Real Cases
Re: Techworld: Wireless woes exaggerated, says study Nov 18 2005 12:37AM
Samedi (samedii gmail com)
In page 32 it
says the following:
"The issue of security vulnerabilities in Wireless devices is
significantly overrated - only 1 in nearly 20,000 critical
vulnerabilities is caused by a wireless device."

When they say that only 1 in nearly 20,000 critical vulnerabilities is
caused by a wireless device, do they include the fact that there are
*many* more wired networks than wireless and that as good as every
wireless network also has a wired network incorporated?

Unless I have misunderstood the meaning I think that this statistic is
wrongly put considering the above fact.

Richard Hermanson

Vipul Kumra wrote:

>Since this list is almost quiet I thought it is the right time to ask a
>stupid question :)
>Just wanted to know what others feel about it. By reading this article
>any novice would feel that wireless is much secure than the wired medium
>as the number of vulnerabilities are far too less.
>Does it hold true. If we talk about Wireless medium it is much more
>vulnarable to different types of attacks because of its nature.
>Correct me if I am wrong, what I believe is all the vulnerabilities
>which are mentioned in this report also holds good with respect to
>wireless, as layer 2 above everything can be exploited the same way. And
>majority of the vulnerabilities are layer 2 above.
>Vipul Kumra
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Topi Ylinen [mailto:topi.ylinen (at) hushmail (dot) com [email concealed]]
>Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 2:38 PM
>To: realcases (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]
>Subject: Techworld: Wireless woes exaggerated, says study

> Wireless woes exaggerated, says study
> By John E. Dunn, Techworld
> The number of wireless security vulnerabilities in the real world is
> vanishingly small, research from Qualys has suggested.
> That was the finding of latest annual Laws of Vulnerabilities report
> written by Qualys CTO Gerhard Eschelbeck.
> (Note that they have messed up the link to the study. The correct link
> is, obviously:
> ...without the "<BR></P><P>" at the end.)
> __
> Topi Ylinen
> Moderator, Securityfocus Real Cases Mailing List
> realcases (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]

Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no
account required

Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail

[ reply ]


Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus