Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Wireless Networking IT Hardware

Government Use of WiFi Not Secure 220

Posted by samzenpus from the be-more-secure dept.
Terremoto writes "A Congressional report indicates that the use of WiFi by government agencies is being done with little regard for security. The article says, "Government Accountability Office investigators were able to pick up Wi-Fi signals from outside all of the six agencies they tested, and they were able to find examples of unauthorized activity at all six as well.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Government Use of WiFi Not Secure More

Government Use of WiFi Not Secure

Comments Filter:
  • Err, doesnt the FCC spank down anybody who does Wi-Fi access control (if it's NOT encrypted)?

    YEah, breaking an auth scheme could be grounds of breaking/entering, but when its open invite, isnt it allowed?

    You know, public airwaves and all..
    • Err, doesnt the FCC spank down anybody who does Wi-Fi access control (if it's NOT encrypted)?

      huh?

      Every corporation with any sense of security uses MAC filtering. The FCC doesn't license the 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5.x GHz bands (ISM), but they also don't enforce anyone's access. They used to restrict the kind of amplification that was allowed, but now, AFAIK, there is only a wattage limit.

      • Re:Unauthorized access? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @02:34AM (#12574959)
        MAC filtering is absolutely worthless. All I have to do is sniff, find a MAC on your network, and change my MAC to that. Easier than cracking WEP.

        Every corporation with any sense of security uses a DMZ + a VPN into the real network.
        • That doesn't get you in. Not quite.

          Once you have swapped your MAC address to match another on the network, what happens next? How does the conflict resolve between two machines with the same MAC address? Not nicely...

          To be stealthy you need to observe MAC addresses, then identify when a machine has disconnected from the network. Then you can walk up and take it's place at the table and eat its porridge - until it comes back. Then there's conflict again.


          • On a switched network, it could be a problem. Switches don't like seeing the same MAC address on two different ports. It would indicate a loop, in which case STP will shut down one of the ports. 50/50 chance of killing off the person you intended to duplicate.

            In a wireless or hubbed environment, it's a radio broadcast.. Both MAC's would receive the signal as if they were the same machine. If you **REPLY** to them, that's a different matter.

            If two machines were 192.168.1.10 with HW Addr 01:01
            • Err, not quite.

              As far as I know, STP only kills ports that STP decides are causing a loop. Seeing a MAC address on two ports just makes it think that the system has moved (think about what happens if you roam between APs) so it will direct all future packets to that MAC address to the last port it saw data come in from. So if both hosts are sending a lot of data, then the ensuing packetloss (because packets are going to the wrong place) makes it pretty miserable. If only one has a lot of traffic going, the

              • I was describing both switched and non-switched environments, where I'd make my machine identical to another (same IP and MAC).

                I just saw the error on a Cisco switch on Sunday, regarding the STP loops. Lots of fun, especially since they were coming in on an impossible port. Level3 had screwed up. I still haven't figured out how they did it. The only GigE line coming in from them was throwing the error, even after I unplugged everything else.

                I think I'm going to play with it a bit more, so I'l
        • MAC filtering is absolutely worthless. All I have to do is sniff, find a MAC on your network, and change my MAC to that. Easier than cracking WEP.

          Standing up WiFi on a federal network is a lot like herding cats ;-)

          I'm the project manager responsible for standing up WiFi access on a fair-sized Department of Defense installation. If the wireless network is configured according to DoD security technical implementation guides (STIGs) it can be fairly secure.

          You're correct that MAC filtering alone isn't

    • The FCC will spank down anyone who tries to enforce "don't broadcast your evil wifi radio waves into my airspace/apartment complex/living room". However, anyone is free to say "don't connect my wired network to wireless", assuming that the network is indeed theirs.

      This has usually come up in the context of landowners (airport operators, universities acting as landlords to "off campus" housing, etc.) trying to enforce a monopoly on wireless internet access while on their property. However, in the US the F

  • Unauthorized Activity (Score:4, Interesting)

    by flood6 ( 852877 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @02:06AM (#12574859) Homepage Journal
    ...they were able to find examples of unauthorized activity at all six as well.

    It wasn't clear in TFA either, but do they mean a little pr0n surfing/p2p going on or active hack attempts were found?

  • Of course! (Score:4, Funny)

    by mrseigen ( 518390 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @02:06AM (#12574861) Homepage Journal
    If it's insecure that provides a perfectly valid explanation for unauthorized behaviour.

    "I didn't hit porn, must have been some drive-bys on our wireless network"
  • Precious few government agencies need wireless access anyway, and those who do generally know how to handle it.

    Those who don't, have no business incorporating a technology they don't understand. But, I suppose they have to spend their budget on something, even if it has nothing to do with making their job easier.
    • Precious few government agencies need wireless access anyway, and those who do generally know how to handle it.

      Could you expand upon that comment please? Why don't government workers need laptops? They seem to make private sector high-tech workers more efficient, why shouldn't the government have access to these efficiencies? After all, government workers were the original Information Technology workers. They didn't just invent digital computers, but also made extensive use of pre-computer information te

  • If this were 2003..... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @02:14AM (#12574885)
    then there would be no huge issue. But with tools like - Airsnort [shmoo.com] for Unix, NetStumbler [netstumbler.com] for Windows and MacStumbler [macstumbler.com] for Mac, there is no excuse for this.

    I would consider it to be criminally negligent.

    It is a shame that they allow these agencies to recieve funding or for their IS / IT departments to still have jobs.

    Lets stop talking about Filibusters and start talking National Security

    • Re:If this were 2003..... (Score:5, Informative)

      by TWX ( 665546 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @02:24AM (#12574928)
      "It is a shame that they allow these agencies to recieve funding or for their IS / IT departments to still have jobs."

      I work for a large IT department for a government-based organization. The users don't call us when they get new equipment frequently unless it doesn't work. With all of these wireless devices coming 'ready to go' out of the box we don't usually find them unless we physically stumble across them or unless the DHCP server in the device is handing out address on the LAN at the site and therefore breaking connectivity for the users.

      Yes, it is technically possible to note the MAC address of a device when it comes on the network and compare it to a table of kinds of equipment, but there are 11 field technicians, four network engineers, and two cable/infrastructure technicians for 25,000 machines. We don't get the funding for supplies, equipment, or manpower that we need, we don't get support from higher-ups in the organization, and we are left being reactionary. Even worse yet, some of the agency-level higherups are all about 'new technology' without giving us the resources to thoroughly investigate it and how it will impact our network, and half of the time they don't even figure out why the users need such technology for before allowing them to order it.

      We have machines running from average as low as Windows 95 (though I do still encounter Windows for Workgroups 3.11 in rare cases) and MacOS 7.5.3. Most days I'm astounded that things work as well as they do, let alone at all.

      • Thin client (Score:4, Informative)

        by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @04:54AM (#12575433)
        Seriously!

        I don't suppose you really have any control left but when things are getting that bad it's your only sane option. (It's the only sane option when you're getting to 100+ clients anyway). Allowing users to design your IT infrastructure is pure madness, entropy inevitably turns your network to mush.

        Even Windows Terminal Server expensive as it is, is better than 25,000 desktops. We use LTSP and an array of Linux and Sun servers[1] tied together with Sun Grid Engine[2] to provide what the users think of as a single system, "The Grid". It was a remarkably easy sale to management, but we were coming from a largely Unix environment. It's a bit more difficult with Windows, the array smallish servers approach is is far more expensive to implement than Linux.

        [1] many of them ex workstations and desktops.

        [2] Though Condor looks like a good option.

        • Unfortunately there aren't linux advocates with truckloads of money to convince the PHBs to give free a chance. If it doesn't get sold to the higher ups on the back 9 with promises of kickbacks it probably won't be sold.

          On top of which gov't agencies require things like Access and hell some even require *gasp* Dos to run their interdepartmental reporting applications. Possible to run in a TS environment, but not quite a cakewalk to manage the tens (hundreds?) of such applications 25,000 users would requi
          • "not quite a cakewalk to manage the tens (hundreds?) of such applications 25,000 users would require."

            Or think they do. It's all about control, either you have it or you don't. With desktops the amount of effort you have to put in to manage and maintain control increases directly in proportion with the numbers of machines, even with management tools like SMS. By the time you get to 25,000 you need a staff of hundreds or you lose control of basically everything as chaos sets in. You have lost control and ar
      • hate to be you.

        the place where I work has gone to a simple policy: ALL computer-related purchases MUST go through the IT department then the accounting department. If one doesn't squash it the other usually does.

        It makes gettting random things like a wireless AP a pain in the but for the users, but for those of us in IT (who work in the same small building as accounting), it is great.

        In your case, MAC filtering and requiring all IT related purchases to be approved through your department would make lif

    • It is a shame that they allow these agencies to recieve funding or for their IS / IT departments to still have jobs.

      There's several issues here.

      First - the money tends to be tight in government IT. This leads to some impact on hardware but a much, much larger impact on personnel. Government IT shops just don't pay what they should. So you either end up with a staff of the best you could afford (but far from the best) and / or a select few dedicated, really good people who are vastly over-worked.

      Se

  • This problem is a lot more common (Score:5, Informative)

    by PalmMP3 ( 840083 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @02:16AM (#12574890)
    The article mentions this problem only in regard to government agencies, but the truth is, it happens all over (in regular businesses) as well. I'm not talking about /.ers who get free broadband through their neighbors open networks; I'm talking about businesses where one employee decides to make his life a little easier by setting up his own personal mini-network - but unknowingly putting the entire company's network at risk.

    Indeed, NetStumbler's help file even suggests such a scenario as one possible use for the program:

    " Wireless LAN Auditing

    A corporate network administrator needs assurance that the wired LAN is not being exposed to unauthorized users. This can often happen when users set up their own wireless LANs for convenience. Such wireless LANs often have little or no security, which poses a risk to the entire LAN. The network administrator can use NetStumbler to detect the presence of these "rogue" wireless LANs.    "

    At least now that this story has hit the news, perhaps more people will wake up to the danger and try to secure their critical networks (as long as they leave open at least one for me to use as a wi-fi hotspot ;-)).

  • Really? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tengwar ( 600847 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMvetinari.org> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @02:16AM (#12574894)
    I'm always a bit doubtful of these surveys. Some companies run an open network, but to reach any network resources you need to set up a VPN. This avoids possible problems with air-side encryption (yes, I know there are many other solutions) and allows visitors to use the network.

    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by petecarlson ( 457202 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @04:10AM (#12575267) Homepage Journal
      Doubtfull? I have done consultations for comapnies that were having problems accessing their mail server because their computers were connecting to the company next door's APs. It seemed that both companies were using linksys access points... SSID "linksys". The whole time they had been using each others connections and neither had a clue.

      CP
    • I have considered setting up a VPN for my home net so I can forget about WEP. Use L2TP or even PPTP so the Windows machines can have a simple way to connect, Linux is handled by myself.

      However, what about the risk that a laptop may not have a decent personal firewall? It gets cracked (or runs malware in the first place), it connects over the VPN since I trusted the user the last time he visited - suddenly the malware has a route to my servers. Or theoretically a cracker could attack the client machine thro
    • I'm always a bit doubtful of these surveys.

      This sentence made me stop caring:

      GAO investigators were able to pick up Wi-Fi signals from outside all of the six agencies they tested

      In other news, your computer may be broadcasting an IP address that hackers could use to attack you.

      I mean if government agencies have fully open networks, and people can connect, get an IP (or find out enough about the netblock to make one up), and see data, sure that's bad. But then say that, don't waste time with s

  • No surprise, Sherlock... (Score:4, Funny)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @02:17AM (#12574897)
    The reason why radio frequencies keep leaking out of these government buildings is because they removed the lead paint from the walls. Now they are going to spend a few million USDs putting the lead paint back on the walls. No wonder the White House is complaining about leaks to the media.

  • Watergate (Score:3, Funny)

    by porp ( 24384 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @02:23AM (#12574925)
    Maybe in the next presidential elections concerning a power hungry, i-must-crush-my-opponent-candidate, there will be a wireless-tapping scandal that takes place in the parking lot of the Watergate hotel instead of the actual room.

    Obviously, that sets up Forrest Gump II where the Forrest character spots a couple of geeks trying to jump start their van because their surveillance equpiment drained the battery.

    porp

    • Re:Watergate (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Seigen ( 848087 )
      Its ironic that leaking of politically inconvenient information is probably one of the most effective ways to get security taken seriously, at least within one organization.

      Of course they may just label the people who intercepted the unencrypted information terrorists and use it as an excuse for why you must elect them ...

  • Are there any safe (hardware) protocols? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Phoenixhunter ( 588958 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @02:33AM (#12574956)
    It seems that just about every form of current encryption has a proof of concept on cracking it. WEP, WPA, LEAP, IPSec, etc.

    About the only solution I've seen is the airFortress product that utilizes a client that encrypts all data and decrypts it through a hardware device that interfaces with the access points. Military has been using it for a bit.

    • Re:Are there any safe (hardware) protocols? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Hi_2k ( 567317 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @02:47AM (#12575014) Journal
      There's a distinction between a theoretical crack and a real one. Theoretically, I could try every 1024 bit key against my GAIM-Encryption messages, and I would eventually find the proper key to decrypt them. It's even possible that there are simpler ways to do it. However, what matters is that it will take sufficently long that the data is no-longer so sensitive. Knowing about next months troop deployments in Iraq is of little use to terrorists in the year 2010.

    • Re:Are there any safe (hardware) protocols? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tildebeast ( 719978 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @03:04AM (#12575061)
      In the Army we use cisco aironets and Air fortress products. Mostly we use it for ptp access to remote locations. However there is software that can be installed on laptops that allows the client to connect, while out and about in the motorpool. we have tried several times to crack our own system, Each time resulting in failure. We can use a linux box and kissmet, and other nameless tools to crack into the multiple wep keys, but the Air Fortress encryption eludes us. We have not had, any unallowed access to our system in the 7 months we have been in Iraq.

  • big deal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by j1m+5n0w ( 749199 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @02:34AM (#12574964) Homepage Journal
    So, some government agencies use unsecured wireless networks, and some people might even be leeching off of them for internet access. That might or might not be a real security issue, depending on if they're using their wireless network for sensitive applications and if those applications aren't using end-to-end encryption for their applications and if their wireless networks aren't firewalled away from the rest of their network. Perhaps the actual report describes the vulnerabilities in greater detail than this article, but I don't see how the mere presence of an unsecured wireless network is necessarily something to get worked up about.
    • So, some government agencies use unsecured wireless networks, and some people might even be leeching off of them for internet access.

      It sounds to me like "some" means "every one they tested".

      That might or might not be a real security issue, depending on if they're using their wireless network for sensitive applications and if those applications aren't using end-to-end encryption for their applications and if their wireless networks aren't firewalled away from the rest of their network.

      Well sure they
    • And if i ran the IT department at a government agency, i might consider setting up a fake wireless network that's not connected to anything else just to see who might try to connect..
      Interestingly, there is a wireless network called "MI5 Network" that appears to be located in an apartment near the MI5 headquarters in london. It's just some guy's home network, but because of it's name and location people might mistake it for something else.

  • Open WIFI == Good (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xiando ( 770382 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @02:54AM (#12575030) Homepage Journal
    I know many disagree with me on this, but personally I think that open WIFI networks is a very good thing. And I encourage all Wifi administrators to Open up their networks for all! This is quite safe if you secure the private services on the networks so random people only have access to the Internet. Think of it like this: You allow a few people to use the Internet from your home in exchange of being able to use the Internet when you are other places. If everybody with a Wifi does this then we will eventually have a global free Internet available everywhere for all. Again, having a Open Wifi is no threat to you IF you simply secure the services running on the Wifi! And this is, in fact, a much better approach than having a firewall and relying on that for security...

    • Re:Open WIFI == Good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Osty ( 16825 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @03:31AM (#12575147)

      That sounds great, right up to the point where some pervert uses your open wi-fi to download child porn which is then traced back to your IP, or some l33t hax0r d00d tries to crack into military servers. And of course all of this is ignoring the fact that most ISPs specifically deny you the right to share your access this way. There are a few like Speakeasy that don't care or even encourage it, but Speakeasy's service sucks (I know, I had DSL with them for two years), and none of them legally protect you if someone using your connection doesn't something illegal or at least against their AUP.

      You could go hardcore setting up a walled garden, authentication system, and the whole nine yards, but you really don't have to. Even doing something as simple as enabling WEP on your AP is enough for the casual browser. It's certainly not 100% secure, and anybody with malicious intent could easily crack your key in minutes, but that's not the point. It's a deterrent and a source of plausible deniability. A thief could easily pick the lock on your door, but the simple act of locking your door will keep most people out (the end goal). As well, the fact that you took some measure means that you can't be held responsible when the thief who picked your lock and stole your shotgun later goes on to shoot up a school or convenience store.

      • From the parent post:

        (running an open access point) sounds great, right up to the point where some pervert uses your open wi-fi to download child porn ...

        Right now, there are a zillion anonymous proxies on wired connections. It's far more likely and convenient for J. Random Hacker to connect to one of these always-on proxies that are available from anywhere in the world than to get within 100' of your fiddly little access point.

        If you're really worried about someone within 100' of your house doing some
        • Right now, there are a zillion anonymous proxies on wired connections.

          It's actually pretty hard to _guarantee_ you are anonymous on the internet. If you use an anonymous proxy then your IP will be hidden from the end web server you are contacting, but there is *no way* to know if the anonymous proxy is keeping logs. The authorities can track your web accesses back to the proxy, and if the proxy is keeping logs then it's very easy for the authorities to get the logs through a court order and tie the web
  • One of the issues with many government organisations is that the IT is not managed by a central location. Often policies differ from location to location, state to state etc. Having a uniform policy centrally managed across the entire organisation would be a good start for many government organisations that I have come into contact with when working with a tier 1 networking vendor.

  • This is the fault of consumers and the WiFI makers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19, 2005 @04:04AM (#12575250)
    There is a wonderful solution to all of the wireless security issues:

    802.11i

    802.11i not only plus all of the holes in WEP, it also uses AES encryption to get around all of the potential problems with RC4.

    Right now, as I speak, err write, I can not buy an 802.11i complient router with AES encryption. I've looked at Netgear's site. I've looked at Linksys's site. I've looked everywhere. There was a bunch of discussion about how 802.11i was going to be the next great thing in mid-2003, then a deafening silence.

    If I want 802.11i right now, I can't get it.

    I think the fact of the matter is the your average user is not willing to pay for than $50 for a wireless router. It is, of course, possible to make AES work fine with a router of that costs, but it is going to take good deal of economics of scale in action to make a 1,000,000-transistor chip for implementing AES affordable at that price point.

    802.11i is just not a buzzword in the buzz machine that all the tech magazines use. Until it becomes a buzzword, wireless networks will continue to be insecure.

    (There is also a lot to be said for 802.11i being deployed on a wide enough scale that AES becomes ubiquitous. I would like to see special AES-specific op codes on x86 chips and have $5 co-processors available that can do AES at 100Mbps)

  • Do /.'s consider WPA "good enough"? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WoTG ( 610710 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @04:40AM (#12575382) Homepage Journal
    How secure is secure enough? From what I can see in almost every office I've been in, finding a way to steal data (not necessarily digital format) is relatively easy. So should we really expect "perfect" security from WiFi networks?

    Clearly unencrypted wireless is out, WEP too. But how about WPA? I personally feel that running VPN over WiFi would be best, but for many small businesses, the added complexity is hard to justify.

    Let me put this another way, what do /.'s use at home?

  • Secure Wireless for Government (Score:4, Informative)

    by DaemonTW ( 733739 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @05:45AM (#12575646) Homepage

    Solutions exist to implement secure WiFi, but it comes with a cost.

    Harris makes an encrypted PCMCIA 802.11b based card that has high grade encryption built in. It certainly makes the system impossible to get into, but they're far from cheap ($2k+).

    Product: SecNet11 [harris.com]

    In the end, a lot of the exploitable networks comes from either poor management, lack of information or lack of control within government areas.

  • No (Score:2, Interesting)

    by harris s newman ( 714436 )
    I have implemented wifi for several parks for a large city. We place the network on the outside of our internal network. We allow anyone to connect to the network after agreeing to a pop-up stating our acceptable use policy. Exactly how can this be conceived as insecure?

  • Army does it a bit better. (Score:3, Informative)

    by mgargett ( 114224 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @07:14AM (#12576151)
    Check out the Army's wireless BBP:
    http://www.igov.com/informationtech/contracts/BBP% 20Wireless%201_25(Final).pdf [igov.com]

    I can't link to the original because it's behind Army infrastructure, but I found a link out in the real world. It's not too bad. On Army installations, you are required to do layer 2 encryption, which is pretty good. However, the "road warriors" are not required to do layer 2 on the road. Layer 2 is not an easy thing, as we are finding...
  • I don't know if I want to trust a part of my retirement to a group of folks that can't set up even the most basic Wifi security. I am sure they even overpaid for the access point...
  • does a great job with WiFi reception from a km away.

    It's radio. It's not held back by windows. The 'good stuff' happens in the 'big guys' office. His office is high in the building with the nice view. The view goes both ways. The new Athlon 64 box is damn fast!

    Now all I need is some surplus 'camo' paint.
  • You're already using Windows, aren't you accepting a certain level of insecurity anyway?

  • News at 11 (Score:3, Funny)

    by spikedvodka ( 188722 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @08:23AM (#12576651)
    WiFi is insecure when used improperly

    and in other news

    The government is still a bloated inefficient model of stupidity

    Water is still wet

    and

    New study proves that Fish's skin is wet

  • Not surprised. WiFi's too effin' complicated. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crovira ( 10242 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:08AM (#12576923) Homepage
    For what it does, displacing/replacing the cost and aesthetics of cat5 cable, wireless does a very bad job of it.

    Quite apart from the security aspect, which was handled by slapping WEP on it, its a mess.

    It can and does work with extremely simple networks (one transmitters, many receivers,) but it is absolutely terrible at topologies with repeators.

    Apple's Airport and 'Bonjour' (previously called 'RendezVous') is one of the worst at letting you build network topologies.

    I have scrapped my AirPort base and a couple of 'pucks' because I, a friend AND a network guy I paid for were unable to set up my network.

    I am now running a network of Macs and Windows PC on a single LinkSys wireless router because I'd had one since moving to my new place and NOT laying down some cable.

    It was simple, secure (WEP & destination addresses so only a few IP addresses are actually exposed and port filtering,) and easy to install.

    As for AirPort, Apple's vaunted skills at GUI utterly failed them this time. Its a dogs breakfast of confusing and seemingly contradictory options, 'build' directions and concepts which just don't friggin work.

    I'm out $300 bucks on the Airort equipment but two guys and myself are much wiser when it come to wireless. Friends don't let friends buy Airport.

    Nice try Apple, but building networks should not be magic where you're never sure if doing one thing just undid another.

    Your current GUI approach is totally inadequate, TOTALLY.

  • Not the FDA though (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BitterAndDrunk ( 799378 ) on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:11AM (#12576946) Homepage Journal
    The FDA IT department is actually pretty good. They've disallowed all wireless routers, and actually patrol the halls of the Fisher Lane building (the main HQ for the FDA, located in Rockville, MD) sniffing for illegal wireless routers to shut down.

    If they can ever get away from the "use two consulting firms in an adversarial role" implementation model, they might see some benefits to their IT advances.

  • It's available. Companies should look into it. Paint all exterior walls with it and it could help with the issue.

  • Link to the actual report. (Score:3, Informative)

    by jeblucas ( 560748 ) <jeblucas@@@gmail...com> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @09:24AM (#12577102) Homepage Journal
    This might be "US citizen's-only" technically, but the report itself is available on the web here [gao.gov]. It's a 1.5MB PDF. You can also request a free printed copy of this or any GAO report here [gao.gov]. (This report is GAO-05-383.)

  • Not at NASA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by alispguru ( 72689 ) <bob@bane.me@com> on Thursday May 19, 2005 @11:16AM (#12578595) Journal
    At least, not at Goddard where I work. NASA used to be an easy target for crackers, but we've tightened up a lot since those days. Network security around here wardrives the grounds, and people with guns (!) will show up if they detect an unauthorized access point.
  • At one agency, 90 laptop computers were configured to search for a wireless connection while they were plugged in to a wireless network -- an easy way in for snoops and hackers.

    Well no wonder the wireless security is a flop! If they can plug in they need wired security. Some people, sheesh..

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Close