Talk:Wireless Wide Area Network
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Security
I removed this line: "The biggest strength of WWAN's is security. These networks incorporate sophisticated encryption and authentication methods, making them faster and more secure."
Security should not be listed as the "biggest strength" of WWANs. They're not necessarily any more secure than other wireless technologies from what I've gathered. In fact, they may be less secure than other forms of encrypted communications because of goverment interference (i.e. NSA tapping AT&T/Cingular without warrant)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xephael (talk • contribs) 2006-02-28T14:00:39 (UTC)
- I added the paragraph back in, the referenced material here [1] supports the statement. Admittedly, it is a white paper from the industry, so if you can find contradictory evidence then we can readdress the issue. Have a great day! --Elipongo 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just my 2 cents, but although WWAN protects against near attackers (compared to Wifi where someone seating across the street can try to hack into your comp), they're less secure by connecting you directly to the internet and not hiding you behind some NAT as most WiFi networks do, thus not protecting you against remote attacks, which, to my knowledge, are far more numerous and effective than attacks on WiFi nets. Also, Xephael point should be taken care of with caution. While I agree with him, you must not forget that, depending on what you do, even if anonymous on a free Wifi net, some actions can ruin that anonymity, like reading your mail on a private server, or accessing a forum with the same username as usual... But I guess anonymity is a completly different problem than what most people are concerned about: not getting viruses. In that case WWAN is no substitute for a decent software firewall Bibi-pov 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- My statement still holds true and I've included a reference proving encryption on WWLANs and Cellular networks is faulty. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1997/03/2676 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xephael (talk • contribs) 22:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just my 2 cents, but although WWAN protects against near attackers (compared to Wifi where someone seating across the street can try to hack into your comp), they're less secure by connecting you directly to the internet and not hiding you behind some NAT as most WiFi networks do, thus not protecting you against remote attacks, which, to my knowledge, are far more numerous and effective than attacks on WiFi nets. Also, Xephael point should be taken care of with caution. While I agree with him, you must not forget that, depending on what you do, even if anonymous on a free Wifi net, some actions can ruin that anonymity, like reading your mail on a private server, or accessing a forum with the same username as usual... But I guess anonymity is a completly different problem than what most people are concerned about: not getting viruses. In that case WWAN is no substitute for a decent software firewall Bibi-pov 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WWAN examples, anyone?
Cheers 212.143.17.66
