Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 27th Feb 2007 16:34 UTC, submitted by Margorie Griffith
Windows WPA2, the wireless security thing, is not available on Windows XP x64, and for the 32bit version, it is not a mandatory download. "We know Microsoft is serious about security and they don't appreciate the lack of it on Windows any more than we do, but it's things like this that make people wonder. How hard would it be to label this as a recommended download via Windows Update for all x86 users - and to roll out a version with x64 support before Windows XP x64 SP2 comes out, years from now?"
Thread beginning with comment 217077
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Hype
by Dolphin on Tue 27th Feb 2007 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hype"
Member since:

"It's easy enough to download and install WPA2...."

For you, maybe. But what about those that don't know any better? Like I said in my previous comment, they expect it to just work. They did the "hard" part by picking out the hardware and installing the drivers. Isn't that enough?

On Linux, it's enough. On OS X too. But not on Windows - That's the problem.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Hype
by Noremacam on Tue 27th Feb 2007 22:58 in reply to "RE[3]: Hype"
Noremacam Member since:

For you, maybe. But what about those that don't know any better?

Those that don't know any better still broadcast their ssid as linksys, unencrypted, with the router password left at admin.

Edited 2007-02-27 22:59

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Hype
by ormandj on Tue 27th Feb 2007 23:10 in reply to "RE[4]: Hype"
ormandj Member since:

So, by your post, you are implying that it's "OK" for MS to screw around with an essential security feature, leaving it (by default) unavailable to users, simply because some users are ignorant?

Here's a clue, if WPA2 was (by default) installed on Windows machines, *maybe* the router makers would have incentive to start using something beyond WEP/WPA1. Right now, it would be suicide.

So yes, let's blame ignorant users for not setting up their routers properly, I have no arguments against that. The router makers are just as guilty about not *forcing* more secure installations at a minimum, but they do it for marketing/sales reasons, I can also understand this.

MS has *no* reason not to include WPA2 by default (unless it's buggy as heck, but that applies to just about every Windows release...) They're just making users who want to try and use better secured wireless encryption standards have to jump through hoops. It's a poor decision, and it frustrates me to no end that something as short-sighted as this would be done, *especially* with no conceivable reason as to why. If you've got one, by all means, do explain.

Reply Parent Score: 2