Possible to secure WEP?
in [Wireless Internet]
|
From: Rico on 13 Mar 2006 10:44 In article <MPG.1e79eac4a031075b98a029(a)news.cable.ntlworld.com>, David Taylor <djtaylor(a)bigfoot.com> wrote: >> >Bzzzt, cheating, that's not using WEP and requires an endpoint ;) >> >> It will work over a WEP encrypted connection > >The question was "is it possible to secure WEP" > >The answer is NO. Well the answer is yes, there you are mistaken and the example is secure sockets empoyed above the hardware layer. > >You have to use something else. By itself which was not specified in the original post (there wasn't a qualifier of can ONLY wep ...) By the way, this is picking nits <grin/>. >David. fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
From: David Taylor on 13 Mar 2006 11:10 > Well the answer is yes, there you are mistaken and the example is secure > sockets empoyed above the hardware layer. Again, you've used a different approach. That hasn't secured WEP, that has secured the application layer. What if I'm using NetBEUI or IPX or any other protocol that doesn't offer a winsock interface and hence no SSL? I don't care what *extra* encryption methods are added, adding them means that WEP isn't the security method hence WEP hasn't been secured. The link would be as secure using SSL either with or without WEP. > By itself which was not specified in the original post (there wasn't a > qualifier of can ONLY wep ...) It was implicit ;) > By the way, this is picking nits <grin/>. Of course, that's all i've been doing for no other reason than for the sheer bloody mindedness :) David.
From: caapsoft@gmail.com on 14 Mar 2006 11:30 Use www.openvpn.net. It's open source, very safer and easy to configure. Thanks Rico wrote: > In article <qqir02pd1so2e1metfn7rf9ikvo1a1nmhr(a)4ax.com>, Ari <nomail(a)pass.com> wrote: > >On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:16:19 GMT, David Taylor <djtaylor(a)bigfoot.com> > >wrote: > > > >>> Is there any way to secure the data that passes over the wireless so > >>> that it is not available to hackers without buying a different router? > >>> I want the data that I send over the air to be relatively secure and I > >>> want to make sure no one accesses my system via the wireless. > >> > >>You could change the key every 5 minutes? :) > > > > > >I was thinking more along the lines proxy software on both ends of the > >wireless, where the user could define the method of encryption or set > >up a table to change the key every so often automatically, most > >machines with internet access can easily maintain time within a few > >seconds, so the keys could be changed on a predefined schedule. This > >would be software running in the PC, so perhaps this is a weakness. > > > > WEP with a decent passphrase (use hex key to embed in laptop) should be > fine for most purposes. If you are the Bank of England maybe you need more. > Why is someone going to sit around and hack your wireless network when just > down the street the neighbor in the white house with blue shutters has a > wide open network. > > Think of this like a burglar alarm on your house, will it actually stop a > determined thief, absolutely not, will it get 99.99% of them to try the > house next door without the alarm, of course. Why struggle with an alarm if > the pickings are easier just a few feet away. > > Remember your online banking etc is down via SSH anyway (https) so that in > itself is additonal security. If you are just not going to be happy, there > are those services that will let you VPN into their network and then they > route your traffic. In some public hotspots likely not a bad idea. But you > can use them for every day use if you wish. I think there are free ones and > fee ones. Shop around before you buy. > > fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
From: Rico on 14 Mar 2006 16:01 In article <MPG.1e7fa99fbd229d7098a038(a)news.cable.ntlworld.com>, David Taylor <djtaylor(a)bigfoot.com> wrote: >> Well the answer is yes, there you are mistaken and the example is secure >> sockets empoyed above the hardware layer. > >Again, you've used a different approach. That hasn't secured WEP, that >has secured the application layer. What if I'm using NetBEUI or IPX or >any other protocol that doesn't offer a winsock interface and hence no >SSL? Then you are secure through obscurity. Almost no one uses these protocols wirelessly. >I don't care what *extra* encryption methods are added, adding them >means that WEP isn't the security method hence WEP hasn't been secured. >The link would be as secure using SSL either with or without WEP. Sure it is, it's just being enhanced. The WEP keeps the casual snooper away and the SSL keeps the geek away. > >> By itself which was not specified in the original post (there wasn't a >> qualifier of can ONLY wep ...) > >It was implicit ;) Was not <grin/> > >> By the way, this is picking nits <grin/>. > >Of course, that's all i've been doing for no other reason than for the >sheer bloody mindedness :) > >David. fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
From: David Taylor on 16 Mar 2006 04:59
> Then you are secure through obscurity. Almost no one uses these protocols > wirelessly. Point was that there's no reason why not. Besides, if you happen to have more than one protocol installed, Windows quite nicely sends out session requests on all protocols bound to the windows SMB client. I suspect that many people *are* in fact using these protocols wirelessly to other devices on their LAN without even knowing it. :) > >> By itself which was not specified in the original post (there wasn't a > >> qualifier of can ONLY wep ...) > > > >It was implicit ;) > > Was not <grin/> Was too <stamping feet> :) |