ridilcously easy.
Work smarter, not harder. Security works when you protect yourself through reasonable actions, not when you make life difficult for yourself without affecting a would-be attacker.
I'm not conflating anything.... MAC authorization lies on top of any other security I have, not instead of. And, as I have said, if they want in, they will get in. But unless you have something they know that they want, thieves will generally pick the easiest target. So, that would be one without MAC authorization. And, MAC authorization does not make anything difficult for me -- I only need to update it when I purchase a new device and that is just a couple of clicks.
You should also keep your SSID hidden because then they'll never know your network exists. /s
I have thought of that. Even tried it. It was too much a pain in the neck to deal with. But, that was a few years back. Things may have improved since then.
Why would anyone put all their security eggs in a single basket? Layers make sense. And, to criticize anyone of those those layers as inadequate in and of itself, makes no sense because NO single layer is adequate in and of itself. So, that leaves layers.
Apparently my sarcasm was too subtle. Hiding your network name doesn’t mean you’re hidden. Wardrivers see hidden and unhidden networks with the same ease. There is even a built-in macOS diagnostic app that will show hidden networks. That means it’s not a layer of security. You’re only hiding it from people that would never be a threat.
Ok, so then, apparently (if I follow your illogical logic) since there is no completely fail safe WiFi security available, "That means [there is no] security" and, by extension, we shouldn't even bother.
That's fine. you can leave your WiFI wide open since there are no fool proof security systems available. I'll do what I can to keep mine as safe as possible.
You were given info about your pointless time wasting with non-secure actions and took from that that WPA2, a secure DNS, or VPN shouldn’t be used? Well done¡
THE primary rule remains: "If they want in bad enough, they will. The trick is to make it hard enough that they go after your neighbor instead." ... That's sort of a take off on the joke that you don't have to outrun the bear, just your friend.
Too often it seems we think we can rely on having big locks (aka "13 character passwords") on things. But, often better is:
1) Security through obscurity 2) Immediate notification (such as when a sign on is attempted or a new device connected or especially if there is an invalid attempt.)
For myself, I keep MAC authorization enabled so that, if I don't know your MAC address, you aren't getting in.
I appreciate your vigilance, but you should know that it's trivial to locate a valid MAC address as they are sent with each and every packet, and they are easily spoofable since they are a virtual representation of the BiA (burn-in address). It's effectively just a speedbump for any would be attacker, and one so small that they don't even have to slow down.
To WPA2's credit, this protocol has been going strong since its release in the mid-aughts, and without a successor that greatly increases protection it looks like it'll be used for many years to come.
As I said, there are no bullet proof security schemes. If they want in bad enough, they will get in. The trick is to make it hard enough that they go elsewhere for easier pickings. Finding and spoofing a valid Mac address can be done, but it would be easier, quicker and cheaper to go pick on somebody else.
Do as you wish but this causes more work for you and is no real additional hurdle for anyone who may want to access your network or traffic. It's like having to choose to between carrying a backpack that is 10 kilos and one that is 10.01 kilos. Sure, one is technically heavier than the other, but you wouldn't waste a moment worrying about that extra weight because it's a non-issue. If they have to choose between to you or a neighbor with WPA2 then you locking your network down with a MAC address will not be a deterrent. If you want to keep your network secure just use WPA2-PSK (AES) and be done with it.
PS: If you're on any public network or one you can't completely trust then use a VPN service. You may also want to use a DNS that isn't supplied by your ISP.
No, I disagree with your analogy. Because it CAN be done doesn't make easy or quick to do. And, in this case, they are no more likely to want to hack my WiFi as any of the hundreds of houses around me. So, they are most likely to go elsewhere rather than spend the extra time and effort to figure out what is blocking them, how to get around it and then do all the work to do it. They are much more likely to simply to just go next door.
Don't conflate your inability to do something with its level of difficulty. Anyone who is able to grab your network packets in an attempt to try to break your wireless encryption will be able to adjust their MAC accordingly. In fact, this is already done specifically so that their BiA as a default MAC isn't logged by systems they are hacking.
Note: That's for a manual change which is more effort but still ridilcously easy.
Work smarter, not harder. Security works when you protect yourself through reasonable actions, not when you make life difficult for yourself without affecting a would-be attacker.
I'm not conflating anything.... MAC authorization lies on top of any other security I have, not instead of. And, as I have said, if they want in, they will get in. But unless you have something they know that they want, thieves will generally pick the easiest target. So, that would be one without MAC authorization. And, MAC authorization does not make anything difficult for me -- I only need to update it when I purchase a new device and that is just a couple of clicks.
You should also keep your SSID hidden because then they'll never know your network exists. /s
I have thought of that. Even tried it. It was too much a pain in the neck to deal with. But, that was a few years back. Things may have improved since then.
Why would anyone put all their security eggs in a single basket? Layers make sense. And, to criticize anyone of those those layers as inadequate in and of itself, makes no sense because NO single layer is adequate in and of itself. So, that leaves layers.
Apparently my sarcasm was too subtle. Hiding your network name doesn’t mean you’re hidden. Wardrivers see hidden and unhidden networks with the same ease. There is even a built-in macOS diagnostic app that will show hidden networks. That means it’s not a layer of security. You’re only hiding it from people that would never be a threat.
Ok, so then, apparently (if I follow your illogical logic) since there is no completely fail safe WiFi security available, "That means [there is no] security" and, by extension, we shouldn't even bother.
That's fine. you can leave your WiFI wide open since there are no fool proof security systems available. I'll do what I can to keep mine as safe as possible.
You were given info about your pointless time wasting with non-secure actions and took from that that WPA2, a secure DNS, or VPN shouldn’t be used? Well done¡
No, not at all... I never said or implied that WPA2, VPN or other security mechanisms should not be used. Instead quite the opposite: I said repeatedly that I use MAC authorization in a multilevel security scheme. That it's ONE part of the security, not the only part. Further, I said repeatedly that multi-level security schemes are better than any one single of those layers by itself.
Sorry if you either didn't read those statements or ignored them.
THE primary rule remains: "If they want in bad enough, they will. The trick is to make it hard enough that they go after your neighbor instead." ... That's sort of a take off on the joke that you don't have to outrun the bear, just your friend.
Too often it seems we think we can rely on having big locks (aka "13 character passwords") on things. But, often better is:
1) Security through obscurity 2) Immediate notification (such as when a sign on is attempted or a new device connected or especially if there is an invalid attempt.)
For myself, I keep MAC authorization enabled so that, if I don't know your MAC address, you aren't getting in.
I appreciate your vigilance, but you should know that it's trivial to locate a valid MAC address as they are sent with each and every packet, and they are easily spoofable since they are a virtual representation of the BiA (burn-in address). It's effectively just a speedbump for any would be attacker, and one so small that they don't even have to slow down.
To WPA2's credit, this protocol has been going strong since its release in the mid-aughts, and without a successor that greatly increases protection it looks like it'll be used for many years to come.
As I said, there are no bullet proof security schemes. If they want in bad enough, they will get in. The trick is to make it hard enough that they go elsewhere for easier pickings. Finding and spoofing a valid Mac address can be done, but it would be easier, quicker and cheaper to go pick on somebody else.
Do as you wish but this causes more work for you and is no real additional hurdle for anyone who may want to access your network or traffic. It's like having to choose to between carrying a backpack that is 10 kilos and one that is 10.01 kilos. Sure, one is technically heavier than the other, but you wouldn't waste a moment worrying about that extra weight because it's a non-issue. If they have to choose between to you or a neighbor with WPA2 then you locking your network down with a MAC address will not be a deterrent. If you want to keep your network secure just use WPA2-PSK (AES) and be done with it.
PS: If you're on any public network or one you can't completely trust then use a VPN service. You may also want to use a DNS that isn't supplied by your ISP.
No, I disagree with your analogy. Because it CAN be done doesn't make easy or quick to do. And, in this case, they are no more likely to want to hack my WiFi as any of the hundreds of houses around me. So, they are most likely to go elsewhere rather than spend the extra time and effort to figure out what is blocking them, how to get around it and then do all the work to do it. They are much more likely to simply to just go next door.
Don't conflate your inability to do something with its level of difficulty. Anyone who is able to grab your network packets in an attempt to try to break your wireless encryption will be able to adjust their MAC accordingly. In fact, this is already done specifically so that their BiA as a default MAC isn't logged by systems they are hacking.
Note: That's for a manual change which is more effort but still ridilcously easy.
Work smarter, not harder. Security works when you protect yourself through reasonable actions, not when you make life difficult for yourself without affecting a would-be attacker.
I'm not conflating anything.... MAC authorization lies on top of any other security I have, not instead of. And, as I have said, if they want in, they will get in. But unless you have something they know that they want, thieves will generally pick the easiest target. So, that would be one without MAC authorization. And, MAC authorization does not make anything difficult for me -- I only need to update it when I purchase a new device and that is just a couple of clicks.
You should also keep your SSID hidden because then they'll never know your network exists. /s
I have thought of that. Even tried it. It was too much a pain in the neck to deal with. But, that was a few years back. Things may have improved since then.
Why would anyone put all their security eggs in a single basket? Layers make sense. And, to criticize anyone of those those layers as inadequate in and of itself, makes no sense because NO single layer is adequate in and of itself. So, that leaves layers.
Apparently my sarcasm was too subtle. Hiding your network name doesn’t mean you’re hidden. Wardrivers see hidden and unhidden networks with the same ease. There is even a built-in macOS diagnostic app that will show hidden networks. That means it’s not a layer of security. You’re only hiding it from people that would never be a threat.
Ok, so then, apparently (if I follow your illogical logic) since there is no completely fail safe WiFi security available, "That means [there is no] security" and, by extension, we shouldn't even bother.
That's fine. you can leave your WiFI wide open since there are no fool proof security systems available. I'll do what I can to keep mine as safe as possible.
You were given info about your pointless time wasting with non-secure actions and took from that that WPA2, a secure DNS, or VPN shouldn’t be used? Well done¡
No, not at all... I never said or implied that WPA2, VPN or other security mechanisms should not be used. Instead quite the opposite: I said repeatedly that I use MAC authorization in a multilevel security scheme. That it's ONE part of the security, not the only part. Further, I said repeatedly that multi-level security schemes are better than any one single of those layers by itself.
Sorry if you either didn't read those statements or ignored them.
You somehow read, “that means there is no security" from pointing out that what you incorrectly call a “security layer” solely because it’s more work for you without any consideration for actual security measures that you can use. I bet you believe that if your P4SSW0RD substitutes some vowels for numbers it’s secure because it’s harder for you to type. But you do you, which explains why you're a cantankerous old coot hates technology more than he embraces it and fears change. Work smarter, not harder.
THE primary rule remains: "If they want in bad enough, they will. The trick is to make it hard enough that they go after your neighbor instead." ... That's sort of a take off on the joke that you don't have to outrun the bear, just your friend.
Too often it seems we think we can rely on having big locks (aka "13 character passwords") on things. But, often better is:
1) Security through obscurity 2) Immediate notification (such as when a sign on is attempted or a new device connected or especially if there is an invalid attempt.)
For myself, I keep MAC authorization enabled so that, if I don't know your MAC address, you aren't getting in.
I appreciate your vigilance, but you should know that it's trivial to locate a valid MAC address as they are sent with each and every packet, and they are easily spoofable since they are a virtual representation of the BiA (burn-in address). It's effectively just a speedbump for any would be attacker, and one so small that they don't even have to slow down.
To WPA2's credit, this protocol has been going strong since its release in the mid-aughts, and without a successor that greatly increases protection it looks like it'll be used for many years to come.
As I said, there are no bullet proof security schemes. If they want in bad enough, they will get in. The trick is to make it hard enough that they go elsewhere for easier pickings. Finding and spoofing a valid Mac address can be done, but it would be easier, quicker and cheaper to go pick on somebody else.
Do as you wish but this causes more work for you and is no real additional hurdle for anyone who may want to access your network or traffic. It's like having to choose to between carrying a backpack that is 10 kilos and one that is 10.01 kilos. Sure, one is technically heavier than the other, but you wouldn't waste a moment worrying about that extra weight because it's a non-issue. If they have to choose between to you or a neighbor with WPA2 then you locking your network down with a MAC address will not be a deterrent. If you want to keep your network secure just use WPA2-PSK (AES) and be done with it.
PS: If you're on any public network or one you can't completely trust then use a VPN service. You may also want to use a DNS that isn't supplied by your ISP.
No, I disagree with your analogy. Because it CAN be done doesn't make easy or quick to do. And, in this case, they are no more likely to want to hack my WiFi as any of the hundreds of houses around me. So, they are most likely to go elsewhere rather than spend the extra time and effort to figure out what is blocking them, how to get around it and then do all the work to do it. They are much more likely to simply to just go next door.
Don't conflate your inability to do something with its level of difficulty. Anyone who is able to grab your network packets in an attempt to try to break your wireless encryption will be able to adjust their MAC accordingly. In fact, this is already done specifically so that their BiA as a default MAC isn't logged by systems they are hacking.
Note: That's for a manual change which is more effort but still ridilcously easy.
Work smarter, not harder. Security works when you protect yourself through reasonable actions, not when you make life difficult for yourself without affecting a would-be attacker.
I'm not conflating anything.... MAC authorization lies on top of any other security I have, not instead of. And, as I have said, if they want in, they will get in. But unless you have something they know that they want, thieves will generally pick the easiest target. So, that would be one without MAC authorization. And, MAC authorization does not make anything difficult for me -- I only need to update it when I purchase a new device and that is just a couple of clicks.
You should also keep your SSID hidden because then they'll never know your network exists. /s
I have thought of that. Even tried it. It was too much a pain in the neck to deal with. But, that was a few years back. Things may have improved since then.
Why would anyone put all their security eggs in a single basket? Layers make sense. And, to criticize anyone of those those layers as inadequate in and of itself, makes no sense because NO single layer is adequate in and of itself. So, that leaves layers.
Apparently my sarcasm was too subtle. Hiding your network name doesn’t mean you’re hidden. Wardrivers see hidden and unhidden networks with the same ease. There is even a built-in macOS diagnostic app that will show hidden networks. That means it’s not a layer of security. You’re only hiding it from people that would never be a threat.
Ok, so then, apparently (if I follow your illogical logic) since there is no completely fail safe WiFi security available, "That means [there is no] security" and, by extension, we shouldn't even bother.
That's fine. you can leave your WiFI wide open since there are no fool proof security systems available. I'll do what I can to keep mine as safe as possible.
You were given info about your pointless time wasting with non-secure actions and took from that that WPA2, a secure DNS, or VPN shouldn’t be used? Well done¡
No, not at all... I never said or implied that WPA2, VPN or other security mechanisms should not be used. Instead quite the opposite: I said repeatedly that I use MAC authorization in a multilevel security scheme. That it's ONE part of the security, not the only part. Further, I said repeatedly that multi-level security schemes are better than any one single of those layers by itself.
Sorry if you either didn't read those statements or ignored them.
You somehow read, “that means there is no security" from pointing out that what you incorrectly call a “security layer” solely because it’s more work for you without any consideration for actual security measures that you can use. I bet you believe that if your P4SSW0RD substitutes some vowels for numbers it’s secure because it’s harder for you to type. But you do you, which explains why you're a cantankerous old coot hates technology more than he embraces it and fears change. Work smarter, not harder.
ROFL...
... says one who has not yet mastered reading 101.
Comments
Sorry if you either didn't read those statements or ignored them.