<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/227263</link>
		<description>Comments by Marcos</description>
<item>
<title>Security News and Security Product Reviews - SC Magazine UK : WiFi is no longer a viable secure connection - SC Magazine UK</title>
<link>http://www.scmagazineuk.com/WiFi-is-no-longer-a-viable-secure-connection/article/119294/#IDComment8458503</link>
<description>Thanks Daniel.    So, what&amp;acute;s the best approach to protect wifi?  </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 06:46:58 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.scmagazineuk.com/WiFi-is-no-longer-a-viable-secure-connection/article/119294/#IDComment8458503</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Security News and Security Product Reviews - SC Magazine UK : WiFi is no longer a viable secure connection - SC Magazine UK</title>
<link>http://www.scmagazineuk.com/WiFi-is-no-longer-a-viable-secure-connection/article/119294/#IDComment8415653</link>
<description>Same doubt, with an aditional consideration: Supposing there&amp;acute;s no clients (MAC registered) searching for that WiFi, there&amp;acute;s no way to discover the MACs, right? And supposing there&amp;acute;s no SSid announcement, how can someone even detect such network? I think this network, in this scenario, is really invisible. Am I wrong?  So, the guy trying to access that net must have a 24/7 monitoring of a hipotetical network, if he can get the MACs, right.  And then, with a dubbed MAC, what&amp;acute;s next? </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:42:26 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.scmagazineuk.com/WiFi-is-no-longer-a-viable-secure-connection/article/119294/#IDComment8415653</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>