<html>
<body>
<font size=3>>> WEP's weaknesses are well known<br><br>
Is the security on 900mhz or 2.4gz cordless phones much better?<br><br>
98% of the things people say are SPAM anyways, pushing one thing <br>
or another. Nobody even opens their mouth, without a reason.
<br>
Don't we want people to be listening? Let 'em listen. <br>
On the other hand, we need to listen in on these guys,<br>
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Brian+L.+Roberts%22+Notebaert&num=30" eudora="autourl">http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Brian+L.+Roberts%22+Notebaert&num=30</a><br>
Strong privacy serves only the powerful. Privacy doesn't serve most
peoples' best interest.<br>
The Repubs are on Bushs' case over the NSA. Gee I wonder
why.<br><br>
Todd<br><br>
At 05:50 PM 2/24/2006, d.g.luechtefeld@mac.com wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Real world usage, Ken. Real
world. Very, very few environments will see someone bother to run
WEPCrack on a voice stream. <br><br>
>On 2/24/06, d.g.luechtefeld@mac.com <d.g.luechtefeld@mac.com>
wrote:<br>
>> WEP's weaknesses are well known but for voice applications it's
probably still provides sufficient confidentiality in most
environments.<br>
><br>
>If sufficent confidentiality is no confidentiality then yes I would
agree.</blockquote><br><br>
<br>
</font></body>
</html>