Hacker News
points by eloisius 3 days ago | 0 comments
But if you’re the cleaning staff at the White House do you just get on the WiFi?
[–] nomel 3 days ago
Do you believe the availability of wifi for staff/guests is somehow unreasonable? Or, is there a belief that no internet (wifi or cellular) connected devices are allowed on premises? Is them using cellular data, rather than a guest network, somehow more secure?
[–] RobotToaster 3 days ago
I'd hope the guest network is completly separate.
[–] rightnutwingjob 3 days ago
I don’t understand. Is it not?
[–] nomel 3 days ago
Maybe I'm confused.

Guest networks are configured to disallow intranet connectivity, so the "security" risk would be from the device having access to the internet, on a guest network IP. But a guest network exists for the purpose of giving untrusted devices access to the internet, without compromising the security of the intranet. My local library, the local airport, Home Depot, the movie theater, etc all have public wifi, yet nobody would claim they were directly compromised. I understand the connection could be used for receiving and sending packets over the internet, like a DDoS (which would trigger rate limits, even at Home Depot), but framing a guest network, giving an untrusted device access to the internet, as some security issue seems very odd. The isolation is the mitigation.

[–] asdff 3 days ago
The difference is the home depot does not have spies applying for custodial roles. I’d expect nonessential staff to put their phone in a box at the security check. We also live in a world where israel can remotely explode telecom devices they rig in supply chain intercepts.
[–] nomel 2 days ago
Again, why is it worse than a device with cellular access? Again, is the belief here that there are no internet connected devices on premises? We know this isn't true, from the twitter feeds of guests!