Talk:Air gap (networking)

message: I read:
In Internet Protocol networking, an air gap specifically refers to a physical separation of two devices or networks. It is most recognizable in the time-honored configuration known as "sneaker-net" where the only connection between two devices or networks is via a human being providing media-switching, i.e.; floppies, CDs, USB drives, or connection/disconnection of network connections. The term derives from the fact that such networks have historically not had any physical connection to each other. However, it does apply to wireless networks; two logical networks which do not intersect, but travel over air (thus having no physical connection) are still airgapped.
So an airgap is two devices or networks where a human is required to do the communication between them. How are wireless networks airgapped? No human is required there, and all communication is easily "leaked" between two devices there. Dazjorz (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; applying "air gap" to wireless networking defeats the purpose of the term. Since the questionable assertion was unsourced, I removed it. – 74  03:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wireless

message: *I strongly agree with the proposal to merge the article with Air gap (computing). Air gap (computing) was created by me around a year ago - in error, thinking that this article didn't exist. The question is whether to call the merged article "Air gap (computing)" or "Air gap (networking)" - I propose "Air gap (networking)", as an air gap specifically means lack of outside connectivity - as a single unnetworked computer is more or less air gapped. If nobody has any objections to merge, I'll go ahead and attempt it in another couple of days. It might be messy, as I've never done such things before. Katana0182 (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal. 

message: Neither NIPR or SIPRnet networks are air gapped. They are secured through other means. The citation used for this claim does not mention anything related to government networks. Deleted the specific claim but left the general "military networks" claim intact.ExtremeSquared (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect claim 

message: I think the introduction to this article is not understandable except by people who already know what a Networking Air Gap is.
:such as via the use of dedicated cryptographic devices that can tunnel packets over untrusted networks while avoiding packet rate or size variation
What does this mean? I understand the the notion of protection via computers that are not connected to each other except via the actions of the user. Apparently this is not what is meant.
:Frequently the air gap is not completely literal
Is there any time that an "Air Gap" can be literal? If so what does that look like?
Your target audience is an educated person who lacks knowledge about the specific subject and is turning to this article in order to find out what it is. They have a general knowledge of the broader subject - in this case computers, networks and the internet. The introduction should at the very least allow that reader to determine they are looking at the correct subject and should read on. Any specialized terms should be defined, or else a link provided to other Wikipedia articles or to wiktionary. Can someone do this? Ileanadu (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In networks, air gap is a type of security where the network is secured by keeping it separate from other local networks and the Internet. While this provides security, it also limits access to the network by clients.
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/A/air_gap.html
Of course, circular explanations should be avoided - "a type of security where the network is secured." Also, can't use the same language as another source, except as a direct quote from an authoritative source, with footnote. Don't think webopedia qualifies. 
After the introduction, additional details such as the different set ups could be left to later in the article, or a follow up paragraph. Ileanadu (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need explanation adequate to the target audience 

message: A growing list of methods to defeat "Air Gaps" exist beyond abuse of removable media by Stuxnet or Tempest criteria electromagnet spectrum listening devices.  A new class known as Ultra Sonic power and data transmission devices can even penetrate Faraday Cage conditions.  Reference, http://www.gizmag.com/ultrasonic-data-and-power-transmission-through-metal/18097/.  I would like to suggest a new section discussing known defeats of "Air Gap" systems. 
Arctific (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not add this to the existing Limitations section? ~Kvng (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Defeats