Firewall Wizards: Re: Hopefully not too OT

["Kevin Sheldrake" <kev () electriccat co uk>]

> > From: "Paul Melson" <psmelson () comcast net>
> > To: <jimmy () chickenhollow net>, <firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com>
> > Subject: RE: [fw-wiz] Hopefully not too OT
> > Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 17:12:59 -0400
> >
> > I fear that a jammer would give you a false sense of security.  For one,
> > they're not totally effective, especially against ad-hoc networks in  
> > close
> > proximity to each other.  Sure, they kill performance, but they don't  
> > shut
> > it down.  Secondly, they can actually assist those airsnort-ing your  
> > space
> > in collecting unique IV's should your rogue users be well-intentioned  
> > enough
> > to use WEP.  Thirdly, many jammers only operate in the 2.4GHz band - in  
> > the
> > US alone you can buy WiFi products that operate at 915MHz and 5.8GHz,  
> > to say
> > nothing of FHSS vs. DSSS.  And, perhaps more importantly, jammers are  
> > not at
> > all neighborly if your offices share space or proximity to businesses  
> > that
> > do choose to use WiFi.
> >
> > Not to say that I have a better technical solution, but if you don't  
> > want
> > *people* in or with your organization to use wireless, then you have a
> > *people* problem that requires a people solution.
> >
> > PaulM
> Jimmy:
>
> Actually, Paul Robertson, Ben, and Paul Melson hit the nail on the head.
>
> You need a written policy saying, in effect, "no wireless access to the
> company network", get the employees to sign off on it AFTER the
> layer-8/9 people approve the policy.  If anyone breaks the rules after
> that, then you have an HR problem.
While I agree that failure to adhere to the security policy is certainly  
an HR problem, we shouldn't forget that all internal security issues  
involving staff or contractors are HR problems, but it doesn't stop us  
doing something about them.
I'm sure you understand that in order to recognise the HR problem, we need  
suitable accounting and audit systems (however the sensors are  
implemented).  We also might be concerned about the exposure to risk in  
the period between detection and repair, and we might wish to do something  
to lower it ahead of the breach.
As I said, I don't think I'm stating anything new, I just thought it was  
worth stating that technical controls should be developed hand-in-hand  
with personnel and procedural controls; changing the policy alone might  
not have the desired effect and, with insufficient accounting and audit,  
we may never know.
Kev

--
Kevin Sheldrake MEng MIEE CEng CISSP
Electric Cat (Cheltenham) Ltd

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards