4 ms·

The LTE hack when it was first announced made me a little ill. http://www.zdnet.com/article/at-t-t-mobile-verizon-vulnerable-to-several-lte-flaws/ http://www.z

by ck2 11y ago

The LTE hack when it was first announced made me a little ill. http://www.zdnet.com/article/at-t-t-mobile-verizon-vulnerable-to-several-lte-flaws/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/at-t-t-mobile-verizon-vulnerabl... I always avoid wifi thinking cell data is safer but apparently not at all. Sometimes I wish phones/tablets had ethernet ports.

dogma1138 11y ago
If you are connected to an untrusted (public) network it Ethernet vs. WiFi makes very little difference.
- ck2 11y ago
  Yes but even on your own network, you can't trust wifi, unless you live in a Faraday cage.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    Really depends on the network you setup, yes the traffic can be picked over the air but if you secure the network sufficiently and only trusted devices are connected to it is trustworthy. People will not be easily breaking WPA2, if you rotate your keys, and implement other security measures such as RAPD or .x1 your threat agents change from anyone with a cellphone to very well funded and "armed" adversaries.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > ...but even on your own network, you can't trust wifi... WPA2 Enterprise uses AES for per-client session key generation, and -when you use EAP-TLS or EAP-TTLS- TLS for transportation of client credentials and assurance that both ends of the conversation are who they say they are. [0] You can make WiFi just as secure as wired Ethernet, it just takes a -surprisingly small- bit of work. :) If Windows and Mac machines supported EAP-PWD, or (even better) WFA-TLS-UNAUTH [1] even coffeeshop WiFi would be secure from passive attack. [0] When you use WiFi client and RADIUS server certs, rather than just username and password. [1] EAP offers a very large array of authentication methods. EAP-PWD authenticates with just a username and password and doesn't muck about with TLS certs. WFA-TLS-UNAUTH uses TLS, but doesn't verify the RADIUS server cert and doesn't require a client cert. Both of these schemes offer substantially less assurance than full-blown EAP-[T]TLS, but they also let you offer encrypted WiFi without hassle.
xorcist 11y ago
What's "safer" (or less safe) about different transport protocols, when you're carrying Internet traffic?
- bigiain 11y ago
  It take a somewhat more privileged network position to MITM a 4G connection from your phone than "some guy with a wifi pineapple" impersonating some wifi base station your phone already trusts. It's easy enough to set up a wifi radio which says: "You wanna connect to 'Netgear'? Or 'Starbucks Free Wifi'? Sure - I can be that for you!". At least if I'm using 4G at Starbucks you'd need to be sitting on a backbone or in front of redtube^h^h^h^h^h^h^h wikipedia.com's servers to MITM me...
bigiain 11y ago
Possibly useful factoid - an iPad with a USB->Ethernet adaptor plugged into the usb port adaptor from the camera connection kit happily detects the internet connection and negotiates a DHCP lease. (Caveat, I haven't tried this since maybe mid 2013 or so...)

by ck2 11y ago

dogma1138 11y ago

If you are connected to an untrusted (public) network it Ethernet vs. WiFi makes very little difference.

ck2 11y ago
Yes but even on your own network, you can't trust wifi, unless you live in a Faraday cage.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Really depends on the network you setup, yes the traffic can be picked over the air but if you secure the network sufficiently and only trusted devices are connected to it is trustworthy. People will not be easily breaking WPA2, if you rotate your keys, and implement other security measures such as RAPD or .x1 your threat agents change from anyone with a cellphone to very well funded and "armed" adversaries.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > ...but even on your own network, you can't trust wifi... WPA2 Enterprise uses AES for per-client session key generation, and -when you use EAP-TLS or EAP-TTLS- TLS for transportation of client credentials and assurance that both ends of the conversation are who they say they are. [0] You can make WiFi just as secure as wired Ethernet, it just takes a -surprisingly small- bit of work. :) If Windows and Mac machines supported EAP-PWD, or (even better) WFA-TLS-UNAUTH [1] even coffeeshop WiFi would be secure from passive attack. [0] When you use WiFi client and RADIUS server certs, rather than just username and password. [1] EAP offers a very large array of authentication methods. EAP-PWD authenticates with just a username and password and doesn't muck about with TLS certs. WFA-TLS-UNAUTH uses TLS, but doesn't verify the RADIUS server cert and doesn't require a client cert. Both of these schemes offer substantially less assurance than full-blown EAP-[T]TLS, but they also let you offer encrypted WiFi without hassle.

xorcist 11y ago

What's "safer" (or less safe) about different transport protocols, when you're carrying Internet traffic?

bigiain 11y ago
It take a somewhat more privileged network position to MITM a 4G connection from your phone than "some guy with a wifi pineapple" impersonating some wifi base station your phone already trusts. It's easy enough to set up a wifi radio which says: "You wanna connect to 'Netgear'? Or 'Starbucks Free Wifi'? Sure - I can be that for you!". At least if I'm using 4G at Starbucks you'd need to be sitting on a backbone or in front of redtube^h^h^h^h^h^h^h wikipedia.com's servers to MITM me...

bigiain 11y ago

Possibly useful factoid - an iPad with a USB->Ethernet adaptor plugged into the usb port adaptor from the camera connection kit happily detects the internet connection and negotiates a DHCP lease. (Caveat, I haven't tried this since maybe mid 2013 or so...)