| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 84046 | 2007-10-22 08:54:00 | WEP security cracked? | lakewoodlady (103) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 604335 | 2007-10-22 19:53:00 | Yes I have a wireless laptop which is configured to connect to the wireless Netgear router. Thanks guys, for all your helpful comments and will check to find out if the laptop will support WPA 2. :thumbs: |
lakewoodlady (103) | ||
| 604336 | 2007-10-22 23:34:00 | I think WPA2-PSK is no more secure than WPA-PSK. Both standards in PSK mode can be compromised using offline dictionary attacks. Both WPA's in pre shared key mode are fine for a home network however. The security ultimately depends on your choice of passphrase. The most secure is EAP with certificate authentication however that is more directed at enterprise wireless networks and either of the WPAs with EAP authentication is bulletproof secure. Given the choice though, WPA2 is still better as it adds the AES encryption algorithm. A 128bit AES key would take a computer almost 150 trillion years to crack (assuming the attacking computer can try 2^55 keys per second). www.nist.gov WPA-PSK (the 'vanilla' WPA setting with a shared passphrase) has been cracked, and can be compromised in as little as 4 packets - it's actually less secure than WEP. All versions of WPA-EAP are still secure, as is WPA2-PSK. For most home networks I'd recommend WPA2-PSK. |
utopian201 (6245) | ||
| 604337 | 2007-10-23 00:03:00 | Yes I have a wireless laptop which is configured to connect to the wireless Netgear router . Thanks guys, for all your helpful comments and will check to find out if the laptop will support WPA 2 . :thumbs: Just be aware that of you're using Windows XP's wireless utility, it doesn't support WPA2 out of the box . You will have to download a patch/hotfix from MS to get WPA2 support for XP . You can get it here ( . microsoft . com/downloads/details . aspx?familyid=662BB74D-E7C1-48D6-95EE-1459234F4483&displaylang=en" target="_blank">www . microsoft . com) |
Sherman (9181) | ||
| 604338 | 2007-10-23 04:25:00 | Actually, perhaps -because- AES is used, WPA2-PSK is actually more secure than WPA-PSK from offline dictionary attacks. I'm not sure on this one. I think WPA2-PSK is no more secure than WPA-PSK. Both standards in PSK mode can be compromised using offline dictionary attacks. Both WPA's in pre shared key mode are fine for a home network however. The security ultimately depends on your choice of passphrase. The most secure is EAP with certificate authentication however that is more directed at enterprise wireless networks and either of the WPAs with EAP authentication is bulletproof secure. Given the choice though, WPA2 is still better as it adds the AES encryption algorithm. A 128bit AES key would take a computer almost 150 trillion years to crack (assuming the attacking computer can try 2^55 keys per second). www.nist.gov |
utopian201 (6245) | ||
| 604339 | 2007-10-23 04:47:00 | Dictionary attacks only work if your passphrase is in the dictionary & brute force still takes a long time. | Greven (91) | ||
| 604340 | 2007-10-23 06:15:00 | I think WPA2-PSK is no more secure than WPA-PSK. Both standards in PSK mode can be compromised using offline dictionary attacks. Both WPA's in pre shared key mode are fine for a home network however. The security ultimately depends on your choice of passphrase.Incorrect. The weakness in WPA-PSK is inherent in the protocol itself, it's nothing to do with how secure the passphrase is. WPA2-PSK does not suffer from the same flaw, and therefore is still secure. The most secure is EAP with certificate authentication however that is more directed at enterprise wireless networks and either of the WPAs with EAP authentication is bulletproof secure.Yup. I run this setup at home, although I agree it's not suitable for most. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 604341 | 2007-10-23 10:05:00 | damn.. my AP can only do WPA-PSK not WPA2-PSK... my neighbour use WEP.. so hopefully whoever comes to attack will attack them first :p |
heni72847 (1166) | ||
| 604342 | 2007-10-23 19:48:00 | If you were really worried, you could also set up MAC filtering to only allow the computers you wanted to connect to your network access the internet etc | stephen (9719) | ||
| 604343 | 2007-10-23 20:13:00 | If you were really worried, you could also set up MAC filtering to only allow the computers you wanted to connect to your network access the internet etc This does pretty much nothing, as MAC addresses can be spoofed; data can still be injected into your network and the access point will accept it as legitimate. |
utopian201 (6245) | ||
| 604344 | 2007-10-23 20:29:00 | Incorrect . The weakness in WPA-PSK is inherent in the protocol itself, it's nothing to do with how secure the passphrase is . WPA2-PSK does not suffer from the same flaw, and therefore is still secure . Yup . I run this setup at home, although I agree it's not suitable for most . I'm interested in this as I did wireless network security research as part of my honours year at university . I'd hate to think I did it all wrong! From my understanding, WPA is a (secure!) stop gap measure to secure WEP compatible hardware, that is, WPA was designed to run on hardware designed to run WEP . However WPA2 was designed from the ground up to be secure . However I'm quite sure WPA has no inherent weaknesses like WEP . What inherent weaknesses are present in WPA? I've done a google search; Passphrase affecting security: . icsalabs . com/icsa/docs/html/communities/WLAN/wp_PSKStudy . pdf" target="_blank">www . icsalabs . com Do you have a source for more detailed information on the weaknesses of WPA-PSK compared to WPA2-PSK? While WPA still uses the RC4 algorithm (like WEP), the way it is used is different due to TKIP; . openxtra . co . uk/articles/wpa-vs-80211i . php" target="_blank">www . openxtra . co . uk |
utopian201 (6245) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||