Critique on Wireless Hotspots: Petri Dishes Of Wireless Security by Bruce Potter - Essay Example

No, but ultimately it is limited to the resources and commonsense of the user involved to maintain security protocols. The author suggests that we completely abandon the use of these hotspots, such as in cafes, close our laptops or shut down or tablets and just enjoy the coffee. This writer feels that the horse is already out of the barn on that issue since wireless hotspots are one of the main attractions now drawing in people to stay for a longer period of time and eat or drink more product of that particular establishment proffering that tempting wireless connection to the internet.

Potter begins by describing a typical corporate network to let the reader know just how complex true security protocols must be in order to maintain an absolutely secure network. One of the biggest issues here is that a corporate network takes on the responsibility of that security and so is a single point of access that all other users must adhere to. In this case, as far as security goes, big Brother is a good thing to have. The opposite is usually true at a typical Wi-Fi hotspot where someone has plugged in a wireless router, and hundreds of users with various computers, etc.

have access to it from the front end by a simple password (if that). On the corporate level, while the use of 802.11x and WEP (Wired Equivalent Privacy) is in place, it is usually accompanied by bidirectional certificate-based authentication which identifies both clients to each other. The certificate is located both at the access point and on the client trying to gain access, allowing for a higher level of authentication and protection. Typical hotspots do not know and could care less who or what is accessing their network, and therein lies the greatest issue, according to Potter.

This lack of bidirectional authentication poses the very large and real risk of a hacker, acting friendly to gain access, can then use the wireless network to gain access to other clients accessing it. This certificate level access is nearly impossible to use at a hotspot since the accessing client’s would have to have the keying certificate in order to enter the wireless network. This solution is impractical for most individuals and small business. However, the author does not some exceptions.

“For Example, T-Mobile provides access for a fee to Wi-Fi users in Starbucks coffee shops throughout the U.S. T-Mobile has its own authentication and security infrastructure, as well as its own way of assembling network.” (Potter, 2006, p. 53) Unfortunately, this is an example of one large corporation assisting another large corporation, for a fee. Again, impractical on smaller levels. The fee imposed, though usually modest, is often met with opposition as well. This is only human nature, even though the fee may reduce the risk of a security intrusion.

According to the author, this leaves only one option: “Users of wireless hotspots are ultimately responsible for their own security.” (Potter, 2006, p. 54) By and large this wirter would agree that this is true. While providers of hotspots are rather limited as to what they can offer for free at their sites regarding access to the internet, the user must have not only adequate safeguards in place installed on their device to help prevent