Slashdot Mirror


WEP Gets A Bit Stronger

gmr2048 writes: "CNN is reporting that RSA has helped develop "Fast Packet Keying" to strengthen WEP security. More info can be found at the RSA page. Damn, and I'm still working on my Pringles can antenna."

84 comments

  1. oksala by initnull · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    oksala

  2. Am I first... by Strom+Thurmond+(R-SC · · Score: -1

    Maybe, maybe not. I don't really care.

    --

    Strom Thurmond; the dean of the US Senate...
    the deadest fart on slashdot.

  3. WEP Security is getting much better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yes, we all know that WEP security needs to get a whole lot better before the WEP is actually useful.

    1. Re:WEP Security is getting much better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, was the moderator smoking something, or do I just not get it?

    2. Re:WEP Security is getting much better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A reference to s/WEP/WEB/ in the story submission, I believe.

  4. IMPORTANT WARNING: Avoid CmdrTaco's "special taco" by WeatherTroll · · Score: -1

    This is an important warning to all slashdotters. CmdrTaco has been luring people (mainly underage males) into the slashdot compound to eat his "special taco".

    You may be wondering what CmdrTaco's "special taco" is. You will be wishing that you hadn't been wondering after you finish reading his post. To make his "special taco", CmdrTaco takes a taco shell and shits on it. He then adds lettuce, takes out his tiny withered dick (otherwise known as his "Commander"), jacks off on the taco, and adds a compound to make the person who eats the taco unconcious. Of course, the compound does not make the person unconcous until the taco is fully eaten. Thus CmdrTaco force feeds the taco to the unsuspecting victim. After all, who would knowingly eat shit and CmdrTaco's jizz.

    After the victim is unconcous, he is held against his will and used for CmdrTaco's nefarious homosexual purposes. This includes shoving taco shells up the victim's ass, taco snotting, and getting JonKatz involved. Trust me, you do not want JonKatz anywhere near your unconcious body. Also, rumor has it CmdrTaco is looking for a new goatse.cx guy. Don't let it be you!!!!!

    The last thing you may be wondering is how this goes along with "taco snotting", or what "taco snotting" is. George WIPO Bush has been doing considerable work explaining what "taco snotting" is. Please see his FAQ on "taco snotting" which can be found as a -1 rated comment on most slashdot stories.

    Please, if CmdrTaco offers you his "special taco", RUN LIKE HELL!!!!!!!!

    --
    Digital Divide? The only divide Linux can bridge is the crack of my ass, when I use it to wipe my ass clean.
  5. NUKE those insolent, terrorist Chinese bastards by Kiss+The+Sp0rk · · Score: -1
    Courtesy DEBKAfile

    Chinese-Made Ammo in al Qaeda Caves Confirms DEBKAfile's October 6 Expose of Chinese Aid to Bin Laden
    17 December: DEBKAfile was the first publication to reveal that China had sent thousands of armed men into Afghanistan in support of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Our first story came out on October 6, 2001, one day before the US went to war in Afghanistan.
    Monday, December 17, Pentagon officials aboard the plane taking US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Brussels, revealed that large quantities of Chinese-manufactured ammo were discovered in the Tora Bora cave hideouts of al Qaeda.
    They were speaking to CNN's senior defense correspondent James McIntyre, who ran the story with close-up shots of the cache. It was shown to include mortar shells, anti-tank rockets and ammunition for various types of automatic rifles and machine guns of Chinese manufacture, abandoned by fleeing al Qaeda men.
    DEBKAfile continued to run with the story through different stages of the Afghanistan War.
    Follow-ups, verified by other media, appeared on October 20 and November 15. In the first, we reported 15 Chinese fighters found dead in Kandahar. They were part of an escort convoy for one of bin Laden's senior lieutenants, Basir al Masri, commander of the Arab contingents in Jalalabad, which came under US bombing as it left Kandahar.
    In the second, David Chater of Sky television attested to the presence of Chinese fighting alongside the Taliban and al Qaeda in the battles of Konduz and Khanabad in northern Afghanistan.
    Now comes the CNN report, which confirms that Beijing sent to bin Laden, not only men but also quantities of weapons.
    Click here for three articles in DEBKAfile's China section
    John Stanton, in a feature article in the December issue of National Defense Magazine, reports that "DEBKA caused a stir several weeks ago when it published an unconfirmed report that Chinese troops were fighting alongside the Taliban..."
    --
    KTS:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Utensil.
    There is no contradiction.
    1. Re:NUKE those insolent, terrorist Chinese bastards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      because god knows the u.s. never aided bin laden.

  6. RC4 by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They still use the RC4 algorithm, but now they claim to be implementing it right. Might actually keep the bad folk out if they can get the patches out to everybody.

    1. Re:RC4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      RC4 is cryptographically broken. it doesnt matter how good your implementation is -- its still a broken algorithm.

    2. Re:RC4 by bob_jenkins · · Score: 2, Informative

      RC4 is broken? Oh really?

      I know the first 40 bytes have noticable correlations to the key. That's avoided by skipping the first 256 bytes. I know that if you see 2^^31 bytes of an RC4 stream you can distinguish it from random noise. That's not an interesting flaw at all, unless you're generating 2gig of data and you don't want anyone to know which encryption protocol you're using. Did you mean something more by saying "RC4 is broken"?

  7. odd comment in similar article by jeffy124 · · Score: 3, Redundant

    literally just finished reading the cnet version of this story, which included a statement like the following:

    "... does not address any new holes that might crop up"

    can I be the first to tell cnet "DUH!"

    --
    The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
  8. WEB security or WEP security??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Was that a typo?

    1. Re:WEB security or WEP security??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      attn moron - it says clearly WEP

      try new glasses

    2. Re:WEB security or WEP security??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      We will leave it to others to read and see that both WEB and WEP are present in the posting and then see who is the moron. :-)

    3. Re:WEB security or WEP security??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      CNN is reporting that RSA has helped develop "Fast Packet Keying" to strengthen WEB security

      Maybe it's you who needs the glasses?

  9. Frances E. Holberton by K0R$+h4x0r+ru1z · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Frances E. Holberton, 84, Early Computer Programmer

    By STEVE LOHR

    Frances Elizabeth Holberton, one of the first computer programmers, whose contributions to software over the years ranged from an early data- sorting program to helping develop the business programming language Cobol, died on Dec. 8 at a nursing home in Rockville, Md. She was 84.

    The cause was heart disease, diabetes and complications from a stroke that she suffered several years ago, according to her daughter, Priscilla Holberton of Silver Spring, Md.

    "Betty Holberton was a real software pioneer," said Donald E. Knuth, a professor emeritus at Stanford University and author of the three-volume "The Art of Computer Programming," the profession's defining treatise.

    Mrs. Holberton, a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, was one of the six young women recruited by the Army to program the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer, which became known by its evocative acronym, Eniac. The Eniac is credited with being the first all-electronic digital computer.

    The Eniac's job was to calculate the firing trajectories for artillery shells. The young women programmers were selected for their skills in mathematics. The work they did was "hard-wired" programming, laboriously setting switches and cables inside the 30-ton black behemoth of a machine.

    Mrs. Holberton, colleagues recall, was particularly adept at figuring out the best path for guiding the complex calculations through the electronic labyrinth of the Eniac. Frequently, these insights came to her overnight.

    "Betty had an amazing logical mind, and she solved more problems in her sleep than other people did awake," recalled Jean J. Bartik, another of the Eniac programmers.

    The Eniac was demonstrated in February 1946, too late for use in World War II, but it helped open the door to modern computing. The Eniac programming team broke up, but Mrs. Holberton was the one of the six who stayed longest in the field.

    After the war, she joined the Eniac designers, John Presper Eckert and John W. Mauchly, in their effort to develop the Univac, an early commercial computer, which was introduced in 1951. While working on the Univac, Mrs. Holberton did some of her most innovative work. She developed a program for sorting and merging large data files, which at the time were stored on reels of magnetic tape. Any such updating of data files was an arduous programming task at the time, and her program vastly simplified that job.

    "That was a huge tour de force," said Paul E. Ceruzzi, a computer historian at the Smithsonian Institution.

    In 1953, Mrs. Holberton joined the Navy's Applied Math Lab at the David Taylor Model Basin in Maryland as the supervisor of advanced programming, where she worked until 1966. In 1959, she was a crucial member of the committee that developed Cobol, or Common Business Oriented Language. The committee worked for six months on the standards and specifications for a business programming language, which was introduced in 1960.

    The committee's work was seen as a temporary solution to the growing problem created by the increasing need for a standard programming language for handling business data at a time when computing was moving into the mainstream of the corporate world. Yet Cobol, updated many times over the years, is still widely used.

    Computer scientists often criticize Cobol as a hasty, inelegantly designed programming language. But it gave computing a way to handle and visually describe business data, making it easier to program business problems on computers.

    Mrs. Holberton, who joined the National Bureau of Standards in 1966 and worked there for two decades, once echoed those views. In a 1983 interview conducted for the Charles Babbage Institute, a computing history center at the University of Minnesota, Mrs. Holberton conceded some of the criticisms of the language she helped develop. But, she added, "Cobol, I felt, was very important because of its ability to describe data."

    According to Kathryn Kleiman, a lawyer who is working on a documentary film on the women Eniac programmers and their contribution to the field, Mrs. Holberton consistently worked on trying to make computers easier to program.

    "She took that hard-won knowledge on the Eniac and applied it over the next 40 years, in nearly everything she did in the field," Ms. Kleiman said.

    In addition the her daughter Priscilla, Mrs. Holberton is survived by her husband, John Vaughn Holberton, and another daughter, Pamela Holberton, both of Rockville.

  10. Moving ipsec to the hardware layer. by terrynt · · Score: 0

    Great they moved the encryption to the hardware freeing up the cpu to run seti@home a little faster.

    Why buy new hardware, when with a little effort you can use ipsec to do the same thing.

    1. Re:Moving ipsec to the hardware layer. by Jeff+Probst · · Score: 2, Informative

      portions of encryption technologies are already implemented in the Intel Pro100 network cards.

      i dont know how hard it would be to offload portions of IPSec to the network card. i know that freebsd can do checksum offloading if the network card supports it.

  11. I wish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    I had taken a pic of my Kraft Cheez Ball-can rocket. It was a dual-stage rocket, the first stage was 3 Cheez Ball cans and the second stage was 2 Pringles cans. It made it about 10 feet off the ground before landing as a smoldering tube of cardboard.

  12. Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there is a weakness, there is a way

  13. OT: pringle cans by kwj8fty1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Speaking of pringles cans, we just built a ton of them at the last seattlewireless meeting. We're seeing a 10 to 13db gain from a $5-10 antenna.

    You can see pictures here:

    http://www.seattlewireless.net/index.cgi/DecemberM eetingPictures2001

    1. Re:OT: pringle cans by scseth · · Score: 1

      Im still working on my pringles can also. Im trying to setup a free wireless zone in Boulder, CO. Anyone have a pipe cutter I can borrow ;)

    2. Re:OT: pringle cans by rbgaynor · · Score: 1

      Alas, the local Quickie-Mart has already suffered from the slashdot effect - not a can of Pringles to be found :)

      --
      "Good things don't end with eum, they end with mania or teria." - H. Simpson
    3. Re:OT: pringle cans by LinuxHam · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Okay, can someone PLEASE tell me how to hook up the antenna wire to the Orinoco Silver cards? I had always heard that Orinoco Gold cards came with an antenna plug, but my Orinoco Silver cards have nothing. If there's a way and a reason to pop off the little circle in the center of the outer edge, please enlighten me.

      These articles all say, "then just connect the antenna wire to your card." HOW? Thanks! :)

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
    4. Re:OT: pringle cans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should probably think about some security for that site.

    5. Re:OT: pringle cans by richj · · Score: 2

      That little plastic circle is the cover for the plug. Pop it off with your fingernail, it comes off pretty easily.

      Then you can plug the antenna in.

  14. Practical mathematics by s20451 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/index.html:

    Why is WEP Broken?
    The weakness in WEP stems back to a key derivation problem in the standard. ... While the WEP standard had specified using different keys for different data packets, the key derivation function (how to derive a key from a common starting point) was flawed.

    To all you undergrads doing math exams this week: yes, you really do have to know how to do this in the real world!

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    1. Re:Practical mathematics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apparently once, by one person, and incorrectly.

  15. This is great news! by IIOIOOIOO · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now they just need to improve things to the point that they can boldly advertise wireless security to the consumer public without having fear of getting burned. You've perhaps wondered why we've never heard any w-commerce commercials touting the security of wireless banking transactions? That's because they aren't, at least not yet. Heck, they still have trouble with the plain-ol' landlocked net.

  16. But . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Okay, is it just me, or does anyone else here wonder "what's the point?" Everybody knows about the incestous relationship between RSA and the US Federal Government. I think you pretty much have to assume there's a back door in anything RSA touches. If not, you know they at least ran it past the NSA to make sure it was crackable. And what's the point of encryption if the Feds can still read your email?


    I'd say, stick with good open source encryption like One Fish or Two Fish.

    1. Re:But . . . by 4mn0t1337 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If the feds want your mail, I doubt they are going to set up an agent with a laptop outside your house 24/7 just to capture your data stream.


      All they need to do is go straight to your ISP, setup a box, capture all your traffic, and anyone else's at the same time.

      Much easier that leaving the "Flowers By Irene" truck outside your house around the clock...

      --

      ______
      Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.

  17. Damn... by 4mn0t1337 · · Score: 5, Funny

    This means I have to go back to just reading my own mail for the time being?

    Just when my neighbor's online affair was getting interesting. ;)

    --

    ______
    Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.

  18. this is good until the goverment squashes by paulydavis · · Score: 0, Troll

    Homeland security, Homeland security, Homeland security... this is the rallying banter of many in Washington. While I hold a concern for this also, I worry that our RIGHTS (inalienable) are going to be sacrificed. Should we expect Senate hearing soon on banning heavy encryption? Of course the business lobby might acutely help us here.

  19. Why do packet-level encryption ? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Seems to me that the most secure way to do wireless networking is to set up encrypted tunnels :

    No bad guy will ever be able to use the network anyway.

    You have the choice of encryption policy you want to use and you're in control on how secure you want the network to be.

    The overhead of encrypting the packet headers is avoided (granted, the card is supposed to do that transparently, but still I have seen significant slowdowns in lag and throughput when playing with WEP).

    The only drawbacks I can think of with doing your own protocol-level encryption are :

    Bad guys can still see your bastion host or VPN gateway in clear and have a go at it (DoS or otherwise), and script kiddies might want to have a try because they think it's in clear, while when they see WEP in place they might not even try.

    You have to set up a VPN and the infrastructure that goes with it (duh) while you don't have to with WEP.

    It's a little harder for Windows users to use your service, if you use PPTP, or it's impossible altogether if you use something Windows doesn't understand, or it's costly because you have to buy third-party Windows VPN software (I don't deal with Windows users, thank God, so problem solved for me).

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Why do packet-level encryption ? by bourne · · Score: 3, Informative

      I see two main reasons why packet-level encryption is worthwhile (assuming it isn't totally broken, of course):

      • Having encryption in the network hardware means that it is more likely to be used and to become ubiquitous. Hardware people are MUCH better at interoperably supporting standards than software people (maybe because hardware people write tighter standards).
      • You can't (or won't) encrypt EVERY protocol. DNS, DHCP, ICMP? All of these aren't worth adding application-layer encryption, but do provide valuable data to an attacker.

      Personally, I'm happy to have working packet-level encryption because that adds one more layer. SSH over IPSec over WEP, anyone?

    2. Re:Why do packet-level encryption ? by cymen · · Score: 2

      This is a good thing! Know why? Because everyone who brought Orinico/Lucent OEM'ed 802.11b cards (such as my Dell TrueMobile one) will get a new firmware update! For some reason Dell is still back on the old 6.x firmware while lucent is up to 7.x. Unfortunately AFAIK the firmware installer hasn't been hacked yet to make it possible to flash Lucent/Orinico OEM'ed (cards without their labels) devices... Someone got a hack?

      In the meantime I'm waiting for Lucent to update the firmware and then Dell to repackage it for me!

    3. Re:Why do packet-level encryption ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm setting up a turnkey solution that will provide a gateway between a network of access points and the hardwired network already in a building. It will use VPN crypto to add an extra layer of security, but WEP will still be there.

      WEP is broken, but it still makes things difficult for the would-be attacker. I think the AirSnort guys mentioned something on the order of a week of sniffing in order to get enough weak packets.

      40 bit WEP is worthless. I broke it with my laptop in about 30 minutes. 128 bit is tricky enough to keep things tied up for awhile.

      Think of it like the removable faces for car stereos. Your casual wardriver will just move along to the next network unless they wanted to attack you specifically in the first place.

    4. Re:Why do packet-level encryption ? by phoneboy · · Score: 2
      * It's a little harder for Windows users to use your service, if you use PPTP

      Care to explain this comment? I'm actually using PPTP with the server running on a Linux box and a Win2k client system right now to "secure" my WLAN segment. The only other stuff allowed from that segment is IPSec to certain known systems and SSH directly to my linux box (with RSA keys, of course). No problems here.

      -- PhoneBoy

      --
      The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of anyone, including the poster.
    5. Re:Why do packet-level encryption ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * It's a little harder for Windows users to use your service

      And you could always use CIPE or ipsec

    6. Re:Why do packet-level encryption ? by swillden · · Score: 2

      Seems to me that the most secure way to do wireless networking is to set up encrypted tunnels :

      Except that that's not enough.

      The problem is that all of the hosts on the wireless LAN have the keys used to set up the tunnels through the firewall, and their butts are hanging in the breeze. Sure, adding VPN-type tunnels adds an additional level of complexity to an attacker, and that's a good thing, but until you can ensure the security of all of the wirelessly-connected hosts, it's only an additional work factor *not* strong security.

      Each wireless host needs its own firewall that will reject any connections not coming through the secure tunnel. Whether or not running firewall software on the host being protected is good enough depends on your level of paranoia, I suppose.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:Why do packet-level encryption ? by stripes · · Score: 2
      ou can't (or won't) encrypt EVERY protocol. DNS, DHCP, ICMP? All of these aren't worth adding application-layer encryption, but do provide valuable data to an attacker.

      IPsec for IPv6 (and I assume IPv4) is pretty flexible and can be used on UDP (DNS, DHCP), and I *think* ICMP (it would be useful for the "had to fragment, but couldn't" packets as well as redirects, but since it isn't required there it won't really help).

      That said there is very little wrong with packet level encryption, about the only two "wrong" things are fooling people into thinking they don't need session level encryption, and, um, fooling people into thinking they don't need session level encryption :-)

    8. Re:Why do packet-level encryption ? by bourne · · Score: 2, Informative

      IPsec for IPv6 (and I assume IPv4) is pretty flexible and can be used on UDP (DNS, DHCP), and I *think* ICMP

      Well, yes and no. DNS, for example, works fine if you have LAN clients and your single LAN DNS server, but you won't be likely to set up IPSec SAs with many external servers.

      DHCP, no - how can you set up an SA when one of the endpoints has no IP address? (Not that DHCP is all that much worth protecting, but...)

      ICMP, same as DNS - how many remote systems are you going to have, or be able to negotiate, SAs with?

      Now, once IPv6 comes in, and IPSec becomes truly opportunistic, maybe - but in IPv4, it isn't really useful for "casual" encryption.

    9. Re:Why do packet-level encryption ? by Yarn · · Score: 2

      You set up an IPSEC tunnel to a trusted net, i.e.:

      [laptop] . . . . [Wireless AP]---[Linux+FreeS/WAN]--(the world)
      \-------tunnel-----------------/


      I'm writing a paper on this at the moment, it'll go up somewhere on my web page, some time.

      --
      -Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
    10. Re:Why do packet-level encryption ? by tilt@ology · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's another reason why packet-level is nice; tunneling doesn't survive putting your laptop to sleep for any length of time. We use an SSH-based VPN for work, and it works swell, but it means I tend to lug my laptop around the apartment with the clamshell open :(.

  20. fdasdfs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    fdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf dffdsfds dfsa fsdkjf;l dfs fdf sf fd sdf jdfkjdf fd dfj kdf df dfkls fd fdf df fdsfd fds fddf f df f f fdkjdf dfj fdsjkkjf ijk k jf f dfs; kdffd j jkdff ddf jkfd dfskj dfjk fsdjl;fd sdf fdk fd f f f fjkfkf df dsfk fl f f fsdi dfs9dsf df

    1. Re:fdasdfs by cmdr_shithead · · Score: -1

      I find this comment offensive and demeaning! It is truly flaimbait!

  21. There is no security without physical security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    There is no security without physical security. And barring protecting the feds from installing keyboard sniffers and other constitution violating passphrase snatcher and tempest EMI amplifier trojans, you need:

    CHALLENGE RESPONSE.

    Without two way challenge response there is no way to prove the "system" your WEP is seemingly connecting to is not really a NSA-NRO van parked in the street that acts as a go between in the chain.

    a covert liason.

    This crap by PKP-RSA is nothing but more foolhardy layers of swill that does not fundamentally prevent a 3rd party intercept.

    It reeks of DoD funding to me, more so than all the proven NAI payoffs and moles.

  22. yes! by cmdr_shithead · · Score: -1

    suck dick! (mine)

  23. another dickless wonder with no skills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    women were hired for eniac "coding" because they were cheap and did menial wiring tasks, similar to secretarial work.

    Few were high iq wonders. just as few people over IQ 124 today are female. (hundreds of citations in "The Bell Curve".

    Just because someone dies does not mean you can distort reality and the truth.

    The truth is that VERY VERY FEW penis-challenged inventors and software engineers ev ever contributed much to the software industry.

    In fact they HAMPER it at the largest software companies such as Apple Computer, and are the source of most of the employee friction.

  24. Low on cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Our car-manufacturing company has developed a new revolutionary business model for making cars.

    We give away the cars for free and then we sell services for those cars! If you want to we can clean your car, wax it or you can use some of our other services.

    We get cash from a couple of VC's, the rest of them simple don't "get it". If we need more we just call "the suits".

  25. What about the other 12 'key contributors'? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Informative
    From the RSA press release:

    Fast Packet Keying," a new technology based on the RC4® algorithm, is designed to help organizations securely fix the WEP encryption standard. This new WEP solution, developed by RSA Security, Hifn and other members of the 802.11 committee, is designed to generate a unique RC4 key for each data packet sent over the wireless LAN.

    The fix to WEP was developed by a working group in which RSA was far from being the sole contributor. It is a bit off for RSA to try to claim the glory for the fix when a significant part of the WEP problem is due to a weakness in the keying scheme of RC4.

    The presentation lists as 'key contributors' Jessie Walker of Intel, Bob Beach and Clint Chaplin from Symbol, Ron Brockman of Intersil Nancy Cam-Winget of Atheros Greg Chesson, Atheros Niels Ferguson, MacFergus BV Marty Lefkowitz, TI Bob O'Hara, Blackstorm Networks Dorothy Stanley, Agere Doug Smith, Cisco Albert Young, 3COM

    So when RSA wants to get votes it has a dozen 'key contributors'. But when they want to take the credit there are two.

    The original algorithm was botched, in part it is claimed (by an informed source) because the original IEEE working group left the crypto to an NSA advisor. Failing to understand the specific weakness of using a stream cipher in general and the specific weaknesses of the RC4 key scheme are the major reasons for the failure of the WEP design.

    One could rightly blame the original working group for failing to read up on the litterature and avoid the known flaws of RC4, only RC4 was until recently a proprietary and secret algorithm of RSA. The key scheme flaws were only publicised after RC4 was reverse engineered without RSA approval, and resulted in considerable protest by RSA.

    This type of publicity grab is not good for open standards development. It encourages people to release their proposals to the press rather than to the working group.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  26. We all now what WEP is good for.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....boosting the output of your engine so you can catch up to those 109's.

    1. Re:We all now what WEP is good for.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of brings up the issue of fairness in cryptographic resources doesn't it? If gullible people get taken advantage of because they play by the rules does that mean that taking advantage of gullible people is the right thing to do?

  27. Compression filter likes randomness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    9171 1055 9167 2938 8032 1387 8479 3466 5085 7076 1496 6243 1756 5006 1422 9516 293 8739 7948 7876 3779 7759 5308 8688 499 3003 5339 7709 3797 3355 1160 6202 119 2998 6551 2947 4470 150 6928 6993 5325 4035 1140 9759 7720 9599 2895 2810 9062 1281 7048 199 7631 891 7413 2628 8343 7024 1963 9431 2521 5774 5907 5078 6133 5300 8239 6271 7658 6137 9604 4690 1767 3263 9507 1264 6270 7693 7209 7502 6242 4191 2068 5847 3607 8915 7604 8103 1107 6446 4156 7953 1308 2469 8671 8791 1790 8341 1289 5759 5910 2838 9832 5158 9193 333 93 7814 7413 309 3119 2182 3464 512 711 8342 9234 6647 9275 7618 4643 6606 6037 8559 4333 240 5319 1452 6753 4992 1264 8922 5060 4665 9355 1122 4386 3893 5158 1428 9122 6331 3834 77 4268 6336 2184 5791 4707 2312 415 1522 7969 2125 78 1387 3856 2528 1319 3110 1451 2741 8500 4411 7249 7082 2241 1434 1768 1861 9676 7089 7398 518 2700 6164 6676 7388 5730 4965 1612 887 8506 3150 9756 5794 4354 8688 8929 4248 5701 2454 7447 8711 7634 2695 7360 6716 7838 2225 6119 1277 2706 1828 8160 1995 2072 6341 2678 4862 654 5362 7674 8090 9612 7582 9707 9786 1173 5030 7558 8878 1988 3440 6181 4682 9093 6343 3426 5667 7102 8870 732 408 7498 4897 5416 8116 4281 958 8346 4077 9042 655 1542 49 3199 2956 8751 3105 1793 722 4970 671 3126 573 9285 6920 9616 6976 3693 1532 3757 9876 1153 3859 5688 3848 5843 7916 4257 6936 1798 2453 7815 5489 3579 3192 774 482 268 1442 6472 4031 2910 4899 8339 4521 9204 8298 4641 8068 3736 838 9709 441 850 8349 3247 8663 6780 1062 2020 367 4444 3487 4142 5685 5734 8934 1890 641 3747 5540 6262 1233 1905 5031 5605 4891 1812 1428 8405 2098 3630 7388 7264 8418 2278 7966 1815 7658 5575 9833 6769 8568 1021 8836 4326 7905 1098 1872 2355 2623 4065 538 4570 7480 2379 719 5241 4445 2744 7386 5454 9190 29 9738 180 1031 9380 2628 1291 8072 9134 1154 1521 5966 9453 3596 9281 5016 3950 5841 6483 230 5771 2034 3267 5173 205 5811 702 2514 3943 2348 4446 8077 5465 2730 1148 3426 1393 3208 866 6442 6275 3044 1612 2634 1470 5797 3702 4801 6674 9029 1652 5718 6257 827 8308 688 1408 6649 1095 3840 1226 6680 5871 5900 5639 5820 6851 6232 8860 151 8223 7358 8512 34 6001 5454 9050 8332 3348 7298 3140 9623 9854 5625 7659 927 6100 6305 2116 2819 5333 9277 1625 6072 4149 9615 2345 3493 6920 8313 1521 2388 8830 5106 8150 9763 2398 3868 9665 3368 8169 4843 3873 5525 1244 7502 8330 6638 7327 8735 5385 6481 321 1547 8228 4100 1 5640 1460 8312 4544 3404 3556 1780 9138 7651 7685 3686 9141 8192 6524 9873 7171 312 9936 9790 5416 3075 4002 103 6408 8525 1344 6678 5955 7580 3653 7802 7417 9763 3256 176 8489 11 2399 1230 6336 4487 4251 6649 518 184 3553 1722 6566 439 5965 7210 4713 3043 9682 7009 5745 1130 7612 7933 9481 7710 1810 1811 7452 8913 7225 1769 5174 8730 511 9649 7300 4986 8673 7815 6008 2532 2406 9577 9890 9826 9616 5032 8108 2111 2214 8623 7148 8492 5171 1126 8707 2361 163 7581 7344 601 777 9267 9279 1678 2909 9245 3733 7984 4634 5152 5336 8889 612 7179 7619 3585 795 5509 8552 8234 5244 989 2120 9732 7666 7148 4858 6669 8481 5934 4847 2073 3843 9017 7748 8259 7908 5209 196 8869 6684 2692 5225 7631 7209 7099 6926 6542 1575 9683 1794 4009 2632 9781 8274 3445 4572 3280 5641 5805 3386 731 1333 2111 1379 658 2336 5246 4491 8225 6209 844 5996 1333 223 836 8015 5634 9220 16 5525 4077 2312 7556 8546 666 399 8065 5214 73 6743 5224 1158 6006 8079 1922 940 8688 6948 4856 66 262 9132 5816 8509 3735 1367 8577 5677 2603 9146 721 405 2200 6209 8842 8623 6898 343 4915 8195 3837 9642 3029 3761 5094 7205 8584 9243 1580 6826 1318 9543 5753 6597 2594 3927 4151 4987 3002 8637 7858 7874 3399 7477 9789 7346 5893 6559 6959 5025 239 312 7055 2280 3439 9445 7525 9448 388 9077 6025 882 948 1211 343 6160 4670 8405 9773 8351 4028 6632 5778 6500 6906 9106 5316 4159 2783 9681 25 4941 3137 6974 6616 9645 3406 8500 5706 4291 3534 5114 1940 3258 2802 8555 5153 7747 1675 5826 813 3816 2454 312 8186 1586 9063 8853 6199 2093 8652 5612 637 876 1189 8245 526 3965 3411 936 384 772 9850 5875 6757 7706 8917 9261 5421 91 8497 8270 6621 650 7283 3061 9562 6468 5575 891 5050 7833 7515 7540 2481 5618 2592 9208 8853 2259 760 6466 758 4292 9407 1347 4606 7408 5964 1117 8864 539 6366 7179 996 3450 3763 1949 3535 2599 1452 7652 9745 8397 4010 4647 5524 6713 4959 5485 9451 2862 3799 4183 4956 4806 682 7440 5146 4064 3325 8746 8838 7335 5606 2228 2878 161 3223 2786 9254 4829 5721 771 8605 6120 3661 6142 1760 4352 3561 2414 4674 5434 1901 2659 6952 6359 7707 2314 9723 5687 6804 5669 6209 2575 9754 751 4202 7965 9915 3451 6050 7502 5155 4900 3298 7308 1955 7479 4193 9153 4639 4090 6953 752 4935 9892 4698 5381 2821 7967 2032 5358 4105 2943 278 5884 8112 991 1153 4377 7163 6417 1247 6968 7740 6346 2467 6128 2270 4031 8383 1944 4359 9033 4468 6370 9029 5982 2341 49 2363 2086 7774 4578 247 6456 9032 8786 9538 3740 1706 1621 5073 1123 8626 3781 8681 1979 9288 1243 8723 2916 2070 6709 800 7753 8506 3442 3334 8033 3414 6235 4203 6236 1594 5699 8642

    1. Re:Compression filter likes randomness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      This could be fixed with a filter that bins character codes and checks for spikes.

    2. Re:Compression filter likes randomness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Two minutes more work to get it to output random distributions similar to English... Just I'm too lazy to do that just now.

  28. Illegal Communication. by Netw0rkAssh0liates · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hello Anonymous Coward,

    We have have been reviewing our network usage policy contract within your account and have discovered a violation of your service. You have transmitted information across our networks with intention of slandering our hard-working staff and creditors. Mr/Mrs. Anonymous Cowheard, we find it unacceptible, calous, and most certainly ill-tempered to accuse Network Associates of utilizing "moles" and "payoffs" of individuals outside of Network Associates to steal your most trusted and secure data. Please take measures on your behalf to prevent such communication from moving across our networks and we will continue your service. You are on notice and your conspirator, pater@slashdot.org, has been notified equally. Thankyou for your time.

    - Bob Istan

  29. More Secure, but not? by SloppyElvis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In reading the posted article and in reviewing some literature concerning WEP security here: CS at Berkeley I was wondering if anyone out there had insight on the nature of the modifications that have been made.

    Please excuse my naivety in the field, but from the Berkeley article I gather that not only is the similarity of the packet keys a weakness of WEP (as RSA indicates), but also the use of a 24-bit space for the initialization vectors used to generate the RC4 packet keys.

    Now, is the 24-bit space limitation what RSA means by, "similarity of the packet keys", or are they referring to the fact that most boards start the IV at 0 and simply increment for each packet (the end result being numerous IV collisions)?

    The reason I wonder is because theoretically, at least, one could construct a table of all IV + key stream combinations in a decryption table (~15Gb according to Berkeley) and thereby gain himself the key to the city, so to speak. So, while limiting the number of IV collisions would certainly make decryption more difficult and certainly more time consuming, it wouldn't make WEP entirely secure. In the event that someone be so determined to monitor WLAN activity for enough time to construct such a table, could users of WEP be exposed?

    1. Re:More Secure, but not? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Informative
      Now, is the 24-bit space limitation what RSA means by, "similarity of the packet keys", or are they referring to the fact that most boards start the IV at 0 and simply increment for each packet (the end result being numerous IV collisions)?

      RC4 has a specific design flaw whereby the cipherstream for k has similarities to the cipher stream for k+1. These allow an attacker with cipher text for k and k+1 to recover the plaintext of the messages and the key.

      One fix is to throw away the first 256 bytes or so of the cipherstream. Another solution is to make the probability of a collision very small which is what the fast keying scheme is doing.

      The main constraint on the solution is that it has to be deployable on cards that have already been manufactured and those are not particularly powerful CPU wise.

      The Berkely attack is certainly a concern, 24 bit encryption is not acceptably secure. But that is not the weakness being exploited by AirSnort. There are a bunch of mixing functions defined in the presentation I have seen but there is insufficient info to know if it does indeed do the right thing.

      Again, I am somewhat anoyed when cryptographic protocols are puffed in the press prematurely. I am not a member of the 802.11b group, however I will be reviewing their work product when they announce it is ready. I am not aware that this is currently the case. I would like something more than a powerpoint presentation to evaluate the protocol by.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    2. Re:More Secure, but not? by czerwin · · Score: 1

      Sure, you could still use the IV collision attack in this new system, but they have tried to make it harder to do. First, in the original WEP, you would only have to track one IV space per shared key (so, basically, per one network.) In this proposal, each sender uses a different key, so you would have to track the IV space per sender (i.e., if sender A uses one IV, and sender B uses that same IV, no information is revealed, whereas in the old system it was.)

      Plus, in their new specification, they say that IVs cannot be reused. Since the IV space is per sender now, each sender can just keep track of what their most recently used IV was, and increment it with each packet. Of course, you still have to change the shared secret when you run out of IV space, which seems really unreasonable, especially since the IV space is now only 2^16, instead of the 2^24 (the new spec changed it to get rid of a portion of really bad IVs).

  30. Do gurus care? by snarf_snarf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Have yall seen or heard or read (i.e. Wired this month- sorry) Duwayne Hendrickson. This mad cat is a former ham radio geek who now sits on the FCC advisory board concerning wireless spectrum/FCC part 15 issues. And he is WLANning major Indian reservations and foreign countries; using every trick in his bag. My ignorance notwithstanding, does he care about WEP? Wasn't mentioned in the article.

    My contention is this: Keep WEP as messy as swiss cheese. Let everyone have it right on Main St! More access is good access. Individuals with savvy will guard their own cookie jars.

    Keep encryption development as open as it can be, rely on the 'market' to force the security issue. The NSA can probably break it anyway. That's why its released for consumers.

    snarf liono.

    --
    Claatu, Verata, Nic---sig
  31. talk about old news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's cos' both zdnet and yahoo have had it aaaages ago.

  32. typo by gmr2048 · · Score: 1

    erm, it's supposed to be "strengthen WEP security" not "strengthen WEB security". man, i just misspelled a three letter word.

    1. Re:typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thought it might be. I posted first question. You can take comfort that even when attention was drawn to it, the was still someone both oblivious and rude enough to call the question moronic.

  33. WEP or WEB or both or Solitaire by MulluskO · · Score: 2

    They've improved WEP?
    I've been wating for years for a better Windows Entertainment Pack! I hope they've improved tetris!

    --

    Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
  34. Buy new hardware? by doja · · Score: 1

    My question is: Will all of us current wireless users have to buy new cards and access points, or will a firmware update do the job?

  35. It's pretty ridiculous by evilviper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really have to laugh when I hear about people trying to 'improve' WEP. My favorite is Cisco's method of changing the key about every 10 minutes.

    The solution is to get rid of WEP all together (before someone REALLY breaks it!) and switch to something which works right. IPSec, SSH, SSL, PPTP all come to mind as protocols which could solve this problem, and never have to be upgraded. Now WEP is a cat and mouse game. Companies will continue to iimprovie it, and individuals will continue to find better ways to crack it. Personally, I'll just pass on an access point all together and get a Unix box with IPSec working as the router. Easy as 1, 2,3 and a hell of a lot more secure than any WEP solutions out there.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:It's pretty ridiculous by kurowski · · Score: 2, Insightful
      IPSec, SSH, SSL, PPTP all come to mind as protocols which could solve this problem, and never have to be upgraded.

      so, i suppose you're still using SSLv2 and SSH1? no? why not? perhaps because of the security flaws found in each of them?

    2. Re:It's pretty ridiculous by evilviper · · Score: 2

      There is nothing wrong with the SSL or SSH protocols at all. The SSH1 flaw is attributed only to the SSH.com client. All of us OpenSSH users can laugh at the problems commercial users have had.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:It's pretty ridiculous by kurowski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's interesting that you refer to WEP as being a "cat and mouse" game but don't want to admit that SSH1 was largely the same thing, as summed up in http://www.openssh.com/goals.html

      just why do you think we have ssh1 (1.3) and ssh1 (1.5) and, for that matter, ssh2? regardless of implementation details (and for that matter, nobody's perfect) the ssh1 protocol had problems.

      Re SSLv2: ciphersuite rollback attack is bad news. read the background section of http://www.counterpane.com/ssl.html

      point being, sure WEP may have flaws, but then again, flaws have also been discovered in those other great "never need to upgrade" protocols you mention.

    4. Re:It's pretty ridiculous by evilviper · · Score: 2
      From OpenSSH's site you yourself linked to.
      There used to be a few other algorithms like RC4, but their implementations
      had security problems

      Indeed, it was the particular implementation used that was the problem. Of course, you read that too so I'm sure you realize that...


      Even if you want to believe that OpenSSH v1 was flawed, you still can't say it was even remotely as bas as WEP. WEP even in it's most secure implementations is easier to crack than the most insecure OpenSSH distribution out there. And secondly, the insecurity with SecSH v1 is merely theoretical. WEP can be decrypted and made into a useable form simply by running a simple program, and wating for WEP to get cracked.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:It's pretty ridiculous by kurowski · · Score: 1

      truly we are in agreement. WEP is broken. i always tunnel my wireless traffic through (Open)SSH, just as i do with my wireline traffic on untrusted networks. i just wanted to point out that even some of our most trustworthy protocols need "upgrading" from time to time.

  36. I can surf while I poop by Bubba · · Score: 0

    Wireless was never meant to be secure. It's a thing where convenience. Lazy Bones Jr. doesn't have to get his fat ass off the sofa to check out his porn sites. Which also means that his 12 year old neighbor with a few empty pringles cans can, with little effort, get Mr. Bones porn passwords. So now instead of it taking 10 minutes for little Johnny to figure out Bones' WEP key. Oh wait, Mr. Bones forgot to patch all his wireless stuff, and woops, Mr. Bones didn't even bother turning on WEP to begin with, so little Johnny is spanking away in no time. Wireless is not secure, WEP doesn't really help out in most cases. Wireless always has been, and always will be a convenience vs. security issue.

  37. WEP Gets A Bit Stronger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So 128-bit WEP plus a bit = 129-bit,

    Thats hardly much stronger :P

    1. Re:WEP Gets A Bit Stronger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Cute.


      But actually, it would be.

  38. Oh goody. by spinlocked · · Score: 1

    WEP might be usable again - once the vendors get their arses in gear.

    I spent GBP30 extra on each 128bit WEP card over cheaper WEP cards. I was particulary annoyed to find out 10 weeks later that the encryption was worthless.

    If FreeSWAN wasn't such a pain in the arse to compile and configure I'd be using that (I stopped relying on kernel patches after getting my fingers burnt over the international crypto patch - Just downloaded 2.4.16? - latest crypto patch is 2.4.3. Oh and it corrupts your data if you use non-relative block numbers), however now I've had to give up using my cards - I live in a flat, I can use a long piece of cat5.

    What I'm waiting for, is for Intel to sort out the problem. I don't care if they don't interoperate with other Wifi cards, I just want a cryptographically secure implementation of IVs with RC4 damn you!

    --
    # init 5
    Connection closed.


    Oh... ...bugger.
    1. Re:Oh goody. by Yarn · · Score: 2

      FreeS/WAN can now be compiled as a module, and is therefore more likely to be resiliant across kernel versions.

      Unfortunately there is little or no chance of getting any real encryption into the kernel, due to various laws etc.

      Yes, FreeS/WAN is a pain. Quite quite braindamaged/damaging in places. Maybe OpenBSD's IPSEC implementation is better; I'm waiting for a new machine to test it on.

      --
      -Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
  39. mansex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    sweaty snot-covered man sex!

  40. Improved Tetris by yerricde · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I've been wating for years for a better Windows Entertainment Pack! I hope they've improved tetris!

    Want an improved tetrisclone? Try Tetanus On Drugs. So improved it'll make your head spin.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  41. Why do they insist on RC4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    - RC4 has been prooven to be vulnerable to a known plaintext attack (any revealed part will reveal any other part encrypted with the same key and using this info will bake it possible to extract more info about the keystream)

    - RC4 have a subclass of weak keys. (Only for "even" keysizes like 32, 64, 128, not 40, 56)

    - The Random number generator in RC4 have a statistical weakness making it crappy to use; but this can be overcome by generating N number of bytes (i.e. key dependent if one should wish).

    Instead of trying to fill out the holes in this swiss cheese - Why not go with AES?

  42. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    This is by no means a troll!

  43. Mod parent (back) up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    How is pointing out an error in the story off-topic?

  44. Mod parent (back) up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is by no means a troll!