> I can see for a big business with many computers this would be too time
> consuming, but for home or small office wouldnt a MAC filter be the
> MOST secure and have the LEAST latency associated with it?? Why isnt
> this option ever mentioned?

If you want to gain access to a network that's using only MAC filtering
here's all you need to do:

Listen to the airwaves
Watch for packets destined to the access point in question.
Make note of the MAC address of the machine that's sending those packets.
Set your machine to use that same MAC address

Do this preferrably when that other machine isn't present or active. Voila,
you're in! Since the router is only looking at the MAC address, it'll let
you connect.

If you use it while that other machine is present you'll cause errors on
both ends. So for a network that's got down time when the other MAC
addresses aren't around it's of NO SECURITY WHATSOEVER. And even when they
are around it's a hit-and-miss way to grab "some" access, causing all manner
of confusion to the innocent owner of that MAC address is the meanwhile.

WEP is "less worse" in that will keep all but the most casual of hackers
out. But anyone with even a trifling bit of knowledge can easily break into
any WEP network. WPA is, at this point in time, the only decently secure
method to use.

So no, MAC address filtering is of little or no value and WEP only trivially
more secure. I suppose you could couple MAC filtering along with WPA and it
might be "a bit" more secure but that just adds a configuration hassle.

-Bill Kearney