802.11b do and dont's

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Hi.
Im good in networking but new to wireles.What to look fore .What is
compatibile with what?
pcmcia cards?do all need wireles acces point?and what thay do if thay
do not have one?
Is there any standarts.Just basic to deep issues i shud know about
before i chouse the hardware.You can skip copatibility isues wit
computer it self i be able to chouse for may computer the right
stuff.More concern is wit 802.11 hardware and ech other dependence on
compatibility between thees products.

sory for mispel englis is my not seckond but last lanquage.
Shoot me email wit 802.11 in header
u4net@REMOVETHISREMOVETHISTOO.freeshell.org
16 answers Last reply
More about dont
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

    u4David wrote:
    > Hi.
    > Im good in networking but new to wireles.What to look fore .What is
    > compatibile with what?
    > pcmcia cards?do all need wireles acces point?and what thay do if thay
    > do not have one?
    > Is there any standarts.Just basic to deep issues i shud know about
    > before i chouse the hardware.You can skip copatibility isues wit
    > computer it self i be able to chouse for may computer the right
    > stuff.More concern is wit 802.11 hardware and ech other dependence on
    > compatibility between thees products.
    >
    > sory for mispel englis is my not seckond but last lanquage.
    > Shoot me email wit 802.11 in header
    > u4net@REMOVETHISREMOVETHISTOO.freeshell.org

    The quick answer is that 802.11x hardware from reputable manufacturers
    should be backward compatible. That is, 802.11g is compatible with 11a
    and 11b, etc. I have mixed and matched hardware with no problems, but
    I have seen messages where people had problems using components from
    different manufacturers. That is, a wireless PCMCIA card from one and
    a wireless router from another.

    A wireless PCMCIA card needs either a wireless access point or a
    wireless router to operate. A wireless router will cost as much as a
    wireless access point but gives more flexibility. If one is not
    present, the card just fails to connect to a network.

    Not much else to say unless you get more specific about what you want
    to do.

    Good luck, jimbo
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

    jimbo <jimbo62@spamex.com> wrote:

    >u4David wrote:
    >> Hi.
    >> Im good in networking but new to wireles.What to look fore .What is
    >> compatibile with what?
    >> pcmcia cards?do all need wireles acces point?and what thay do if thay
    >> do not have one?
    >> Is there any standarts.Just basic to deep issues i shud know about
    >> before i chouse the hardware.You can skip copatibility isues wit
    >> computer it self i be able to chouse for may computer the right
    >> stuff.More concern is wit 802.11 hardware and ech other dependence on
    >> compatibility between thees products.
    >>
    >> sory for mispel englis is my not seckond but last lanquage.
    >> Shoot me email wit 802.11 in header
    >> u4net@REMOVETHISREMOVETHISTOO.freeshell.org
    >
    >The quick answer is that 802.11x hardware from reputable manufacturers
    >should be backward compatible. That is, 802.11g is compatible with 11a
    >and 11b, etc. I have mixed and matched hardware with no problems, but
    >I have seen messages where people had problems using components from
    >different manufacturers. That is, a wireless PCMCIA card from one and
    >a wireless router from another.
    >
    >A wireless PCMCIA card needs either a wireless access point or a
    >wireless router to operate. A wireless router will cost as much as a
    >wireless access point but gives more flexibility. If one is not
    >present, the card just fails to connect to a network.
    >
    >Not much else to say unless you get more specific about what you want
    >to do.
    >
    >Good luck, jimbo

    Also be sure to turn on WEP unless you want your neighbors to be able
    to surf the web using your ISP and access your HDD's;-)

    -=tom=-
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

    Tom Orle wrote:
    > jimbo <jimbo62@spamex.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>u4David wrote:
    >>
    >>>Hi.
    >>>Im good in networking but new to wireles.What to look fore .What is
    >>>compatibile with what?
    >>>pcmcia cards?do all need wireles acces point?and what thay do if thay
    >>>do not have one?
    >>>Is there any standarts.Just basic to deep issues i shud know about
    >>>before i chouse the hardware.You can skip copatibility isues wit
    >>>computer it self i be able to chouse for may computer the right
    >>>stuff.More concern is wit 802.11 hardware and ech other dependence on
    >>>compatibility between thees products.
    >>>
    >>>sory for mispel englis is my not seckond but last lanquage.
    >>>Shoot me email wit 802.11 in header
    >>>u4net@REMOVETHISREMOVETHISTOO.freeshell.org
    >>
    >>The quick answer is that 802.11x hardware from reputable manufacturers
    >>should be backward compatible. That is, 802.11g is compatible with 11a
    >>and 11b, etc. I have mixed and matched hardware with no problems, but
    >>I have seen messages where people had problems using components from
    >>different manufacturers. That is, a wireless PCMCIA card from one and
    >>a wireless router from another.
    >>
    >>A wireless PCMCIA card needs either a wireless access point or a
    >>wireless router to operate. A wireless router will cost as much as a
    >>wireless access point but gives more flexibility. If one is not
    >>present, the card just fails to connect to a network.
    >>
    >>Not much else to say unless you get more specific about what you want
    >>to do.
    >>
    >>Good luck, jimbo
    >
    >
    > Also be sure to turn on WEP unless you want your neighbors to be able
    > to surf the web using your ISP and access your HDD's;-)
    >
    > -=tom=-

    I prefer MAC address filters. Almost no performance hit and any
    computer not on the MAC list is denied access. And be sure to setup a
    unique administrator name and password.

    jimbo
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

    Not to mention WEP is almost no security what so ever. Use WPA instead, with
    MAC filtering, and turn off your SSDI broadcast.

    Dan

    jimbo wrote:
    > Tom Orle wrote:
    >> jimbo <jimbo62@spamex.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> u4David wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Hi.
    >>>> Im good in networking but new to wireles.What to look fore .What is
    >>>> compatibile with what?
    >>>> pcmcia cards?do all need wireles acces point?and what thay do if
    >>>> thay do not have one?
    >>>> Is there any standarts.Just basic to deep issues i shud know about
    >>>> before i chouse the hardware.You can skip copatibility isues wit
    >>>> computer it self i be able to chouse for may computer the right
    >>>> stuff.More concern is wit 802.11 hardware and ech other dependence
    >>>> on compatibility between thees products.
    >>>>
    >>>> sory for mispel englis is my not seckond but last lanquage.
    >>>> Shoot me email wit 802.11 in header
    >>>> u4net@REMOVETHISREMOVETHISTOO.freeshell.org
    >>>
    >>> The quick answer is that 802.11x hardware from reputable
    >>> manufacturers should be backward compatible. That is, 802.11g is
    >>> compatible with 11a and 11b, etc. I have mixed and matched hardware
    >>> with no problems, but I have seen messages where people had
    >>> problems using components from different manufacturers. That is, a
    >>> wireless PCMCIA card from one and a wireless router from another.
    >>>
    >>> A wireless PCMCIA card needs either a wireless access point or a
    >>> wireless router to operate. A wireless router will cost as much as a
    >>> wireless access point but gives more flexibility. If one is not
    >>> present, the card just fails to connect to a network.
    >>>
    >>> Not much else to say unless you get more specific about what you
    >>> want to do.
    >>>
    >>> Good luck, jimbo
    >>
    >>
    >> Also be sure to turn on WEP unless you want your neighbors to be able
    >> to surf the web using your ISP and access your HDD's;-)
    >>
    >> -=tom=-
    >
    > I prefer MAC address filters. Almost no performance hit and any
    > computer not on the MAC list is denied access. And be sure to setup a
    > unique administrator name and password.
    >
    > jimbo
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

    "Angry American" <angryamerican@nospamdooleyism.com> wrote:
    >Not to mention WEP is almost no security what so ever. Use WPA instead, with
    >MAC filtering, and turn off your SSDI broadcast.

    Uh, not exactly. WPA is just WEP with key change every 5 minutes or
    so. MAC filtering only locks out people who can't do MAC spoofing,
    which is pretty trivial, and turning off SSID broadcast does nothing
    for you at all, and in fact breaks Windows WZC.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

    Turning off SSID makes it harder to determine if you have a wireless
    network. All SSID is is the router advertising itself. This would be step
    one of keeping people out of your wirelass LAN, what they dont know is
    there, they cant hack. WPA is more secure than WEP, you have to basically
    attack a system runing WPA with an alogorythm, and this takes time. WPA uses
    a 128bit string, with some routers using a 256bit string. WEP on the other
    hand has no sucj encryption and only takes a few seconds to crack. MAC
    filtering is just another step in the arsenal of keeping people from
    snooping your network. Using the three steps, along with changing your
    default network name (ie Linksys) to something else, and changing the
    default password will keep most people out of your network.

    Dan

    William P.N. Smith wrote:
    > "Angry American" <angryamerican@nospamdooleyism.com> wrote:
    >> Not to mention WEP is almost no security what so ever. Use WPA
    >> instead, with MAC filtering, and turn off your SSDI broadcast.
    >
    > Uh, not exactly. WPA is just WEP with key change every 5 minutes or
    > so. MAC filtering only locks out people who can't do MAC spoofing,
    > which is pretty trivial, and turning off SSID broadcast does nothing
    > for you at all, and in fact breaks Windows WZC.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

    Angry American wrote:

    > Turning off SSID makes it harder to determine if you have a wireless
    > network. All SSID is is the router advertising itself. This would be step
    > one of keeping people out of your wirelass LAN, what they dont know is
    > there, they cant hack. WPA is more secure than WEP, you have to basically
    > attack a system runing WPA with an alogorythm, and this takes time. WPA
    > uses a 128bit string, with some routers using a 256bit string. WEP on the
    > other hand has no sucj encryption and only takes a few seconds to crack.

    First, you need an algorithm to attack either. You do understand what an
    "algorithm" is do you not? 'cout << "hello world";' is an algorithm. Not
    a very interesting one, but an algorithm nonetheless. The algorithm to
    attack WEP is well known, if one to attack WAP has been published I'm not
    aware of it.

    Second, WEP and WPA use the same encryption. What's different about WPA is
    the regular key change.

    Third, perhaps you might want to try cracking WEP on a brand new router that
    someone else set up with 128 bit encryption and see how long it takes. The
    WEP crack requires the collection of a large number of "weak frames", a
    hole that was if not closed at least patched quite a long time ago by
    adding checks for weak frames that eliminate the transmission of most of
    them. You could be weeks or months gathering enough weak frames to
    actually perform the crack. With WPA there will be a key change before
    you've gathered enough weak frames to perform the crack.

    > MAC filtering is just another step in the arsenal of keeping people from
    > snooping your network. Using the three steps, along with changing your
    > default network name (ie Linksys) to something else, and changing the
    > default password will keep most people out of your network.

    Actually, just using WPA will keep just about anybody but possibly
    government agencies out of your network, and them only if they want in bad
    enough to turn their supercomputer arrays loose on the problem, unlikely
    given that they have the authority to just walk in and take all your
    hardware.

    The problem is that WPA has to be supported at both ends, which may be
    problematical with some built-in network interfaces in laptops.

    > Dan
    >
    > William P.N. Smith wrote:
    >> "Angry American" <angryamerican@nospamdooleyism.com> wrote:
    >>> Not to mention WEP is almost no security what so ever. Use WPA
    >>> instead, with MAC filtering, and turn off your SSDI broadcast.
    >>
    >> Uh, not exactly. WPA is just WEP with key change every 5 minutes or
    >> so. MAC filtering only locks out people who can't do MAC spoofing,
    >> which is pretty trivial, and turning off SSID broadcast does nothing
    >> for you at all, and in fact breaks Windows WZC.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

    I am aware of this all. I use a couple of simple programs to demonstrate to
    my customers how easy and vulnerable there networks are when they use
    wireless with the "default" settings. I administer several local businesss
    as well as 4 local libraries and more home users than I can count. Using a
    program such as Cain and Abel will crack WEP in a matter of seconds as long
    as I can find the SSID. If I do not have the broadcast name, then it does
    take longer, but its still possible. A brute force attack against WPA can
    work, but it would take one hell of a machine to generate the crack. IMHO it
    takes a lot less then the Government and the toys they have to crack a
    wireless network. There are too many tools available for free on the web
    that would make it pretty easy for any script kiddie with half a brain to
    breakin.

    I do not have any customers as of yet that have "critical or sensative"
    data. But if I did, I would recomend that they stay away from wireless all
    together, or at least go with a company like Cisco and the Airnet technology
    that they use to further encrypt data.

    I am no stranger to wireless, I just wish more people were aware of the
    vulnerabilites and risks associated.

    Dan

    J. Clarke wrote:
    > Angry American wrote:
    >
    >> Turning off SSID makes it harder to determine if you have a wireless
    >> network. All SSID is is the router advertising itself. This would be
    >> step one of keeping people out of your wirelass LAN, what they dont
    >> know is there, they cant hack. WPA is more secure than WEP, you have
    >> to basically attack a system runing WPA with an alogorythm, and this
    >> takes time. WPA uses a 128bit string, with some routers using a
    >> 256bit string. WEP on the other hand has no sucj encryption and only
    >> takes a few seconds to crack.
    >
    > First, you need an algorithm to attack either. You do understand
    > what an "algorithm" is do you not? 'cout << "hello world";' is an
    > algorithm. Not a very interesting one, but an algorithm nonetheless.
    > The algorithm to attack WEP is well known, if one to attack WAP has
    > been published I'm not aware of it.
    >
    > Second, WEP and WPA use the same encryption. What's different about
    > WPA is the regular key change.
    >
    > Third, perhaps you might want to try cracking WEP on a brand new
    > router that someone else set up with 128 bit encryption and see how
    > long it takes. The WEP crack requires the collection of a large
    > number of "weak frames", a hole that was if not closed at least
    > patched quite a long time ago by adding checks for weak frames that
    > eliminate the transmission of most of them. You could be weeks or
    > months gathering enough weak frames to actually perform the crack.
    > With WPA there will be a key change before you've gathered enough
    > weak frames to perform the crack.
    >
    >> MAC filtering is just another step in the arsenal of keeping people
    >> from snooping your network. Using the three steps, along with
    >> changing your default network name (ie Linksys) to something else,
    >> and changing the default password will keep most people out of your
    >> network.
    >
    > Actually, just using WPA will keep just about anybody but possibly
    > government agencies out of your network, and them only if they want
    > in bad enough to turn their supercomputer arrays loose on the
    > problem, unlikely given that they have the authority to just walk in
    > and take all your hardware.
    >
    > The problem is that WPA has to be supported at both ends, which may be
    > problematical with some built-in network interfaces in laptops.
    >
    >> Dan
    >>
    >> William P.N. Smith wrote:
    >>> "Angry American" <angryamerican@nospamdooleyism.com> wrote:
    >>>> Not to mention WEP is almost no security what so ever. Use WPA
    >>>> instead, with MAC filtering, and turn off your SSDI broadcast.
    >>>
    >>> Uh, not exactly. WPA is just WEP with key change every 5 minutes or
    >>> so. MAC filtering only locks out people who can't do MAC spoofing,
    >>> which is pretty trivial, and turning off SSID broadcast does nothing
    >>> for you at all, and in fact breaks Windows WZC.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

    "Angry American" <angryamerican@nospamdooleyism.com> wrote:
    >Turning off SSID makes it harder to determine if you have a wireless
    >network.

    No, it doesn't. The SSID is broadcast in the clear nearly
    continuously, even with 'broadcast' packets disabled. Anyone with the
    tools to break into your network has the tools to see your SSID
    whether 'broadcast' is turned on or not. It will prevent anyone with
    only a Windoze machine from seeing your network, but that's hardly
    interesting.

    >WPA is more secure than WEP, you have to basically
    >attack a system runing WPA with an alogorythm, and this takes time. WPA uses
    >a 128bit string, with some routers using a 256bit string. WEP on the other
    >hand has no sucj encryption and only takes a few seconds to crack.

    Don't really know what you are talking about here, do you? WEP comes
    in 64 bit and 128 bit flavors, and WPA is just WEP with frequent key
    change.

    > MAC
    >filtering is just another step in the arsenal of keeping people from
    >snooping your network.

    Well, no. Again, anyone with the tool set to break a WEP key will
    find it trivially easy to figure out what MAC addresses are 'allowed'
    and spoof one of them.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

    William P.N. Smith wrote:
    > No, it doesn't. The SSID is broadcast in the clear nearly
    > continuously, even with 'broadcast' packets disabled. Anyone with the
    > tools to break into your network has the tools to see your SSID
    > whether 'broadcast' is turned on or not. It will prevent anyone with
    > only a Windoze machine from seeing your network, but that's hardly
    > interesting.

    SSID will not broadcast in the clear if you turn off the routers
    advertisement of itself. But then you can still get the SSID by scanning
    packets as it is part of the header of a standard Wi-Fi packet. It's also
    used by wi-fi routers to identify what network they belong too.

    >
    > Don't really know what you are talking about here, do you? WEP comes
    > in 64 bit and 128 bit flavors, and WPA is just WEP with frequent key
    > change.

    WPA also comes in 256bit which WEP does not, it depends on the router you
    would use. WPA also includes the following improvements over WEP.

    Improved data encryption through the temporal key integrity protocol (TKIP).
    TKIP scrambles the keys using a hashing algorithm and, by adding an
    integrity-checking feature, ensures that the keys haven't been tampered
    with.
    User authentication, which is generally missing in WEP, through the
    extensible authentication protocol (EAP). WEP regulates access to a wireless
    network based on a computer's hardware-specific MAC address, which is
    relatively simple to be sniffed out and stolen. EAP is built on a more
    secure public-key encryption system to ensure that only authorized network
    users can access the network.

    > Well, no. Again, anyone with the tool set to break a WEP key will
    > find it trivially easy to figure out what MAC addresses are 'allowed'
    > and spoof one of them.

    You and I are talking two different things here. Yes its trivial and easy to
    grab a MAC address, especially if you can grab and strip a layer 2 header. I
    am talking about standard "keep Johnny next door with his laptop" out of my
    network security. Most people do not need more than this. No matter how
    paranoid a person is, you cant keep everybody out of a network if they want
    in. This includes wireless or wired LANs.

    The point I tried to come across with, is WEP is not secure, and WPA is more
    secure. To say that WPA is completely secure is an overstatement. the
    802.11i protocol that is supposed to replace WEP or WPA will hopefully be a
    lot better.

    About the only way that I know to "secure" data transmissions within a
    network is too use fiber, and constantly monitor the transmissions rates on
    the media. We all have to take chances on our networks, or just pull the
    plugs. Be smart about it, and do what you can to secure them.

    Dan
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

    "Angry American" <angryamerican@nospamdooleyism.com> wrote in message
    news:cotr2o$5fr$1@news.netins.net...
    > William P.N. Smith wrote:
    > > No, it doesn't. The SSID is broadcast in the clear nearly
    > > continuously, even with 'broadcast' packets disabled. Anyone with the
    > > tools to break into your network has the tools to see your SSID
    > > whether 'broadcast' is turned on or not. It will prevent anyone with
    > > only a Windoze machine from seeing your network, but that's hardly
    > > interesting.
    >
    > SSID will not broadcast in the clear if you turn off the routers
    > advertisement of itself. But then you can still get the SSID by scanning
    > packets as it is part of the header of a standard Wi-Fi packet. It's also
    > used by wi-fi routers to identify what network they belong too.
    >
    > >
    > > Don't really know what you are talking about here, do you? WEP comes
    > > in 64 bit and 128 bit flavors, and WPA is just WEP with frequent key
    > > change.
    >
    > WPA also comes in 256bit which WEP does not, it depends on the router you
    > would use. WPA also includes the following improvements over WEP.
    >
    > Improved data encryption through the temporal key integrity protocol
    (TKIP).
    > TKIP scrambles the keys using a hashing algorithm and, by adding an
    > integrity-checking feature, ensures that the keys haven't been tampered
    > with.
    > User authentication, which is generally missing in WEP, through the
    > extensible authentication protocol (EAP). WEP regulates access to a
    wireless
    > network based on a computer's hardware-specific MAC address, which is
    > relatively simple to be sniffed out and stolen. EAP is built on a more
    > secure public-key encryption system to ensure that only authorized network
    > users can access the network.
    >
    > > Well, no. Again, anyone with the tool set to break a WEP key will
    > > find it trivially easy to figure out what MAC addresses are 'allowed'
    > > and spoof one of them.
    >
    > You and I are talking two different things here. Yes its trivial and easy
    to
    > grab a MAC address, especially if you can grab and strip a layer 2 header.
    I
    > am talking about standard "keep Johnny next door with his laptop" out of
    my
    > network security. Most people do not need more than this. No matter how
    > paranoid a person is, you cant keep everybody out of a network if they
    want
    > in. This includes wireless or wired LANs.
    >
    > The point I tried to come across with, is WEP is not secure, and WPA is
    more
    > secure. To say that WPA is completely secure is an overstatement. the
    > 802.11i protocol that is supposed to replace WEP or WPA will hopefully be
    a
    > lot better.
    >
    > About the only way that I know to "secure" data transmissions within a
    > network is too use fiber, and constantly monitor the transmissions rates
    on
    > the media. We all have to take chances on our networks, or just pull the
    > plugs. Be smart about it, and do what you can to secure them.
    >
    > Dan
    >
    >
    By the way, turn off the WAP when you are not home and using your computers.
    Also, be sure to install a firewall on each of the computers when using
    wireless network. (That is all the computers in the network, including the
    wired ones.)
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

    "Angry American" <angryamerican@nospamdooleyism.com> wrote:
    >Using a
    >program such as Cain and Abel will crack WEP in a matter of seconds as long
    >as I can find the SSID.

    From the CAIN FAQ:
    /*
    Can Cain crack WEP encryption ?
    Not yet.
    */

    From another Google search:

    /*
    [Cain] WEP cracking is in progress but not completed as of 8/15/04.
    */

    Looks like Cain & Abel are a set of password tools that need to run
    (locally or remotely) on a machine to pull passwords out of them, not
    a WEP key cracking tool.

    And
    /*
    [Another tool] requires approximately 5-10 million encrypted packets
    to be gathered.
    */

    >I am no stranger to wireless, I just wish more people were aware of the
    >vulnerabilites and risks associated.

    You sure have a strange view of the WiFi world, for someone who is no
    stranger to it...
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

    Cain and Abel are a set of tools, with WEP as one of them The how I was able
    to use Cain "as an example" was not explained, it was used as an example of
    a program. Thanks for your Google searching, I hope I did not take too much
    of your time, as I didn't realize people would take things "literally and
    exactly".

    Dan

    William P.N. Smith wrote:
    > "Angry American" <angryamerican@nospamdooleyism.com> wrote:
    >> Using a
    >> program such as Cain and Abel will crack WEP in a matter of seconds
    >> as long as I can find the SSID.
    >
    > From the CAIN FAQ:
    > /*
    > Can Cain crack WEP encryption ?
    > Not yet.
    > */
    >
    > From another Google search:
    >
    > /*
    > [Cain] WEP cracking is in progress but not completed as of 8/15/04.
    > */
    >
    > Looks like Cain & Abel are a set of password tools that need to run
    > (locally or remotely) on a machine to pull passwords out of them, not
    > a WEP key cracking tool.
    >
    > And
    > /*
    > [Another tool] requires approximately 5-10 million encrypted packets
    > to be gathered.
    > */
    >
    >> I am no stranger to wireless, I just wish more people were aware of
    >> the vulnerabilites and risks associated.
    >
    > You sure have a strange view of the WiFi world, for someone who is no
    > stranger to it...
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

    Angry American wrote:

    > I am aware of this all. I use a couple of simple programs to demonstrate
    > to my customers how easy and vulnerable there networks are when they use
    > wireless with the "default" settings.

    Since the default settings typically have no security enabled, one would not
    expect them to be secure. So what?

    > I administer several local businesss
    > as well as 4 local libraries and more home users than I can count. Using a
    > program such as Cain and Abel will crack WEP in a matter of seconds as
    > long as I can find the SSID.

    From the "Cain & Abel v2.5 FAQ": "Can Cain crack WEP encryption ?
    Not yet. WEP cracking requires a wireless card working in "monitor mode". In
    this mode the card can capture packets at the 802.11 layer where some
    required parameters reside. Not all adapters support "monitor mode" but
    some of them does: cards based on Prism/2 chipset, some Cisco Aironet and
    some Orinoco based cards can be put into monitor mode. Prism/2 adapters for
    example use proprietary OIDs for vendor specific operations like
    OID_CW10_CMD (0xFF010183h) which is used to send commands to the card. I
    really need more informations on specific hardware in order to directly
    control a wireless card for WEP cracking.
    If you want to see Cain cracking WEP encryption just help me !"

    In other words, it can't crack WEP in seconds or minutes or hours or days or
    years or millennia because it wasn't made with that capability.

    You picked the wrong tool. To crack WEP you need Airsnort or WEPcrack, both
    of which need to collect about ten million packets and rely on weak frames,
    which the WEP-Plus protocol which went into general use about two years ago
    substantially eliminates.

    Given enough weak frames, Airsnort or WEPcrack can indeed crack WEP in a few
    seconds. But that assumes that you have first gathered the necessary
    number of frames.

    You clearly haven't actually _tried_ this if you think it's that easy.

    > If I do not have the broadcast name, then it
    > does take longer, but its still possible. A brute force attack against WPA
    > can work, but it would take one hell of a machine to generate the crack.

    Can you crack it in the five minutes you have available to you before the
    key changes?

    > IMHO it takes a lot less then the Government and the toys they have to
    > crack a wireless network. There are too many tools available for free on
    > the web that would make it pretty easy for any script kiddie with half a
    > brain to breakin.

    The fact that there are tools available for free does not mean that those
    tools work on a properly configured network.

    The difficulty with WPA is that it is possible to misconfigure it in such a
    way that it becomes vulnerable. Use a long random passphrase or RADIUS
    and it becomes quite difficult to penetrate. If it's misconfigured then
    you can grab a few packets and then throw a dictionary at it. That doesn't
    work if it's configured with a non-dictionary password and with RADIUS it
    morphs the key regularly so that you only have five minutes or so from
    start of sniffing in which to crack the key.

    > I do not have any customers as of yet that have "critical or sensative"
    > data. But if I did, I would recomend that they stay away from wireless all
    > together, or at least go with a company like Cisco and the Airnet
    > technology that they use to further encrypt data.

    What technology is that? Aironet doesn't do anything different from any
    other standards-compliant implementation.

    > I am no stranger to wireless, I just wish more people were aware of the
    > vulnerabilites and risks associated.

    Maybe you're no stranger to wireless, but given what you've said about the
    subject you clearly _are_ a stranger to _cracking_ wireless.

    >
    > Dan
    >
    > J. Clarke wrote:
    >> Angry American wrote:
    >>
    >>> Turning off SSID makes it harder to determine if you have a wireless
    >>> network. All SSID is is the router advertising itself. This would be
    >>> step one of keeping people out of your wirelass LAN, what they dont
    >>> know is there, they cant hack. WPA is more secure than WEP, you have
    >>> to basically attack a system runing WPA with an alogorythm, and this
    >>> takes time. WPA uses a 128bit string, with some routers using a
    >>> 256bit string. WEP on the other hand has no sucj encryption and only
    >>> takes a few seconds to crack.
    >>
    >> First, you need an algorithm to attack either. You do understand
    >> what an "algorithm" is do you not? 'cout << "hello world";' is an
    >> algorithm. Not a very interesting one, but an algorithm nonetheless.
    >> The algorithm to attack WEP is well known, if one to attack WAP has
    >> been published I'm not aware of it.
    >>
    >> Second, WEP and WPA use the same encryption. What's different about
    >> WPA is the regular key change.
    >>
    >> Third, perhaps you might want to try cracking WEP on a brand new
    >> router that someone else set up with 128 bit encryption and see how
    >> long it takes. The WEP crack requires the collection of a large
    >> number of "weak frames", a hole that was if not closed at least
    >> patched quite a long time ago by adding checks for weak frames that
    >> eliminate the transmission of most of them. You could be weeks or
    >> months gathering enough weak frames to actually perform the crack.
    >> With WPA there will be a key change before you've gathered enough
    >> weak frames to perform the crack.
    >>
    >>> MAC filtering is just another step in the arsenal of keeping people
    >>> from snooping your network. Using the three steps, along with
    >>> changing your default network name (ie Linksys) to something else,
    >>> and changing the default password will keep most people out of your
    >>> network.
    >>
    >> Actually, just using WPA will keep just about anybody but possibly
    >> government agencies out of your network, and them only if they want
    >> in bad enough to turn their supercomputer arrays loose on the
    >> problem, unlikely given that they have the authority to just walk in
    >> and take all your hardware.
    >>
    >> The problem is that WPA has to be supported at both ends, which may be
    >> problematical with some built-in network interfaces in laptops.
    >>
    >>> Dan
    >>>
    >>> William P.N. Smith wrote:
    >>>> "Angry American" <angryamerican@nospamdooleyism.com> wrote:
    >>>>> Not to mention WEP is almost no security what so ever. Use WPA
    >>>>> instead, with MAC filtering, and turn off your SSDI broadcast.
    >>>>
    >>>> Uh, not exactly. WPA is just WEP with key change every 5 minutes or
    >>>> so. MAC filtering only locks out people who can't do MAC spoofing,
    >>>> which is pretty trivial, and turning off SSID broadcast does nothing
    >>>> for you at all, and in fact breaks Windows WZC.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

    Angry American wrote:

    > William P.N. Smith wrote:
    >> No, it doesn't. The SSID is broadcast in the clear nearly
    >> continuously, even with 'broadcast' packets disabled. Anyone with the
    >> tools to break into your network has the tools to see your SSID
    >> whether 'broadcast' is turned on or not. It will prevent anyone with
    >> only a Windoze machine from seeing your network, but that's hardly
    >> interesting.
    >
    > SSID will not broadcast in the clear if you turn off the routers
    > advertisement of itself. But then you can still get the SSID by scanning
    > packets as it is part of the header of a standard Wi-Fi packet. It's also
    > used by wi-fi routers to identify what network they belong too.
    >
    >>
    >> Don't really know what you are talking about here, do you? WEP comes
    >> in 64 bit and 128 bit flavors, and WPA is just WEP with frequent key
    >> change.
    >
    > WPA also comes in 256bit which WEP does not, it depends on the router you
    > would use.

    So? Every try to crack a 128 bit key without any hints?

    > WPA also includes the following improvements over WEP.
    >
    > Improved data encryption through the temporal key integrity protocol
    > (TKIP). TKIP scrambles the keys using a hashing algorithm and, by adding
    > an integrity-checking feature, ensures that the keys haven't been tampered
    > with.
    > User authentication, which is generally missing in WEP, through the
    > extensible authentication protocol (EAP). WEP regulates access to a
    > wireless network based on a computer's hardware-specific MAC address,
    > which is relatively simple to be sniffed out and stolen. EAP is built on a
    > more secure public-key encryption system to ensure that only authorized
    > network users can access the network.

    Gee, you learned to cut and paste. Clever boy. Now, when you figure out
    what it means you might actually be almost not pathetic.

    >> Well, no. Again, anyone with the tool set to break a WEP key will
    >> find it trivially easy to figure out what MAC addresses are 'allowed'
    >> and spoof one of them.
    >
    > You and I are talking two different things here. Yes its trivial and easy
    > to grab a MAC address, especially if you can grab and strip a layer 2
    > header. I am talking about standard "keep Johnny next door with his
    > laptop" out of my network security. Most people do not need more than
    > this. No matter how paranoid a person is, you cant keep everybody out of a
    > network if they want in. This includes wireless or wired LANs.

    WEP is quite sufficient to keep Johnny next door with his laptop out of your
    network security.

    > The point I tried to come across with, is WEP is not secure, and WPA is
    > more secure. To say that WPA is completely secure is an overstatement. the
    > 802.11i protocol that is supposed to replace WEP or WPA will hopefully be
    > a lot better.

    Actually, most of 802.11i is present with WPA, it's just not mandatory.

    > About the only way that I know to "secure" data transmissions within a
    > network is too use fiber, and constantly monitor the transmissions rates
    > on the media. We all have to take chances on our networks, or just pull
    > the plugs. Be smart about it, and do what you can to secure them.
    >
    > Dan

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

    Angry American wrote:

    > Cain and Abel are a set of tools, with WEP as one of them The how I was
    > able to use Cain "as an example" was not explained, it was used as an
    > example of a program. Thanks for your Google searching, I hope I did not
    > take too much of your time, as I didn't realize people would take things
    > "literally and exactly".

    Now let's see, earlier you said "Using a program such as Cain and Abel will
    crack WEP in a matter of seconds as long as I can find the SSID."

    Now you say that it was an example of some kind that was unrelated to the
    actually cracking of WEP? So why then did you (a) claim that you could use
    it to do the job in a matter of seconds and (b) not name whatever program
    you actually _would_ use for this if Cain can't do the job?

    The simple fact is that you're standing on your weenie and it looks like you
    aren't bright enough to quit grinding your golf cleats into it.

    > Dan
    >
    > William P.N. Smith wrote:
    >> "Angry American" <angryamerican@nospamdooleyism.com> wrote:
    >>> Using a
    >>> program such as Cain and Abel will crack WEP in a matter of seconds
    >>> as long as I can find the SSID.
    >>
    >> From the CAIN FAQ:
    >> /*
    >> Can Cain crack WEP encryption ?
    >> Not yet.
    >> */
    >>
    >> From another Google search:
    >>
    >> /*
    >> [Cain] WEP cracking is in progress but not completed as of 8/15/04.
    >> */
    >>
    >> Looks like Cain & Abel are a set of password tools that need to run
    >> (locally or remotely) on a machine to pull passwords out of them, not
    >> a WEP key cracking tool.
    >>
    >> And
    >> /*
    >> [Another tool] requires approximately 5-10 million encrypted packets
    >> to be gathered.
    >> */
    >>
    >>> I am no stranger to wireless, I just wish more people were aware of
    >>> the vulnerabilites and risks associated.
    >>
    >> You sure have a strange view of the WiFi world, for someone who is no
    >> stranger to it...

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Ask a new question

Read More

Laptops