On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 09:06:56 -0700,
JD wrote:
> On 06/04/11 07:15, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > Neither is illegal to export (except to a few countries the US wants to
> > punish) as long as you follow the rules. You can also write it as a book
> > and publish the book, which is what was done.
On 06/04/11 07:15, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Neither is illegal to export (except to a few countries the US wants to
> punish) as long as you follow the rules. You can also write it as a book
> and publish the book, which is what was done. DJB also got some rulings
> on whether the restrictions on p
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 17:45:53 -0700,
James McKenzie wrote:
> Cryptographic algorithms and making their internal workings public.
> BTW, there are TWO versions of PGP, one that uses the still patented RSA
> front end and the other uses IDEA. Guess which one is stronger and
RSA is used fo
On Tuesday 24 May 2011 00:00:47 JD wrote:
> On 05/23/11 15:41, Tim Smith wrote:
> > On Monday 23 May 2011 22:26:49 JD wrote:
> >> On 05/23/11 12:22, Tim Smith wrote:
> >>> On Monday 23 May 2011 17:50:50 JD wrote:
> On 05/23/11 09:28, Tim Smith wrote:
> > On Monday 23 May 2011 16:36:00 Tim
On 05/23/11 15:41, Tim Smith wrote:
> On Monday 23 May 2011 22:26:49 JD wrote:
>> On 05/23/11 12:22, Tim Smith wrote:
>>> On Monday 23 May 2011 17:50:50 JD wrote:
On 05/23/11 09:28, Tim Smith wrote:
> On Monday 23 May 2011 16:36:00 Tim wrote:
> Not really. This is SSID, not BSSID (BSSI
On Monday 23 May 2011 22:26:49 JD wrote:
> On 05/23/11 12:22, Tim Smith wrote:
> > On Monday 23 May 2011 17:50:50 JD wrote:
> >> On 05/23/11 09:28, Tim Smith wrote:
> >>> On Monday 23 May 2011 16:36:00 Tim wrote:
> >>> Not really. This is SSID, not BSSID (BSSID is usually the MAC of the
> >>> AP).
On 05/23/11 12:22, Tim Smith wrote:
> On Monday 23 May 2011 17:50:50 JD wrote:
>> On 05/23/11 09:28, Tim Smith wrote:
>>> On Monday 23 May 2011 16:36:00 Tim wrote:
>>> Not really. This is SSID, not BSSID (BSSID is usually the MAC of the AP).
>>> When you scan, you not only listen for beacons, but y
On Monday 23 May 2011 18:08:15 Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 05/23/2011 12:18 PM, Tim Smith wrote:
> > When it talks about SSID IEs, however, it isn't mentioning Probe Response
> > or Beacon explicity, but uses the weasel phrase "or that do not
> > advertise an authorised SSID" without specifying *HO
On Monday 23 May 2011 17:50:50 JD wrote:
> On 05/23/11 09:28, Tim Smith wrote:
> > On Monday 23 May 2011 16:36:00 Tim wrote:
> > Not really. This is SSID, not BSSID (BSSID is usually the MAC of the AP).
> > When you scan, you not only listen for beacons, but you (should) send
> > probe requests. If
On 05/23/2011 12:18 PM, Tim Smith wrote:
> When it talks about SSID IEs, however, it isn't mentioning Probe Response or
> Beacon explicity, but uses the weasel phrase "or that do not advertise an
> authorised SSID" without specifying *HOW* that SSID is to be advertised :-)
> Also note the "an au
On 05/23/11 09:28, Tim Smith wrote:
> On Monday 23 May 2011 16:36:00 Tim wrote:
> Not really. This is SSID, not BSSID (BSSID is usually the MAC of the AP).
> When you scan, you not only listen for beacons, but you (should) send probe
> requests. If you put an SSID into your probe request, you will
On Monday 23 May 2011 16:36:00 Tim wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 13:58 +0100, Tim Smith wrote:
> > One problem lies in the fact that 802.11 does not specify a particular
> > means of giving a NULL SSID so different APs do it in different ways.
> > Some give a zero-length SSID. Some give an SSID of
On Monday 23 May 2011 16:03:42 Genes MailLists wrote:
> (sorry I lost the threading info ... )
>
> > Time Smith wrote:
>
> > Late to the party, but just for useful information, disabling SSID
> > broadcast is NOT a violation of of 802.11 :-) It's mandatory to put
> > the SSID information element
On 05/23/2011 12:08 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>This entire document (802.11i) is about WPA2 by the way ... and how
> stations need to behave to talk to each other securely ...
I suppose this means if you're using no encryption or just WEP then
802.11i does not apply ... however if you'r
On 05/23/2011 12:02 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
>
> Actually it reads to me as though it can use the MLME-SCAN stuff to
> identify STAs that _DO_ assert robust security and advertise their
> SSID. I don't read it to say you _HAVE_ to advertise your SSID.
>
> "I'm not a lawyer and I've never played o
On 05/23/2011 08:03 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> (sorry I lost the threading info ... )
>
>> Time Smith wrote:
>
>> Late to the party, but just for useful information, disabling SSID
>> broadcast is NOT a violation of of 802.11 :-) It's mandatory to put
>> the SSID information element in your be
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 13:58 +0100, Tim Smith wrote:
> One problem lies in the fact that 802.11 does not specify a particular
> means of giving a NULL SSID so different APs do it in different ways.
> Some give a zero-length SSID. Some give an SSID of length 1 consisting
> of a zero octet (a C null-t
(sorry I lost the threading info ... )
> Time Smith wrote:
> Late to the party, but just for useful information, disabling SSID
> broadcast is NOT a violation of of 802.11 :-) It's mandatory to put
> the SSID information element in your beacons, but there's nothing
> that says you have to tell t
On Wednesday 18 May 2011 04:52:47 Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 05/17/2011 12:36 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> > Also if it's your home wLan, hide it, don't broadcast the ssid.
> > So those in your neighbourhood won't even know you have a wireless.
>
> As many have pointed out - you should not disable
On 05/22/11 18:15, Tim wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-05-22 at 16:43 -0700, JD wrote:
>> Is there a tool or set of procedures that can identify
>> the source of an attack before it succeeds?
> It it only takes milliseconds to break in, what are you going to be able
> to do about it? (If you're meaning for
On Sun, 2011-05-22 at 16:43 -0700, JD wrote:
> Is there a tool or set of procedures that can identify
> the source of an attack before it succeeds?
It it only takes milliseconds to break in, what are you going to be able
to do about it? (If you're meaning for the device to tell YOU that it's
unde
On 5/22/11 4:00 PM, Tim wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-05-22 at 08:40 -0700, JD wrote:
> Usually, well encrypted connections are hacked by: Guessing stupidly
> chosen passwords or stealing them (copying written notes, implanting
> trojans, asking someone to login to something and hoping they'll use the
> s
On 05/22/11 16:00, Tim wrote:
> Yay! He's got it...
>
> You do realise what the MAC is for? It's the name of that particular
> hardware interface, it's address, it's location... So that when data
> goes out on the wire, that's where it's intended for.
>
> As far as network switches and routers g
On Sun, 2011-05-22 at 08:40 -0700, JD wrote:
> I was referring to the use of MAC filtering which is
> soundly defeated by the transmission of the MAC
> in the clear. So, MAC filtering is absolutely useless
> as a security measure.
> If I turn off my machine, the hacker has my MAC, and
> will have 1
On 05/22/11 07:14, Tim wrote:
> Mikkel L. Ellertson:
>>> They do not usually guess. The use a program that monitors the
>>> traffic, and captures the MAC address of any system that connects to
>>> the router. They then use one of these to connect.
> JD:
>> So, the initial connection request goes in
Tim: (regarding access points buried in the basement)
>> Though you're only going by the ordinary antenna in your gear. A
>> better antenna may be more than enough to still work with a muffled
>> signal. So this isn't a trick that you want to rely on.
Mikkel L. Ellertson:
> Not a trick you want
Mikkel L. Ellertson:
>> They do not usually guess. The use a program that monitors the
>> traffic, and captures the MAC address of any system that connects to
>> the router. They then use one of these to connect.
JD:
> So, the initial connection request goes in the clear!
> Now that's security!! :
On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 20:48 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> I like defense in depth - you have to crack the first layer before
> you find out about the second layer. This may even give me time to
> fix the first layer, depending on how long cracking the second layer
> takes.
And therein lay a
On Sunday 22 May 2011 04:57:42 JD wrote:
> On 05/21/11 20:05, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> > On 05/21/2011 09:22 PM, JD wrote:
> >> On routers using MAC filtering,
> >> How quickly do the crackers guess a correct MAC address
> >> and connect (assuming they somehow got your passphrase)?
> >
> > The
On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 17:45 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
> On 5/20/11 3:54 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 14:20 +, g wrote:
> > I know it extremely well, having taught it in undergrad CS courses.
> >
> Most of us out here that lived through that mess are very well vers
On 05/21/11 20:05, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> On 05/21/2011 09:22 PM, JD wrote:
>> On 05/21/11 19:16, Joe Zeff wrote:
>>> On 05/21/2011 06:48 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
(Bad pass-phrase,
no pass-phrase, or written down pass-phrase.)
>>> I'd like to point out that writing down your p
On 05/21/2011 09:22 PM, JD wrote:
> On 05/21/11 19:16, Joe Zeff wrote:
>> On 05/21/2011 06:48 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
>>> (Bad pass-phrase,
>>> no pass-phrase, or written down pass-phrase.)
>> I'd like to point out that writing down your pass-phrase isn't bad if
>> you've written it on a pos
On 05/21/11 19:16, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 05/21/2011 06:48 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
>> (Bad pass-phrase,
>> no pass-phrase, or written down pass-phrase.)
> I'd like to point out that writing down your pass-phrase isn't bad if
> you've written it on a post-it note that never leaves your home. O
On 05/21/2011 06:48 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> (Bad pass-phrase,
> no pass-phrase, or written down pass-phrase.)
I'd like to point out that writing down your pass-phrase isn't bad if
you've written it on a post-it note that never leaves your home. Or,
for that matter, if it's saved on a f
On 05/19/2011 08:53 AM, Tim wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 08:25 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
>> Time to add some more confusion to the pie.
>
> I'm not sure that's a good idea.
Probably not.
>>
>> Another security precaution that sort of helps for a home system, if
>> you live in a house, i
On 5/21/11 6:01 PM, JD wrote:
> On 05/21/11 17:45, James McKenzie wrote:
>> On 5/20/11 3:54 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 14:20 +, g wrote:
>>> I know it extremely well, having taught it in undergrad CS courses.
>>>
>> Most of us out here that lived through that mess
On 05/21/11 17:45, James McKenzie wrote:
> On 5/20/11 3:54 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 14:20 +, g wrote:
>> I know it extremely well, having taught it in undergrad CS courses.
>>
> Most of us out here that lived through that mess are very well versed in
> the history
On 5/20/11 3:54 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 14:20 +, g wrote:
> I know it extremely well, having taught it in undergrad CS courses.
>
Most of us out here that lived through that mess are very well versed in
the history and arrest of Phil. There was a fund to help pa
On 5/20/11 3:57 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Actually the previous poster seemed to be saying that it is currently
> illegal to publish algorithms to *decrypt* WPA and friends. That's what
> I was asking for evidence for.
>
Interesting. I know of no such thing. I'll have to investigate
furth
On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 07:13 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 21:30 -0700, JD wrote:
> >> Gov has made it illegal to publish such algorithms, at least
> >> in the USA.
> >
> > Evidence?
> >
> Not so. DES, 3DES an
On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 14:20 +, g wrote:
> On 05/20/2011 12:27 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 09:46 +, g wrote:
> >> in all of above results;
> >>
> >> you will find pro and con about 'ssid'.
> >> you will find wpa2 can be hacked if key is weak.
> >
> > As I sa
On 05/17/2011 02:10 PM, Tim wrote:
> Various computers will actually list your allegedly *hidden* device as
> an "unnamed" access point, so it's not even hidden. Certainly the
> numerous programs prepared to "hack your neighbours" applications
> downloadable for the completely clueless will.
Inc
On 05/17/2011 02:54 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> Hiding the SSID will stop only a casual bystander getting on to your network
> by accident. Those who actually want to crack into a wireless network would
> use some tool like airodump-ng (yum install aircrack-ng) to list any and all
> wireless ne
On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 21:30 -0700, JD wrote:
> Tim, your points are way too generalized.
I've made specific points, already in this thread.
> No one said not broadcasting alone will make you
> safer. It is advised as part of the larger defense
> scheme of choosing a strong protocol, a strong encr
On 05/20/2011 02:20 PM, g wrote:
<>
> better yet, have a look at this;
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
in addition:
yes, i went back and re-read page.
to me, there is are fine points between the meanings of, publishing,
exporting, and making available on a web site.
Phi
On 2011/05/20 02:07, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Friday 20 May 2011 05:30:11 JD wrote:
>> Tim, your points are way too generalized.
>> No one said not broadcasting alone will make you
>> safer. It is advised as part of the larger defense
>> scheme
>
> That is a very bad advice. Hiding SSID has *no
On 05/20/2011 12:27 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 09:46 +, g wrote:
>> in all of above results;
>>
>> you will find pro and con about 'ssid'.
>> you will find wpa2 can be hacked if key is weak.
>
> As I said before, I don't need to open any of these links to know t
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 21:30 -0700, JD wrote:
>> Gov has made it illegal to publish such algorithms, at least
>> in the USA.
>
> Evidence?
>
Not so. DES, 3DES and AES are all PUBLISHED alogrithms and are used
by the DoD/NSA (CISSP train
On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 21:30 -0700, JD wrote:
> Gov has made it illegal to publish such algorithms, at least
> in the USA.
Evidence?
poc
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guide
On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 09:46 +, g wrote:
> in all of above results;
>
> you will find pro and con about 'ssid'.
> you will find wpa2 can be hacked if key is weak.
As I said before, I don't need to open any of these links to know that a
weak password gives poor security.
poc
--
users mai
On 05/20/2011 10:17 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
<>
> Or enter
>
> "riemann hypothesis proof"
>
> about 120,000 results.
> One of those MUST be right ...
is that with or without quotes?
--
peace out.
tc.hago,
g
.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
users mailin
g wrote:
> open a browser, log google at;
>
>http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&num=100
>
> *leave quotes and plus sign just as they are shown*.
>
>
> enter this in 'all these words';
>
> "crack+wpa2" "cracking+wpa2"
>
> about 1,600 results.
Or enter
"riemann hypoth
On 05/20/2011 04:30 AM, JD wrote:
<>
> Tim, your points are way too generalized.
as is this whole thread has been.
open a browser, log google at;
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&num=100
*leave quotes and plus sign just as they are shown*.
enter this in 'all these words';
"
On Friday 20 May 2011 10:10:14 Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 05/20/2011 05:07 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > If you think that hiding SSID will help with security, you might as well
> > add that hanging a pack of onions in front of the house will also help
> > make your wireless more secure
>
> There's y
On 05/20/2011 05:07 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> If you think that hiding SSID will help with security, you might as well add
> that hanging a pack of onions in front of the house will also help make your
> wireless more secure
There's your problem It should be "garlic"! :-) :-)
--
Sigh
On Friday 20 May 2011 05:30:11 JD wrote:
> On 05/19/11 21:14, Tim wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 12:19 +0900, Misha Shnurapet wrote:
> >> Nope, if you're a plain user like me using an applet to "scan" you'll
> >> only see what's broadcast.
> >
> > Nope, depending on your client, you'll see them
On 2011/05/19 21:30, JD wrote:
> On 05/19/11 21:14, Tim wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 12:19 +0900, Misha Shnurapet wrote:
>>> Nope, if you're a plain user like me using an applet to "scan" you'll
>>> only see what's broadcast.
>> Nope, depending on your client, you'll see them all. Even Windows
20.05.2011, 13:14, "Tim" :
> 6. Or, pigheaded clueless user continues to hide their SSID, and
> continues to fight with WLAN and mailing list...
Gladly we don't have such people around here, oink!
--
Best regards,
Misha Shnurapet, Fedora Project Contributor
https://fedoraproject.org
On 05/19/11 21:14, Tim wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 12:19 +0900, Misha Shnurapet wrote:
>> Nope, if you're a plain user like me using an applet to "scan" you'll
>> only see what's broadcast.
> Nope, depending on your client, you'll see them all. Even Windows did
> that. You'd see a list of *all
On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 12:19 +0900, Misha Shnurapet wrote:
> Nope, if you're a plain user like me using an applet to "scan" you'll
> only see what's broadcast.
Nope, depending on your client, you'll see them all. Even Windows did
that. You'd see a list of *all* transmitting access points, and the
20.05.2011, 11:53, "Genes MailLists" :
> If you use any tool to scan wifi networks - you'll see SSID's whether
> they are broadcast or not ...
Nope, if you're a plain user like me using an applet to "scan" you'll only see
what's broadcast. And many people are. Do not provoke them, at least?
--
On 05/19/2011 10:43 PM, Misha Shnurapet wrote:
> 20.05.2011, 03:10, "Lamar Owen" :
>
> Once I was out with my notebook when I came up with an urgent need for the
> Internets. I saw several access points on the list. But they are all
> protected and I wanted online so bad it made me want to crac
20.05.2011, 03:10, "Lamar Owen" :
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 02:35:09 PM Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
>> SSID hiding is *not* secure. It is *not* a deterrent. Security through
>> obscurity is *not* security.
>
> SSID hiding isn't about security. It's about being able to show that someone
> who
On 05/19/2011 02:56 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 05/19/2011 11:45 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> So, turning off SSID broadcast is really not a good suggestion.
>
> If you have only one access point and no devices that insist on getting
> the SSID before connecting turning off SSID broadcast does ha
On Thursday, May 19, 2011 02:45:38 PM Genes MailLists wrote:
> Still a bad idea - some things may, for anything that violates the
> 802.11 standards - such as non-broadcast of SSID, choose not to connect
> to your router. That means some of your client devices may no longer
> work ...
That's fin
On 05/19/2011 01:56 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 05/19/2011 11:45 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> So, turning off SSID broadcast is really not a good suggestion.
>
> If you have only one access point and no devices that insist on getting
> the SSID before connecting turning off SSID broadcast does ha
On 05/19/2011 11:45 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> So, turning off SSID broadcast is really not a good suggestion.
If you have only one access point and no devices that insist on getting
the SSID before connecting turning off SSID broadcast does have the same
effect as a No Trespassing sign: it
On 05/19/2011 02:10 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 02:35:09 PM Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>> SSID hiding is *not* secure. It is *not* a deterrent. Security through
>> obscurity is *not* security.
>
> SSID hiding isn't about security. It's about being able to show that someone
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 02:35:09 PM Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> SSID hiding is *not* secure. It is *not* a deterrent. Security through
> obscurity is *not* security.
SSID hiding isn't about security. It's about being able to show that someone
who hacked into your network intended to do so, it
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 02:10:21 PM Tim wrote:
> Password length and wierdness increases security. You're less likely
> to be hacked by lucky guesses if you don't have plain words in there.
> Certainly don't use real names, phone numbers, birthdates, or anything
> else that's easy for someone e
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:36:50 PM James McKenzie wrote:
> I'll try to make this simple for JD.
> 1. Hidden SSID. Standard practice.
[snip]
> 7. Changing the channel. Standard practice and it prevents interference.
8. Turn off the router and the connection when (if) you're not using it.
My
On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 08:25 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> Time to add some more confusion to the pie.
I'm not sure that's a good idea.
>
> Another security precaution that sort of helps for a home system, if
> you live in a house, is to put the access point in the basement.
> That way, the
On 05/18/2011 06:23 AM, Tim wrote:
> Tim:
>>> Completely pointless:
>>>
>>> Your device is transmitting something, this is detectable. And it
>>> does so several times a second (i.e. it's continual).
>
>
> James McKenzie:
>> True. Bet you have a lock on every door to your house as well.
>> Tur
On 05/18/11 20:33, charles zeitler wrote:
> -- Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. On Wed, May 18,
> 2011 at 12:04 AM, JD wrote:
>> > On 05/17/11 21:15, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
>>> >> On 05/17/2011 11:36 PM, JD wrote:.
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm waiting for the next level new security tha
--
Do what thou wilt
shall be the whole of the Law.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:04 AM, JD wrote:
> On 05/17/11 21:15, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
>> On 05/17/2011 11:36 PM, JD wrote:.
>>
>> I'm waiting for the next level new security that is unbreakable before
>> buying my next new home wireless
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 14:20 +0100, Ian Malone wrote:
> Another possible application is if you have a number of devices in a
> department and you want to revoke access for one for some reason, but
> you don't want to change passwords every time you do this, so you can
> temporarily disable access un
On 18 May 2011 12:23, Tim wrote:
> Really MAC filtering is only barely useful as the most basic of
> management tools. e.g. You have a video game or mobile phone that
> automatically tries to log into a nearby network, and it's a pain to
> configure (or you can't). So you blacklist it, and hav
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:39, Rick Sewill wrote:
> My paranoia causes me to believe the back doors don't stop with text chat.
> My paranoia causes me to believe multiple governments demanded back doors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Software
"Prior to that year, Lotus had been restricted fr
On Wednesday, May 18, 2011 07:01:53 AM Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> Except for skype, of course... ;-) But that's old news. And now that
> Microsoft took it over, they will probably trade with the nsa for a
> backdoor... :-)
>
I apologize for the off topic remarks I am about to make.
I would be ver
On Wednesday 18 May 2011 06:04:49 JD wrote:
> On 05/17/11 21:15, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
> > I'm waiting for the next level new security that is unbreakable before
> > buying my next new home wireless router. B^)
>
> I do not think there is one, nor will there be one
> (for public use).
> The g
Tim:
>> Completely pointless:
>>
>> Your device is transmitting something, this is detectable. And it
>> does so several times a second (i.e. it's continual).
James McKenzie:
> True. Bet you have a lock on every door to your house as well.
> Turning off the SSID is a deterent. Make them go so
On 05/17/11 21:15, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
> On 05/17/2011 11:36 PM, JD wrote:
>> TKIP is the feeble one.
>> Two researchers in Japan busted TKIP in less than one minute
>> using an ordinary PC.
> You are correct. I just went and looked at my wireless router, and I'm
> using AES. I remember hea
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 03:55 +, g wrote:
> On 05/18/2011 03:09 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> <>
>
> > WEP is known to be vulnerable. WPA has some weaknesses in some
> > circumstances. WPA2 however is thought to be secure if you use a
> > hard-to-guess password.
>
> as you say *thought to be
On 05/17/2011 11:36 PM, JD wrote:
> TKIP is the feeble one.
> Two researchers in Japan busted TKIP in less than one minute
> using an ordinary PC.
You are correct. I just went and looked at my wireless router, and I'm
using AES. I remember hearing about how feeble TKIP was 4 years ago,
and imme
On 05/18/2011 03:36 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
<>
> The first part of security is knowing what NOT TO do, not what TO do.
this is one point that too many fail at, and in such, set up a weak
system.
once you *think* you have a secure system, it is time to test with all
the tools you have available
On 05/18/2011 03:09 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
<>
> WEP is known to be vulnerable. WPA has some weaknesses in some
> circumstances. WPA2 however is thought to be secure if you use a
> hard-to-guess password.
as you say *thought to be secure*.
> A quick look at Wikipedia could have told you
On 05/17/2011 12:36 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
>
> Also if it's your home wLan, hide it, don't broadcast the ssid.
> So those in your neighbourhood won't even know you have a wireless.
>
As many have pointed out - you should not disable SSID broadcast.
Disabling it offers zero security benefit
On 5/17/11 6:20 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> I didn't say that cracking wpa2-ps/aes is easy. I was saying that,
> whatever
> the security algorithm you are trying to crack, having a hidden SSID and
> filtered MAC is not going to make it *any* harder than having a public SSID
> and
> no MAC filter
On 05/17/11 20:16, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
> On 05/17/2011 09:53 PM, JD wrote:
>> Well, I hate to disappoint anyone, but until
>> I see a credible security researchers/professors
>> show in a scientific publication that they
>> were able to crack wpa2-psk/AES using PC's
>> and in reasonable time (
On 05/18/2011 01:53 AM, JD wrote:
<>
> Well, I hate to disappoint anyone, but until I see a credible security
> researchers/professors show in a scientific publication that they
> were able to crack wpa2-psk/AES using PC's and in reasonable time
> (say a few days), then I would believe it. Youtu
On 5/17/11 2:01 PM, JD wrote:
> On 05/17/11 12:23, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
>> On Tuesday 17 May 2011 19:47:24 JD wrote:
>>> On 05/17/11 11:23, Steve Searle wrote:
Around 07:16pm on Tuesday, May 17, 2011 (UK time), JD scrawled:
> Right. Also, it is not necessarily "neighbours" that are adjac
On 05/17/2011 09:53 PM, JD wrote:
> Well, I hate to disappoint anyone, but until
> I see a credible security researchers/professors
> show in a scientific publication that they
> were able to crack wpa2-psk/AES using PC's
> and in reasonable time (say a few days), then
> I would believe it. Youtube
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 01:07 +, g wrote:
> On 05/17/2011 11:44 PM, JD wrote:
> <>
>
> > You call youtube a credible publication?
>
> yes/no.
>
> they do have all different ways of cracking wep, wpa, and wpa2
> that are mentioned in this thread.
WEP is known to be vulnerable. WPA has some wea
On 05/17/2011 09:30 AM, Misha Shnurapet wrote:
> 18.05.2011, 00:39, "Joe Zeff":
>> > Just out of curiosity, how would a phrase in a language that's not
>> > natively written in the Latin alphabet do?
> It didn't work at all. I mean it didn't even take it as a setting.
Don't try to enter it in it
On 05/17/2011 09:20 AM, JD wrote:
> Good question. You have to ask a computer
> geek who speaks that language :)
>
> But seriously, just about all languages have
> an alphabet and they use computer with the
> locale set to that alphbet. Probably some alphabets
> are coded in UTF8 and others in UTF1
On 05/17/11 18:07, g wrote:
> On 05/17/2011 11:44 PM, JD wrote:
> <>
>
>> You call youtube a credible publication?
> yes/no.
>
> they do have all different ways of cracking wep, wpa, and wpa2
> that are mentioned in this thread.
>
> just a few from my bookmarks, which where easy to find via a littl
On Tuesday 17 May 2011 22:01:11 JD wrote:
> On 05/17/11 12:23, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 May 2011 19:47:24 JD wrote:
> >> On 05/17/11 11:23, Steve Searle wrote:
> >>> Around 07:16pm on Tuesday, May 17, 2011 (UK time), JD scrawled:
> Right. Also, it is not necessarily "neighbours
On 05/17/2011 11:44 PM, JD wrote:
<>
> You call youtube a credible publication?
yes/no.
they do have all different ways of cracking wep, wpa, and wpa2
that are mentioned in this thread.
just a few from my bookmarks, which where easy to find via a little
google time;
http://www.youtube.com/wa
On 05/17/11 15:29, g wrote:
> On 05/17/2011 09:01 PM, JD wrote:
> <>
>
>> Too much bluster here.
>>
>> Show us any credible publication that claims wpa2-ps/AES has been
>> easily cracked or even cracked at all.
> so, you say you have not been on youtube lately?
>
>
You call youtube a credible publi
> Obtaining a MAC takes seconds - i.e. no more 'work' than it is to find
> your 'hidden' SSID.
>
> These snake oil methods of wireless security need to simply die.
Seconded, and the arguments about it needing technical knowledge don't
really work any more because tools for old style wireless, a
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
