Comparing And Contrasting Wireless Security - Essay Example

Yet, as recent events have shown, this wall is at best overstated and at worst illusory altogether. Regardless, wireless security is no longer a concern for only the home and business. As wireless access points grow in popularity, there is a growing need to secure networks that are designed to be used by members of the public. As Chenoweth, Minch and Tabor (2010) point out, these networks offer little or no security for the end user, which is a completely different problem, but related in the potential consequences of misuse.

Finally, Potter (2006) believes that achieving true security at one of these public networks is impossible and that “Laptops and PDAs are so vulnerable in wireless hotspots, users would do well to turn them off” (p. 51). The views of wireless security that those authors give are separable into two different sets of categories. First, the authors either give an optimist/descriptive view or a pessimist/normative view of how end users should interact with wireless technology given security concerns.

Loo (2008) witnessed the breach in internet security at a U.S. credit card processing center (a “descriptive” view) and wrote about how users can protect themselves. On the other hand, Chenoweth, Minch and Tabor (2010) and Potter (2006) described how there is virtually no security on wireless networks (a “pessimistic” view) and that users might be better off not using them (“a normative view”). Second, the authors give either an account of private home or business wireless security or an account of public hotspot wireless security.

Once again, while Loo (2008) is writing primarily about private end users operating their own private networks, Chenoweth, Minch and Tabor (2010) and Potter (2006) are discussing networks in the context of public hotspots, as opposed to private channels. Seeing the literature in this way, one might realize that there is a certain consistency at work: from the time between 2006 and 2010, little advancements have been made in improving the wireless security for public networks. Meanwhile, private networks remain potentially unprotected, but that the weakest link in that chain is the end user, not the network itself as seems to be the case with public wireless hotspots.

From this perspective, one can begin to put into context the kind of advice or observations that each article makes. Loo (2008) opens his discussion of private network wireless security by overviewing why end users are the weakest components in a computer system’s security. He writes, “In most systems, the weakest components are the end users, particularly when they are accessing the corporation’s databases with wireless facilities at home” (p. 68). Of course, what he is suggesting here is that corporations must safeguard their information from private individuals because, although those private individuals may think their connection is secure, it may be the easiest access way that an outsider has to gain access to the sensitive information contained within a corporation’s network.

Loo (2008) dispels some of the myths above this private security, including the common belief that home computers are not attractive to hackers. However, this belief is false considering the increasingly digitized way that individuals share knowledge and communicate. Not only