Slashdot Mirror


AirTraf 802.11b Security Package

An anonymous reader writes "Being ignorant of network vulnerabilities is a happy condition for only so long. Ignorance is bliss, right up until someone with rogue access drives away with your company secrets. This article covers information about AirTraf, an open source package, which performs a number of tasks, such as determining the Service Set Identifier of the access points, and the channel it is operating under. It can tell how many wireless nodes are connected to a given access point, as well as that point's total load. AirTraf is capable, too, of polling a number of sniffers through a central polling server in order to collect the most current information. The least of your fears should be the leeching of your Internet connectivity. Industrial espionage is a growing reality that you must confront."

153 comments

  1. Site Surveys by Gortbusters.org · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As the article points out, they can be a hastle. Metal in the walls, elevators, stairs, etc.

    The problem with site surveys is that you have to load expensive software onto a laptop or handheld computer, and go wandering the halls looking for rogue bases, rogue access, and other violations of good security practices. The wandering minstrel who's singing the song of good security must be in the right place at the right time. Invariably, this is a hit-or-miss process, great for finding good places to mount access points, but horrible at making a hit on a security violation. You'd have to traipse the halls and haunt the parking lots, lurking... waiting... like a creepy stalker, trying to find anything out of the ordinary; and you'd still be unable to be in all places at once.

    --
    --------
    Free your mind.
    1. Re:Site Surveys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can be a hastle

      Is a hastle a cross between a hotel and a castle? I was thinking of staying in a hastle on my last trip to the scottish highlands.

  2. Sounds like a great security tool... by craenor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But like most wireless security tools, are the people with ill intent just going to turn it around and use it for their own ends?

    Oh well...if the claims are correct, it will all be irrelevant when WPA releases later in the summer.

  3. triangulation by s20451 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is there any way to do triangulation if you have more than one base station? Then you could do some spatial security as well, by restricting access to particular zones (say, within your own building). I know the cell phone companies have been trying to implement E911 locating for a while ... could you do such a thing with a carefully written 802.11 driver?

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    1. Re:triangulation by killthiskid · · Score: 4, Informative
    2. Re:triangulation by maxhead · · Score: 1

      Trapeze Networks (www.trapezenetworks.com) does this. It's an option in their user profile definitions (including QoS, ACL, etc.)--their RingMaster tool rocks.

    3. Re:triangulation by IO+ERROR · · Score: 1
      It's theoretically possible to triangulate the position of a wireless NIC. But there are so many things in an office/urban environment that interfere with the signal that it seems like it would be quite difficult.


      Generally triangulation works by having three receivers in a triangle surrounding the transmitter, calculating the signal strength of the received signal at each station, and from this information you can determine the location of the transmitter with some trigonometry.


      In your typical 802.11[abg] environment, you're going to have all sorts of obstructions between you and the transmitter you're trying to locate that triangulation will give you a ballpark area at best. But that should be sufficient, given a small enough space, to locate the transmitter with your eyeballs.

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    4. Re:triangulation by Bagheera · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Using triangulation is relatively trivial. Combining war-driving with GPS and FoxHunting techniques can yield fairly accurate positions for AP's and the client cards. It gets difficult when there's a lot of them on the air, but it's still doable.

      It's technically possible to combine simple RDF (using phase descriminators) with a base station to get a directional vector. Two RDF equipped bases would give you a point rather than a line, so it should also be possible to location limit access. Not that I've ever seen an implementation. Note it would take more than just a driver, since the antenna setup on most base stations is ill suited to use in RDF applications. We're talking specialy build AP's here.

      Unfortunately, the AirTraf download site seems to be a tad 'dumb' - redirecting me back to the Survey page repeatedly - so I haven't been able to play with it and see what it's capable of.

      --
      Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
    5. Re:triangulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1. The receivers don't have to surround the transmitter, they just have to be farther away from each other than their margin of error.
      2. 2 receivers can "triangulate" 2 feasible positions for the transmitter in 2d space. 3 will lock it down in 2d space, 4 will give you the position in 3d space.
      3. So long as the transmitter position isn't changing, you can use 1 receiver taking measurements from 4 different points at 4 different times to triangulate the exact position in 3d space.
    6. Re:triangulation by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Triangulation isn't needed. Just look for the park bench with all the geeks with laptops on it. Simple....

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    7. Re:triangulation by cjsnell · · Score: 1


      Well, obviously, you can triangulate 802.11 clients but I don't think that is what the poster was asking. Rather, I think he/she was asking: What software exists to do triangulation?

      The major problem I see with triangulation is walls and other interfering objects. In an open field, triangulation should be relatively simple because the signal-to-distance curve should be fairly smooth as you move around. Throw some walls in, however, and you either need many more access points or some way of accounting for the interference.

    8. Re:triangulation by stefanb · · Score: 1

      The Google search turns up WAP interfaces to triangulation data. How exactly does that to the parent's question?

  4. Wireless security by OmniVector · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've always wondered why wireless security can be such a problem. Why hasn't someone devised a wireless system where encryption is hard to crack? Take a look at SSL: if you have someone listening to the wire, it's hard to get any good information from it based on the way the protocol works. Why can't the same thing be applied to wireless? The only real difference is you don't have to go through the trouble of intercepting the packets on a wire.

    --
    - tristan
    1. Re:Wireless security by illusion_2K · · Score: 3, Informative

      Use IPSec, or some other VPN technology. They seem to fix the problem pretty well.

    2. Re:Wireless security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool. I have a netgear MR314. How do you do that?

    3. Re:Wireless security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need at least 2 routers and a dedicated computer running a VPN to pull it off. Not cheap.

    4. Re:Wireless security by rulethirty · · Score: 1

      Indeed my company has implemented this solution and it works reasonably well.

  5. Network Security by rwiedower · · Score: 4, Insightful
    After reading the article, I'm still confused as to why any defense agency would have "unsecured network access" available with wireless access. All the government places I've worked in have been extremely hesitant to allow users to even have Palms at work. None have ever been so IT-crazy that they've invested heavily in wireless networking technology, beyond simple bridging concepts. Considering that this article comes on the heels of another one a few posts back discussing how the CIA has been reluctant to invest in new tech ideas, it seems hypocritical to criticize the government for being too slow to adopt new technologies but being too quick to adopt those same ones.

    If anyone knows of any agencies progressive enough to jump on the wireless bandwagon, pipe up. Otherwise I think it's just another victim of the hype monster.

    1. Re:Network Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I'm still confused as to why any defense agency would have "unsecured network access" available with wireless access.

      I'm posting this as an AC for various reasons. When we were "war-walking" in our building we found an unsecured AP. It was, and still is, across the road at the local IBM office.

    2. Re:Network Security by virtual_mps · · Score: 1

      Why is it hypocritical to note that government agencies as a whole move slowly into new technologies, while individuals at goverment agencies sometimes introduce unauthorized elements? This is a very big problem because the cost of an access point is so low that it doesn't need special high-level approval (so it's hard for central authority to restrict such purchases)--and the security vulnerability introduced by such a cheap access point is very hard to mitigate.

  6. Its a very very simple equation by override11 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wired Cat5e = Secure
    Wireless 802.11(a,b,g) = unsecure

    I have cracked 'secure' wep's in a matter of hours, and the more traffic going over the network, the easier it is. All you need is about a gig of traffic, and blamo, wep key in shining black letters right in front of you. I'm sorry guys, beaming a signal through the air is not secure (as shown by the amazing security from the satelite TV companies, I think we have all had a h card at some point, or other varients)

    The only problem I have ever had with wired lines is bad planning. Providing you know where your workstations are going to go, and how you plan on growing, wires are just fine and MUCH faster!! :)

    --
    No I didnt spell check this post...
    1. Re:Its a very very simple equation by hpa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Always treat your wireless network as a completely insecure network; the same way you treat the public Internet. This has the additional advantage that when visitors come to your company, they can use your wireless network to access their own home base. This can be amazingly useful.

      Then use VPN to give your own staff access to the network, with the same security level you require for access from the public Internet.

      WEP is not useful for anything than discouraging the casual bandwidth leech, if that matters to you at all.

    2. Re:Its a very very simple equation by s20451 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The flaw is not in the medium, it's in the protocol. Many organizations have pointed this out. The IEEE wanted to make key distribution easy, so in a system where the administrator is not absolutely on top of everything, it's very easy to learn the key and crack the network. A point-to-point, RSA encrypted wireless link should theoretically be as difficult to crack as a wired link, if designed properly.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    3. Re:Its a very very simple equation by smallpaul · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have cracked 'secure' wep's in a matter of hours, and the more traffic going over the network, the easier it is.

      It is well-known that WEP is insecure but that doesn't mean that it is impossible to send secure data over the air. It is absolutely not the case that "wires=security". If you need to transmit crucial passwords over your corporate intranet you might be smarter to encrypt than rely on the fact that nobody with access to your physical network wants to steal your data. Encryption is the key to security, not broadcast medium.

      The only problem I have ever had with wired lines is bad planning. Providing you know where your workstations are going to go, and how you plan on growing, wires are just fine and MUCH faster!! :)

      So you need a network drop anywhere anyone may ever want to work on their laptop (or palmtop, or wi-fi phone). Sure, if you are going to be restrictive it is easy to force people to work in the places you tell them they should work. But this can hurt productivity. Knowledge workers will have persistent wi-fi in their homes, in cafes, in restaurants (even McDonald's), in hotels, and in trains, but you're going to tell them they have to deal with wires at the office? Sorry dude, I can't help but think that you are short-sighted and will be proved so over the next few years. Wireless with true encryption will be standard almost everywhere people work.

    4. Re:Its a very very simple equation by kruczkowski · · Score: 2, Informative

      Paraniod people at the goverment say that CAT 5 is insecure and use fiber for all the connections.

      --
      hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
    5. Re:Its a very very simple equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except wired networks aren't broadcasting their packets *blocks* away. And they need physical presence to tap. With a wireless network someone can simply sniff sniff sniff all day long and never return any indication that they are doing so. Not only that, but the malicious user can archive this data for future cracking. And there are still unknown questions as to how secure is the encryption being loaded out there? For example, most VPN packages will only send encrypted data that is bound for the routed network as encrypted. IP traffic for the internet may not nessesarily be encrypted, and have a different route. This IP traffic can contain clues to the VPN traffic. Encryption packages have flaws, what is not crackable today, may be tomorrow.

      We're paranoid, and don't even want to anounce that we're a law firm with IP property of large clients like Intel and Samsung. Wireless is off the drawing board, period. Security conference after conference show us the tools (now over 25 well packaged for cracking, DOS, etc,) is WELL ahead of the "lock-em-down" subset.

      Schools? public squares? sure. Corporate? not for a looong time, even with VPN layered in.

    6. Re:Its a very very simple equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We're paranoid, and don't even want to anounce that we're a law firm with IP property of large clients like Intel and Samsung.

      You just trusted Slashdot's AC security. Do you feel lucky? ;^)

    7. Re:Its a very very simple equation by buysse · · Score: 4, Interesting
      WEP is not useful for anything than discouraging the casual bandwidth leech, if that matters to you at all.
      WEP may be useful in one other way -- it gives you some legal protection if someone else uses your wireless network to do something malicious. Running your network unencrypted could be seen as the equivalent of leaving your front door open when you're not home.
      --
      -30-
    8. Re:Its a very very simple equation by hpa · · Score: 1

      It's not just that "the IEEE wanted to make key distribution easy"; it's an invalid application of a stream cipher.

    9. Re:Its a very very simple equation by stacko · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is simply not true.

      First, you can create a secure wireless network. It's complex, and requires a fair amount of kit, but you can do it. The basic premise is to avoid giving an attacker enough data encrypted with the same WEP key--i.e. rotate your keys frequently. There are several options to do this: EAP/TLS, LEAP, and PEAP to name three. Set your key rotation frequency to 3600 seconds, and you're pretty much set. If you have APs that support EAP/TLS, there is an open source solution.

      OTOH, find an out-of-the-way conference room with an open wired port and you're off to the races. For the longest time the default shipping configuration for Cisco switches came with all ports in monitor mode, allowing you to sniff away. (Fortunately, this appears to no longer be the case.)

    10. Re:Its a very very simple equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right - o -.

      Because if someone opens your door to your house and steals your tv, your an idiot, not legally responsible.

      And if you have insurance, your not going to have to pay for it.

    11. Re:Its a very very simple equation by rkz · · Score: 1

      So do I! ever heard of ettercap, ethereal? People leaving Dreamcasts in offices connected as backdoors.
      Wires give off EM radiation too, I think the most secure was is to use Pigeons.

    12. Re:Its a very very simple equation by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 1

      I agree with you but don't think wires are security by any means.

      If I overflow your switch, your fucked ;-)

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    13. Re:Its a very very simple equation by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, your wrong. You cannot create a secure WiFi network. If you can't even secure the first layer, your screwed.

      Tell me, do you know what wifi network your on when your on it?

      You know the SSID, but what channel?

      You can layer cruft on top and pretend it's secure but when I can send a disconnect to your wifi clients and have them associate with my rouge network, I own your ass.

      Did you pay attention at the black hat breifing last year?

      Your real network is on channel 6.

      I can mirror your wavesec setup, make a gatway that accepts any wepkey (LEAP, PEAP and EAP/TLS setup).

      With how wificards join networks, you join mine when I disconnect you.

      Your client will go to channel 7,8, etc until it finds a network that is correct.

      Combine that with my rouge AP and guess what?

      Now your users trust the monitored and owned (upstream) wifi network!

      Good job!

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    14. Re:Its a very very simple equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Definitely can't forget the Dreamcast attack.

    15. Re:Its a very very simple equation by stacko · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ok, let's take EAP/TLS.

      EAP/TLS requires that you have PKI in place. To deploy it, you have to set up a CA. Presumably anyone worth their beans will have used a secure connection to distribute the root certificate and client keys to the wireless users.

      The authentication process verifies that both the client and the server are who they claim to be using certificates. If someone tries to forge packets, say with a rogue AP, they won't know the authenticator's secret key and thus the client will reject the connection.

      How does your exploit pretend to be the real AP and authenticator if it doesn't know the correct secret key, or can't fake the CA chain? Welcome to the world of asymetric cryptosystems!

      If you're not familiar with EAP/TLS, a quick google comes up with a whitepaper from Cisco. It covers the concepts of PKI, CA, etc.

      If you can defeat 1024 bit PKI, then I think there are much more profitable things to hack aside from WLAN!

    16. Re:Its a very very simple equation by espo812 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      No, your wrong. You cannot create a secure WiFi network.
      Sure you can, using the same methods to create a secure wired network.
      You can layer cruft on top and pretend it's secure but when I can send a disconnect to your wifi clients and have them associate with my rouge network, I own your ass.
      VPN. Man in the middle is inconsequential: all data is encrypted to the VPN gateway, so you can't read the data. If I can't get to the VPN I know something is up. A lot of these posts are talking about the security of wired networks, and wireless networks are insecure. Tcpdump and a collision domain is compromised. Dsniff and a broadcast domain is potentially compromised. IPsec is one of the few if not only ways to secure IP traffic on a network.
      --

      espo
    17. Re:Its a very very simple equation by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 2, Informative

      Assuming that your clients ARE never allowed to click "accept anyway?" when it comes to SSL certs.

      You might be correct.

      I think that this is *more* secure than something as simple as just WEP. But with that said, I think you really should check out the black hat demo from last year.

      The point is that the client chooses to associate with the rouge network.

      I am not talking about breaking 1024bit PKI, that's foolish. I am talking about breaking the implementation that involves humans.

      If I can get a client to send me the right information, I can then pretend to be the client when I talk to the real server.

      Makes sense?

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    18. Re:Its a very very simple equation by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 1

      I agree, a vpn is a good way to secure it.

      As long as your not using a VPN that doesn't check host keys, one that doesn't alert you to changed keys, ssh1 or an SSL type of VPN, sure.

      It's trival to set up a man in the middle attack for a client if you control the server.

      Think about it like this:
      A new employee shows up and gets his laptop.
      He signs on for the first time and get's a host key changed (even if the key was already stored on the laptop by the IT dept.)

      What does he do?
      Go make a fool out of himself? (I would go talk to the IT guys, would your new hire?)

      I would guess (and I have seen it happen) people would just allow it to happen.

      If the attacker has even a $100 budget he can even route the traffic over to the real network and then the person won't ever know.

      It's possible, it was done at black hat last year.
      I had a long discussion with the guys that did it, it was impressive, social engineering through technical means.

      Point and click means an easier attacker.

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    19. Re:Its a very very simple equation by buysse · · Score: 1
      However, if you leave your door open and some kid takes the gun on the coffee table to kill a few people at the school, you should expect a few civil suits to be thrown in your direction and to be legally responsible (negligence). If you were not negligent (ie, locked the fucking door), it's unfortunate, but not your fault legally.

      It's a similar deal with wireless LANs. If some luser comes on to your unencrypted network and uses it to deface microsoft.com, it's going to be very hard to show that you weren't negligent when Steve "Monkey-Boy" Ballmer decides that they need to make an example of somebody. If it's encrypted, you are as much a victim as Microsoft, since your industry-standard security measures were defeated. If you were a negligent bastard and didn't use the industry-standard security measures, much like putting your gun behind a lock -- even if that lock could be easily defeated -- you are not the victim. I have the flu and am not thinking entirely clearly, so I apologive that I'm not especially coherent, but do you understand what I was saying now?

      --
      -30-
    20. Re:Its a very very simple equation by stacko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I understand where you're coming from, but EAP/TLS clients were written by people who also understand this (at least the ones I've played with). Thus, when validation of the server certificate fails, you don't get an option that says "proceed anyway". On Win XP, you get something that looks like this. No option to accept.

      That's not to say that you can't turn validation off. You can, but it requires that the user go into some in-depth options on their NIC configuration. I, the evil uber-hacker, could attempt to persuade my victim to walk through these steps or, better yet, download and install a key from my evil-CA which I would then use on the evil-rogue-AP to spoof a session.

      Shoot, at that point it's just as easy to persuade said user to download and install a trojan, which works equally well on both wired and wireless networks, rendering the security differences moot. And, as a bonus, the wired network doesn't even require that I construct and install an evil-spoofing-AP!

      All the same, if you have a link to the demo you mentioned, please post it. I'd be interested, for sure.

    21. Re:Its a very very simple equation by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 1

      http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:H4yZmoxSGLIJ: www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-02/baird-lyn n/bh-us-02-lynn-802.11attack.ppt+black+hat+2002+ai r+jack&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 Is an alright source for this but pretty barren.

      The cisco client is the most secure from what a good friend of mine explained tonight. The way that the clients are "locked" is not a normal VPN setup, the exception being cisco.

      Anyway it's like 3am or something but the point is that it's possible to get a client to install the cert because of the yes mentality of windows, the screen shot shows it.

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    22. Re:Its a very very simple equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In WHAT UNIVERSE am I the perp if someone TRESPASSES on my property and then STEALS my property and then THEY use it illegally?

      I just don't see how door lock or door unlocked makes any difference...

    23. Re:Its a very very simple equation by buysse · · Score: 1
      In the (strange) universe of the USian legal system, unfortunately. A bartender gives someone a drink. They go a drive off a cliff. Guess who's fault it is... it's not the asshole who drove when he shouldn't, it's the person who gave him the fucking drink!

      The basic problem is that the US system has absolved people of responsibility for their own actions. If I don't wear my seatbelt, do I hurt other people? If I drink and drive, is it the bartender's fault, or mine? Under this system, it's both. So, by leaving your gun out where it's easy to obtain, you were negligent in a way that enabled the asshole to steal it. The same way as a wireless network that doesn't have a lock (WEP or VPN requirements, etc.) enables the criminal to do so anonymously.

      Keep in mind that you aren't liable for that gun, or that network, under criminal law (yet), but under civil cases you have a good chance of being found liable. The systems are separate -- civil cases do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, only that it's more likely that you did than you didn't.

      --
      -30-
  7. Re:And the undocumented feature... by petecarlson · · Score: 1

    And it's open source so it would take about a day for someone to start wondering what that bit of code was for.

  8. Growing reality ? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

    Industrial espionage is a growing reality that you must confront

    Is that a fact ? I'd say since the collapse of the USSR, it must have gone better actually.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Growing reality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not sure if you were joking or are serious but...

      What does the former USSR have to do with industrial espionage? Industrial espionage is one company trying to steal trade secrets from another competing company. It would be like Popeye's hacking KFC's network to get the Colonel's special recipe.

    2. Re:Growing reality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and i would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

    3. Re:Growing reality ? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The USSR did a ton of traditional espionage, and a million ton of industrial espionage. Their attempts at landing on the moon was done with a capsule that was a near-perfect copy of the Apollo. Their space shuttle (Buran, or whatever it was called) was an exact replica of the US shuttles. The TU-144, the Russian commercial supersonic airliner, was an exact copy of the Concorde (it was nicknamed the Concordski). Some of the cars destined to the rich russians, like the GAZ Volga, look exactly like US models, etc etc ...

      This is not limited to the former USSR : all eastern block countries have done it, and China stil does heavy industrial espionage.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    4. Re:Growing reality ? by hpa · · Score: 2, Informative

      That might be the case for the Tu-144, but the Soviet lunar project was hardly a copy of the Apollo. They were, after all, trying to get there before the U.S. (although they didn't succeed.) It had some very different attributes, and was derived from the Soyuz program.

      Buran certainly was, ahem, heavily inspired by the U.S. space shuttle, but was different in some ways -- for one thing it was intended to be able to operate without any crew.

    5. Re:Growing reality ? by hughk · · Score: 2, Informative
      Ahem, Buran was only flown without crew because the life support system wasn't ready. It was always intended to be flown with a crew in normal service. What was interesting and very non-Shuttle-like was the ability

      The word about the Tu144 is that the Concorde prototype plans that were acquired by the Soviets contained some deliberate mistakes (an old engineering trick) and these led to the crash.

      The Russians did have some very good copies of the VAX 11/780 though running VMS. It was only through an almighty balls up by Digital that they lost their advantage after the end of the Soviet Union. HP did wel out of Digital's mistake.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    6. Re:Growing reality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell would you want to copy a US car ?

      A reader from
      Stuttgart,
      Germany

  9. Scare Tactics by Bame+Flait · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's clear to me that no matter how much arm waving is done by security experts and those who stand to profit from the implementation of wireless security (cough, IBM), nothing short of tragedy can motivate American organizations to take security seriously.

    Security is NOT a necessity - in fact, many of the things people are trying to "protect" these days don't need to be protected at all - security consultants just want to rake in commissions as they help their clients "secure" their data.

    It's high time that these profiteers take off their Microsoft hats and start acting with the best interest of the end-user in mind.

    1. Re:Scare Tactics by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      "in fact, many of the things people are trying to "protect" these days don't need to be protected at all"

      I do believe that even computers with "things" that don't need to be protected at all should be protected as they can be used a zombies to attack other computers. Why do you think that most DDOS attacks come from the unprotected Windows machines?

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  10. Is the Linksys wireless router not safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    without purchasing other software?
    Is the Linksys wireless router wide open to traffic straight out of the box?
    I want to share printers and disks behind a wireless router but not allow external access - is that difficult or expensive to accomplish?

    1. Re:Is the Linksys wireless router not safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is incrediably open, they freely admit this on their site. The best way to secure your wirless router is with an intermediate hub, like this:

      Network ---- wirelessTX ---- wirelessRX ---- hub ---- devices

      Connect all your devices to the hub (or, presumably a switch) with standard Cat5 and your wireless network will be secured.

    2. Re:Is the Linksys wireless router not safe by buckminster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's been my experience that all consumer grade access points come with all security features turned off. WEP and MAC filtering are not enabled until the user/admin turns them on. Realistically I don't see this situation changing any. What's the alternative - setting a default WEP password that ships with thousands of identical AP's?

      Part of this is an ease of use issue. When you install your first access point you just want to get the thing working. After the initial joy of a succesfull installation it's up to you to turn on WEP and enable MAC filtering. Even then your WiFi network won't be truly secure.

    3. Re:Is the Linksys wireless router not safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Network ---- wirelessTX ---- wirelessRX ---- hub ---- devices

      Please forgive my ignorance but the point of the exercise is to have a wireless laptop, isn't it?
      This diagram suggests all devices be wired.
      How is that useful?

    4. Re:Is the Linksys wireless router not safe by buckminster · · Score: 1

      OK, maybe I'm missing something, but just how exactly does this topology "secure" your wireless network?

    5. Re:Is the Linksys wireless router not safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't mind turning WEP and MAC filtering on, per se, I'm just wondering if WEP and MAC filtering:
      A) ships with the router itself
      B) is considered to be secure enough to protect a wireless LAN or do I need to purchase other software?

    6. Re:Is the Linksys wireless router not safe by buckminster · · Score: 1

      Depends on the access point. All AP's tend to have WEP. Many (almost all Linksys I believe) have MAC filtering. As for whether this is enough to secure your LAN the answer is, it all depends.

      How much do you have to lose? Is this is home or business LAN? Are you in some remote location or in a high density apartment complex?

    7. Re:Is the Linksys wireless router not safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how hell could MAC filtering be turned on
      from the mfg ?? youd never get into the damn thing unless you were wired. Ive accessed all my
      APs the first time through the wireless card because I aint go no wires.

      Its not the mfg responsibility. Its mine.

    8. Re:Is the Linksys wireless router not safe by FeeDBaCK · · Score: 1

      I have often wondered why manufacturers did not force the setting of a WEP key during installation. It really would be quite simple if they bothered to add it to the installation instructions. Simply don't let anything connect to anywhere except the AP itself until a WEP key is entered, or WEP is explicitly turned off (with a bunch of ARE YOU SURE? boxes) by the owner. Have it redirect all web traffic to its own setup page until the configuration has been done.

      --
      wolf31o2 Developer, Gentoo Linux Games Team
  11. Re:As one of the AirTraf developers by krisp · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I know that two of our contributors have been linked to break ins at sites that recently installed AirTraf


    That really makes me want to install your "security" software.
  12. RF Monitor Mode by fliplap · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It can tell how many wireless nodes are connected to a given access point, as well as that point's total load. AirTraf is capable, too, of polling a number of sniffers through a central polling server in order to collect the most current information.

    As useful as this is, its not going todo much to detect or stop the fact that these are just radio waves. And you can't "detect" a hunk of metal out there picking up on them. Almost all new cards are capable of being put into RF monitor mode and sniffing raw 802.11b frames without transmitting anything.

    Prism II and Cisco based cards can do it out of the box. Orinoco cards can do it with a patched driver (patched orinoco-cs on linux, WildPackets driver on Windows).

    On top of that, AirSnort now compiles on Windows. Its not a fun/easy setup and still has a lot of problems, but it works.

    1. Re:RF Monitor Mode by DeusX+London · · Score: 1
      And you can't "detect" a hunk of metal out there picking up on them. Almost all new cards are capable of being put into RF monitor mode and sniffing raw 802.11b frames without transmitting anything.

      While I agree with your main point, just a point of fact. "You", the average tech might not be able to detect a card silently sniffing. But "They" certainly can.

      An RF receiver is certainly not undetectable the way a RX only wire sniffer on a analog tap is. When an antenna receives a radio wave it retransmits some of it, and also transmits noise from the circuitry. This was used in WWII to find spy radio receivers, and is also the principal behind tv detector vans in countries that enforce tv licenses.

      While a wireless card would be harder to detect given the other noise in that band, they'd be easy to find for any technical security team doing a bug-sweep and appropriately equipped. Any government agency doing those sorts of technical security checks shouldn't find wireless snoops hard to find. It may even be a useful way for them to spot local amateur penetration attempts.

  13. Real 802.11b security by grub · · Score: 5, Funny

    FACT: The Illuminati is using 802.11b as a carrier for their Mind Control Rays. When "reputable sources" speak of 802.11b security, they really want you to work closely with an 802.11b source for a while so you receive their programming.

    Real 802.11b security can be achieved by the following means:

    Purchase a 15 meter (~50') roll of tin foil.

    Wash your hair with baking soda. Don't use commerical brands, they have 802.11b signal enhancers which tune your noggin to their Mind Control Ray.

    Once dry, wrap your head in a clockwise fashion with the tin foil. Ensure you cover the top of your head, your ears and base of the neck. You can poke small holes in each side to allow sound to reach your ears.

    Sit back and laugh knowing that you have true 802.11b security and are safe from The Illuminati's Mind Control Rays.

    Who's that at my door? )(#@Ujf0d923j 329 32

    CARRIER LOST

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Real 802.11b security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clockwise? Damn damn damn.

    2. Re:Real 802.11b security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that clockwise looking up at it or looking done at it?

  14. Easier way to detect rogue access points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be easier to detect rogue base stations by searching for SNMP agents. The rogue base stations are identified as 802.11 devices through SNMP queries for host id.

    Another approach would be to scan for new MAC addresses attached to LAN and identify WLAN APs based on manufacturer code in MAC address. No need to deploy new hardware in the network. Just create couple scripts...

  15. Re:And the undocumented feature... by psyconaut · · Score: 1, Funny

    They might have written the trojan code very, very, very small and hidden it between the lines ;-)

    -psy

    P.S: It was a joke, lighten up!

  16. air traf's site by ih8apple · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since no one else linked to it: AirTraf's web site

    Also, This link goes to Elixar, the AirTraf project team's new company.

  17. WEP = Weak Encryption Protocol by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 4, Informative



    WEP is a miserable encryption algorithm. It can be brute-forced within hours, or passively within a day or two. Simply by having WEP enabled on your access point is *no* guarantee whatsoever that your data is secure.

    Now, having everything SSH tunnelled and then wrapped in a flaky WEP crust, that's different... But WEP for 802.11(x) makes about as much sense as a bicycle for a mermaid.

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

    1. Re:WEP = Weak Encryption Protocol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, my experiance is that mermaids would find helmets a bit useful, at least the clumsy ones. They wiz around rocks and things at quite a good speed. A falter in agility and they can slam into something. They wouldnt' look very good, though, and would be uncomfortable with all that hair. I'll take an informal poll and get back to you.

    2. Re:WEP = Weak Encryption Protocol by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 1

      But can you name a single tool that brute forces keys from as little as a single encrypted packet?

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    3. Re:WEP = Weak Encryption Protocol by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 1



      Yeah, similar story here.. Every mermaid i've ever seen on a bike exhibited the same problems -- The tail flipper either becomes entangled in the spokes, or, the mermaid lacks a strong enough lower-body strength to keep the pedals going on a single-side rotation. Thats not to say bicycles for mermaids are useless... I'm sure there are a few who do manage to get around pretty well with them, but, on the whole, mermaids and bicycles just don't mix.

      --
      Bowie J. Poag

    4. Re:WEP = Weak Encryption Protocol by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 1

      From a single key? No. To brute-force crack WEP, you either need a few million packets to work with, or, you monitor passively and basically let it do the work for you. The more packets you have at your disposal to compare, the less time its going to take.

      The whitepaper I read regarding WEP encryption vulnerabilities is the same one i'd imagine everyone else has read. There are a couple of approaches to it, but generally speaking, successful WEP cracking (IIRC) takes upwards of 5-8 million packets, minimum...Basically, enough packets to ensure than a weak IV will be found. Short work from there.

      5-8 million may seem like alot, but on a busy network, it's a drop in the bucket. It can be broken within hours.

      Have a look..A good article awaits you. :)

      --
      Bowie J. Poag

    5. Re:WEP = Weak Encryption Protocol by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 1

      Well I agree and disagree.

      I agree that yu can do it with 5-8 millon packets, it just takes about 1050 weak IV packets.

      I disagree that it's not possible to brute force the key, such software is out there.

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    6. Re:WEP = Weak Encryption Protocol by Moskit · · Score: 1

      Remember that WEP is weak mainly because the same key is used for many, many packets, enabling statistical analysis and key recovery.

      There are extensions (like Cisco's TKIP) that change/modify the key dynamically, eliminating that vulnerability. In that case you would not have enough packets for analysis. It is possible to make a (much more) secure wireless network.

  18. No Go for Prism2 + HostAP by Lumin+Inverse · · Score: 2, Informative
    Here's what I get with my DWL-650 Prism2 based card:
    KOS-MOS:/home/linverse/temp/airtraf-1.0/src# airtraf

    Airtraf 1.0.0 (c)2001,2002 Elixar, Inc.
    Mode: sniffing server
    Author: Peter K. Lee All Rights Reserved

    You have (1) wireless devices configured in your system
    Found wlan0: IEEE 802.11-b on IRQ: 3, BaseAddr: 0x0100 Status: UP
    Using Driver: (hostap_cs)
    Filename: /lib/modules/2.4.20/pcmcia/hostap_cs.o
    Author: "SSH Communications Security Corp, Jouni Malinen"
    success: above driver's compatibility verified!
    Do you wish to enable monitor mode for your interface at this time? [y|n] y
    error: HostAP monitor mode incompatible with AirTraf at this time...

    Bummer
    1. Re: No Go for Prism2 + HostAP by reboots · · Score: 1
      Here's what I get with my DWL-650 Prism2 based card:
      error: HostAP monitor mode incompatible with AirTraf at this time...
      AirTraf works fine for me using wlan-ng drivers with an AmbiCom WL1100B Prism2 card.

      I've never been able to get the HostAP drivers into promiscuous mode, myself. Perhaps your problem is somehow related.

    2. Re: No Go for Prism2 + HostAP by Lumin+Inverse · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip, I'll have to look into that. I don't know whether the HostAP drivers support promiscuous mode, actually... Getting that card to work at ALL was a huge pain, but I'll look into the latest wlan-ng drivers...

  19. Rogue 802.11b != rogue access to company secrets by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ignorance is bliss, right up until someone with rogue access drives away with your company secrets

    Most wardriving is about finding an open network where you can pull your favorite pr0n from your car on your laptop. And probably for the sheer fun of hacking too. Now, if the admin(s) of a company relie on pirates not being able to plug into the physical ethernet socket for his security, he/they surely should be fired.

    In most companies, even if someone gains access to the intranet through 802.11b, he's not going to do much, as the real meat of the company will probably be protected even there. He might get to play with some Windows boxes, see hostnames, sniff this or that, but that's all. True, it's very much better if the guy doesn't see anything in the intranet in the first place, but still, in that worst-case scenario, there is a reasonable level of security left in companies with a decent admin.

    Now, 802.11b isn't so secure. If you're really worried, don't use it. If you're really worried and you really want wi-fi, run tunnels over it : it's far from ideal but it's quite secure.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  20. Absolutely. by Sheetrock · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The industry is rife with snake oil. Firewalls, IDSes, and the like are pushed to every business with a computer.

    Yet nobody will put the latest service pack on.

    Microsoft software, installed correctly and to their specifications, is as if not more secure than most distributions of Linux. The amount of FUD spread about it is all out of proportion to its flaws, and is probably due to a complete lack of familiarity of its features by its detractors, who would of course use it if it was free. It is this same lack of familiarity that is preyed upon by vendors who would rather sell a $10,000 band-aid than a $50 book.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:Absolutely. by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yes, today we think that MS software, installed correctly and to their specifications, is as if not more secure than most distributions of Linux.

      But we thought the same thing 24 hours BEFORE the latest service pack came out and we were WRONG

      MS's larger number of previous screw ups, slower discovery rate, slower reaction rates, are a strong indication that there are and will continue to be a much higher possbility that you are MS software currently has an undiscovered security flaw waiting to be found by the next lucky fool that thinks he is the MastEr Hack3r.

      In addition, it is quite apparent that the number of people capable of installing and maintaing MS software correctly and to their specifications is FAR less then the number of people capable of installing and maintaing Linux software correctly and to their specifications.

      Software that is excessivley complex/difficult to install is NOT the best choice for most relatively small businesses.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    2. Re:Absolutely. by Abalamahalamatandra · · Score: 1

      I would agree with reservations.

      It's just too bad that the point-and-click mentality that Microsoft has created means that it's almost never deployed in a secure fashion.

      In my recent testing, however, I would have to say that Windows 2003 server is orders of magnitude more secure out of the box.

    3. Re:Absolutely. by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes putting on the latest service pack is not an option, (esp. on Microsoft products) as it can break the server.

      "Microsoft software, installed correctly and to their specifications, is as if not more secure than most distributions of Linux."

      Take the Slammer worm for the SQL server for example. If Microsoft staff is lax in applying patches to their own products, do you expect most users to do any better? Firewalls and IDSes do not have to be a $10,000 band-aid. You can use open source and freeware products for a low or no cost solution.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    4. Re:Absolutely. by FeeDBaCK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In addition, it is quite apparent that the number of people capable of installing and maintaing MS software correctly and to their specifications is FAR less then the number of people capable of installing and maintaing Linux software correctly and to their specifications.

      I would have to disagree here. Maybe the percentages are more in favor of Linux, but I would be willing to bet that there are more people who can install and configure MS software correctly than there are Linux users total.

      If even 1% of Microsoft users configure their software incorrectly, it is still an enormous number. You have to think sheer volumes here. If you've ever spent any time on any support forums, you would quickly realize that the number of clueless people installing and running Linux and not configuring it properly is growing exponentially.

      --
      wolf31o2 Developer, Gentoo Linux Games Team
    5. Re:Absolutely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot about the cause and effect.

      with your logic:
      There are lots of incompetent people driving bicycles.

      All astronauts are competent.

      Therefore, guiding a shuttle is easier then riding a bike.

  21. Super War Driving/Walking? by SuperDuG · · Score: 0, Troll
    Geeze,

    Imagine a beowulf cluster ... erm ... imagine a cluster at least of these. You could easily setup a massive centrally located system and have some real fun with a wireless system. With this and AirSnort, you're bound to be able to just about do anything anywhere with a 802.11b access point laying around.

    I can see where this would definantelly help out a site admin having a birds eye view of the system itself, but boy was the article right with the comparison that a power tool can be very useful and can also cut your fingers off.

    Good analogy if you ask me, nice article for sure.

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
  22. 3 simple steps to improved wireless security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    1) Terminate your wireless AP outside your network
    2) Use strong VPN software to access your network
    3) Only allow the AP to talk to the VPN box

    So what's the result?

    - no WEP problems
    - nobody on wireless is inside your network
    - nobody can steal access

    It's certainly the only sane response I've seen. Other than, of course, "Don't allow wireless at work" which is rapidly becoming the standard.

    1. Re:3 simple steps to improved wireless security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let's get this straight - to have secure wireless at home you have to purchase no less than 2 routers (with builtin firewalls) and the wireless access node PLUS VPN server and client software?!! Good God, that's expensive and complicated.

    2. Re:3 simple steps to improved wireless security by scosol · · Score: 1

      Right-

      I have actually set this up-
      It really is the only sane way to do things-

      But remember- there are fun routing issues to deal with when you do this-
      The internal VPN endpoint needs to be sent packets (from the internal network)- so you need to run a routing protocol so things know what needs to go to the Internet and what needs to go to the VPN.

      --
      I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
  23. Forget Software by FathomIT · · Score: 1

    Wireless security should be setup via obsticles. The best examples have already been featured on slashdot. Use the light bulbs that distrupt the same 2.4Ghz frequency (can't find the old slashdot article). Just place these around the perimiter of your wifi network. Great for corporate campuses.

  24. Can't Download from Elixar by lal · · Score: 1

    Has anyone been able to download the source from Elixar? I submit the form and just get redirected back to it. Does someone have a URL for the source?

    1. Re:Can't Download from Elixar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just click the link on the page that says AirTraf - no need to fill out the survey.

  25. Re:DOES KATE FENT'S SNATCH TASTE LIKE MICHAEL'S AN by jeepmeister · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm unqualified to speculate on more than one half of the question.

    --

    I don't need no estinkin' .sig
    Jeepmeister
  26. Wtf??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For fucks sake, how the fuck do you post a link on slashdot!

    Sorry for the swearing but I've just waisted an hour trying to post a fucking link and this pos faq doesn't cover it.

    I guess I'm stupid so please help me out here!

  27. Use WaveSEC with opportunistic encryption. by mellon · · Score: 4, Interesting
    WaveSEC is an add-on for Linux and the BSDs that lets you set up an opportunistic encryption path between your laptop and a server on the wired network. This keeps you safe from eavesdroppers who know your WEP key - indeed, with WAVEsec you don't need a WEP key.


    Note that WaveSEC is NOT a replacement for end-to-end security. All it does is protect you from wireless eavesdroppers. If you are using WaveSEC or end-to-end IPsec for all your network connections, you don't need WAVEsec.

    1. Re:Use WaveSEC with opportunistic encryption. by mellon · · Score: 1

      Oops, I meant "If you are using ssh or end-to-end IPsec..."

  28. /. Q&A by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1
    From the article:
    • In fact, one of the more common questions asked at Slashdot.org, the open source "News for Nerds" page, is "How do I get developers to join my project?"
    And the most common answers are:

    BSD is dying

    Stephen King, American icon, dead at 53

    CmdrTaco is Michael's mutilated sex slave

    Micro$oft suxors

    Hot grits

    Natalie Portman petrified

    Mod parent up/down

    Frost pist

    Another question: why is there a picture of Mr Lee's crotch proudly displayed in the article referenced? Very disturbing. Perhaps that's IBM's answer to SCO?

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    1. Re:/. Q&A by bobsalt · · Score: 1

      you forgot goatse

  29. Re:DOES KATE FENT'S SNATCH TASTE LIKE MICHAEL'S AN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More than one-half? Which would be, what, 100% speculation?

  30. Analogy by FreeLinux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Rather than saying that 802.11x is analogous to a network, think of it as being analogous to an RJ-45 wall jack. If you placed a wall jack in a public area of your local shopping mall you would realize that it is insecure and is exposing your network to the world. Knowing this you would take some action to secure that wall jack. You might disable the port at the switch or you may have a firewall set up to allow the wall jack to be used but prevent unauthorized access to your private network.

    The same procedure should be used with wireless. Setting up an access point is the same as placing that RJ-45 jack in the shopping mall. You need to isolate the traffic to and from the wireless access point. A firewall could be used for this but, perhaps the best way would be to establish a VPN server between the access point and your private network. This way, unathorized access can only see the front facing VPN server and nothing else on your network.

    Don't look for security in 802.11x, it isn't there. At the same time, Cat5e by itself offers no security. The security that you associate with Cat5e comes only from the physical security surrounding the wall jacks and switches. If you expose the wall jacks, it's a whole new ball game.

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

      Good post, but the part about "...you would realize that it is insecure..." doesn't hold water in the real world. There are a whole lot of open RJ45 ports. On a similar line, I've personnally discovered that a lot of places leave publicly accessible, activated phone jacks to...

  31. Re:Wtf??? (Informative, Offtopic, Funny) by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1
    It's easy just use 3 simple steps...
    First find the link you want Second??? Post it to Slashdot

    See simple huh?

    Ok, ok, write it just like you would an html link.
  32. Mod this person up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone who actually READS articles here!!

  33. WEP was borked by design... by hughk · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It seems the committee approving 802.11 had no cryptographer. The protocol is borked and is unsuitable without frequent changes of key for any kind of privacy. The best bet is the MAC as most APs allow restriction of which MACs can connect, but that too can be overcome.

    In reality, you want to firewall off the AP and then use SSL to tunnel through it as you suggest. If they had built something better into the spec like IPsec (as good as SSL, but implemented deeper in the protocol stack), it would have been much better. Setting up SSL properly isn't so easy and it woould be nice to give the average WEP user something that works 'out of the box'.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
    1. Re:WEP was borked by design... by krisp · · Score: 1

      The protocol is borked and is unsuitable without frequent changes of key for any kind of privacy.

      You make it sound like I could drive by your house, sense that you have an WAP, and crack your WEP with out stopping. In reality, thousands of weak packets are required in order to break a WEP key. That can take from several hours to many days to break. Chances are, no one is going to sit in your driveway for 36 hours for some free internet.

    2. Re:WEP was borked by design... by scosol · · Score: 1

      SSL?

      I think not-

      You must mean SSH?
      Or even better, IPSEC?

      Any VPN product can be used over wireless to secure the wireless portion.
      As another poster said- the only sane way to use wireless is to treat it as an entirely seperate, untrusted public network.
      It's really just as simple as that.

      --
      I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
    3. Re:WEP was borked by design... by Vengeful+weenie · · Score: 2, Insightful
      SSH uses SSL as it's transport.

      One thing often overlooked is the overhead in using these encryption schemes. If you want an access point to handle a hundred clients you need to take the load into account. These APs are designed to run w/ little heat and power usage, not to mention the small clients such as PDAs and scanners.

    4. Re:WEP was borked by design... by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 1

      About 1040 packets in my experence.
      I have heard about custom programs that are able to brute force a key from a single packet (weak or otherwise) from what I hear. Something about the fact that the IV key is only 24bit and how real time breaking of WEP isn't really that unpractical.

      40bit ssl is easy to break, why shouldn't 24bit IV keys be?

      I wouldn't sit in your driveway for 36 hours, but I bet someone would use the above stuff to go back to your house when they need net access near by.

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    5. Re:WEP was borked by design... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      No need to sit in the driveway. All a sniffer needs is a good high-gain antenna and line of sight. Here's an article about a 72-mile 802.11b link:
      http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/m obile/s tory/0,10801,75830,00.html

    6. Re:WEP was borked by design... by hughk · · Score: 1
      About five hours of traffic seems to be enough to attack WEP. Additionally, some time is needed for analysis but with modern systems it wouldn't take more than a couple of hours or so. With 1GHz P3 machines and half a Gig of memory, it was around five hours.

      The things is that we are not talking about a normal WAN link which tries to be economical with the packets. All it takes is, for example, a live news feed and there will be lots of packets going over the link.

      As for distamce, a normal AP can easily manage 50 metres or so without any problems. This goes up if a directional antenna is used.

      The issue isn't about who is going to steal my Internet (however a real problem in an apartment block), it is about privacy.

      Do you want to manage your online bank account by CB?

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    7. Re:WEP was borked by design... by hughk · · Score: 1
      I agree that IPsec is better, but as it is deeper in the protocol stack, it generally need more configuration. As someone else has already said, SSH is just a way of using SSL as a transport layer.

      I agree that VPN tunneling is also a solution but again it either means extra hardware and/or some complicated configuration (at least more complicated than the average user can cope with). I see a lot of ADSL or broadband routers with a builtin AP that is being sold to SOHOs and domestic users, to avoid unsightly wiring. These are hardly ever run even with WEP enabled.

      Please just give me something that runs secure out of the box that the average person can set up.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    8. Re:WEP was borked by design... by rivimey · · Score: 1

      But online bank accounts ?all? use https -- that is, using SSL as well. Surely that makes it a lot harder to get at useful information on the WEP link?

      --
      Ruth Ivimey-Cook
      Software Engineer and Author
    9. Re:WEP was borked by design... by hughk · · Score: 1
      You are quite right, I was simplifying. However, I see many non-bank services that do not use https.

      Even with https, if I can attack your machine, the https security isn't worth anything. For example, SSL establishes a random session key. The random number generator could be 'randomly' generating the value 1, in which case the SSL session can always be broken. If your machine is well protected, that wouldn't be possible. However we are talking here about a PC with a wireless LAN adapter directly connected.

      The PC is probably running Windows, and is probably unpatched - and so on. Incidentally, to prevent key capture, my bank allows number entry via mouse-clicks.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    10. Re:WEP was borked by design... by mlush · · Score: 1
      You make it sound like I could drive by your house, sense that you have an WAP, and crack your WEP with out stopping.
      <snip>Chances are, no one is going to sit in your driveway for 36 hours for some free internet.

      I would not be too worried about wardrivers. I would be much more worried about the neighbours teenager who's looking for a free (both as in beer and speech) channel to pr0n.

      To be honest I'd think that would be the biggest urban wireless threat, a second hand wireless card is $10-20, the software can be got from 'legitimate' (ie not netnannied) sites and a pringles can is not that hard to get hold of.... I wonder what the extent of the problem is... I'd normally google to find out but for some reason searching on teen AND porn seems to get a lot spurious hits :-)

  34. arstechnica article by bobsalt · · Score: 1

    good article on ars about 802.11b security

    http://arstechnica.com/paedia/w/wireless/securit y- 1.html

    I recently flash to wap11 v2.2's to the dlink dwl-900ap+ bios, and set them up to bridge mac address to mac address with the SSID broadcast turned off, and I used the 256k bit encryption.

    How secure is this?

  35. Re:DOES KATE FENT'S SNATCH TASTE LIKE MICHAEL'S AN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes you dumb fuck.

  36. download link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  37. The Casual /.ers's guide to 802.11(a,b,g) Security by Spyder · · Score: 3, Informative

    The creds: I'm an infosec goon for a big faceless corp that is pretty paranoid about being hacked.

    OK here we go:

    All you need to get 802.11b (or whatever) working is an access point and a host. The Logical Link (from that OSI model in the first chapter of the MCSE book you never read) indetifiers consist of the ubiquitous MAC address and an SSID. Alllthe client needs to do to connect is specify a valid SSID to the access point in question, voila, free porn on somebody else's dime. Here's the thing, 802.11b access points broadcast their SSIDs.

    Some stoggy buggers thought that this kinda sucked, so they decided to wave the magic encryption wand over the system. What they got was the (in)famous WEP, Wire Equivalancy Protocol, or Wireless Encryption Protocol, depending on if you started messing with this before 2001 or not. This stuff comes in 2 main flavors, 56-bit and 128-bit. Two problems with WEP came up round about 2001. First, the key generation algorithim was flawed, and a 56-bit key was really a ~26-bit key, a 128-bit key was really a ~98-bit key. Second, because of the nature of the system it is very easy to gather enough data to preform differential crypto-analyses (aka extracting the keys from a bunch of traffic based on how they are encypted). Detrimental to all hope us poor white hats had of keeping our systems safe, AirSNORT was released, allowing even the cryptographically challanged intruder to compromise the best access points.

    Security for the wireless:

    Most commercial access points will allow at least some of the following:

    Turn off SSID broadcast, this helps, unless the intruder can see a user connecting for the first time, when the client broadcasts the SSID to gain access.

    Specify allowed MAC addresses, this also helps, but all an intruder has to do is change the MAC of the intruding interface, nad get on while a client isn't on.

    Stuff only a few vendors do:

    Use 256-bit encryption, this is pretty good, but only works with compatible cards and drivers. It can also still be cracked by a determined attacker using AirSNORT, (ok, ok a very detemined attacker with some form of supercomputer, but hey there's No Such Agency with that kind of equipment).

    Cisco has tech called LEAP, which will do cool things like rotate keys on a 5 minute basis. It is unlikely that an attacker using AirSNORT will get sufficent information to crack the key before it's changed. It'll do some other cool stuff, but I'm not a Cisco rep, so I won't recite the product manual.

    A "Best Practice" with wireless is to do some or all of the above, and attach the access point the the outside interface of a VPN gateway. The theory on this is to treat the wireless network like any other external connection.

    Now why, if I'm doing all this stuff to secure my network, do I do a Wireless Site Survey at least quarterly at my major sites? Well, because people like easy, and people like to do it themselves. I'm most concerned about someone setting up a combo firewall/access point on my network. The best way to find rogue access points is to play marco polo with a laptop and a directional antenna (if you want good info on that stuff, talk to a friendly neihborhood HAM operator, but a coffee can works pretty well in a pinch).

    Stuff you should know about site surving:

    Get a good card, preferably one with an external antenna input. See what you can do about getting the right antennas for this knid of thing.

    The tool De Jour for this is called Kismet. It does not have all the key cracking kung fu of AirSNORT, but it makes finding the access point pretty easy.

    Have you policy in hand for the confrontation with the owner of the rogue access point, wield it with BF&I (Brute Force and Ignorance).

    Good luck and happy hunting,

    --
    Spyder
  38. Kismet? by neuph · · Score: 1

    What does this package offer that Kismet doesn't? Perhaps if it offered on-the-fly WEP cracking I would take a look at it.

    1. Re:Kismet? by caffeinex36 · · Score: 1

      What does this package offer that Kismet doesn't?

      Some stolen source code and ideas?

      Kismet definitily is the "Snort" of wireless detection, just like every other IDS company using snorts "engine".

      -Rob

  39. Forgot goatse? by Eevee · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, I fear that I'll never be able to forget...make it stop hurting!

  40. Sad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It is with great sadness that I bring you this news: *BSD is dead.

    It was at 4:25am on the morning of May 27th 2003 that, after many failed attempts to resuscitate the dying OS, *BSD finally passed away. While *BSD has been in it's death throes for many months now and it's death has been foreseen for many years, this is still a very sad moment; a great loss for OS dilettante dabblers and *BSD lovers the world over. Though *BSD has passed away, it will surely be fondly remembered for years to come by users, developers, and trolls alike. Even if you didn't enjoy using *BSD, there's no denying it's contributions to popular OS culture. Truly a Berkeley icon. It will be missed :(

  41. Sharing a wireless connection with strangers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, how can I share the wireless connection in my apartment with other nearby apartments (just to be nice) without jeopardizing my PCs, which share files among each other? (A mix of win 98 and linux.)

    1. Re:Sharing a wireless connection with strangers by natersoz · · Score: 1

      Put a firewall between your home network and your wireless WAN.

    2. Re:Sharing a wireless connection with strangers by Technician · · Score: 1

      A good router will do the trick. Refuse to pass any packets from the IP's of your home machines to/from the WAP. This is most easly done by denying all packets from/to the WAP except your network WAN router's gateway address. Ususaly it's defaulted to 192.168.1.1

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  42. since my first post is nowhere to be found(tks /.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  43. Re:Rogue 802.11b != rogue access to company secret by Spyder · · Score: 1

    Never trust your depth of exploit to the benevolence of the attacker. Lots of networks don't have things like interior IDS, regular vuln scanning, or even decent administration practices. More over, all those attacks concerning physical location are now possible. Even little defacements can require substantail response in the form of rebuilt systems, reports to management, PR issues. God help you if you have overdeveloped incedent handling procedures and have to spent weeks writing reports and answering questions to your boss, legal, the feds, the customers, and upper managment.

    No compromise is small, no attacker benign. Like there is an opportunity cost to be considered when undertaking a new effort, there is an incedent cost that is the cost of handling, and the risk of compromise. Security is a weak link system, and you never know where the big incedents come from.

    I know I responded to a troll, I won't pass go and I'll go get the 200 lashes with CAT5.

    --
    Spyder
  44. AirTraf download by eugene_roux · · Score: 1
    *Cough* Link near the top of the download page... *Cough*

    HTH, HAND.

    --
    Part Time Philosopher, Oft Times Romantic, Full Time Unix Geek
    1. Re:AirTraf download by Bagheera · · Score: 1

      Yeah. And for some reason it keeps looking me back to the survey - which loops back if I fill it out. May be a client side issue on my end *shrugs* but I still can't seem to get my hands on it.

      --
      Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
    2. Re:AirTraf download by eugene_roux · · Score: 1
      The download link on the site points to:

      http://www.elixar.com/airtraf-1.0.tar.gz

      Mayhap you have more sucess with that...

      --
      Part Time Philosopher, Oft Times Romantic, Full Time Unix Geek
    3. Re:AirTraf download by Bagheera · · Score: 1

      Perfect. Came right down.

      Thanks, much appreciated!

      --
      Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
  45. Vendors should get their act together by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

    >Why can't the same thing be applied to wireless?

    Or better yet why aren't vendors doing this on their APs? All these companies are targeting the home market, they should make things *gasp* easy.

    Sure there are standards to consider, but considering what a mess WEP is its surprising to see that there's no big movement (or is there?) to repair it. Sure Cisco's method of filtering out weak IV packets is nice, but is anyone else going to pay to use their patents?

    I'm expecting, or perhaps hoping, that by the time 802.11g hits critical mass there will be an easy and secure encryption method standard on most of the equipment, especially for home buyers.

    The industry should learn from 802.11b. It was new-ish, a huge gamble, and the WEP protocol was known to be weak. Now that wifi is as common as it is, perhaps we'll be seeing 802.11b being phased out because of its slow speed and security problems and being replaced by a more mature 802.11g standard.

  46. Who the hell modded that up? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    It's not even the correct search. Every result of that google search was some form of cellular triangulation, not 802.11 (Since they improperly searched for WAP, which is a protocol for cellular services.)

    Interesting results, but completely offtopic and noninformative regarding the original question.

    It is possible to triangulate access points, although most software I've seen to do it uses signal strength interpolation instead of triangulation. Kismet - http://www.kismetwireless.net/ is able to do this if enough signal strength data is collected. (Or more specifically, the "gpsmap" tool that comes with Kismet.)

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  47. Where do I start? by smartfart · · Score: 1
    The Logical Link (from that OSI model in the first chapter of the MCSE book you never read) indetifiers consist of the ubiquitous MAC address and an SSID.

    Nope. SSID is strictly a wireless thing, and has nothing to do with the definition of LLC. 802.3, for example, doesn't know anything about SSIDs.

    a 56-bit key was really a ~26-bit key

    Wrong again: it's a 64-bit key with 24 bits for the Initialization Vector, leaving 40 bits of actual encryption. I think you are confusing this with 56-bit SSL. Likewise, 128-bit WEP is 104 bits + 24 bits IV.

  48. Re:Rogue 802.11b != rogue access to company secret by way0utwest · · Score: 1

    I'd highly dispute this for a few reasons. I've worked in few large companies (> 5000 employees) and here a few reasons why this is an issue for someone that cares.

    1. People are lazy - They will use easy to guess passwords most of the time, especially developers. Not to slam them, but since they tend to set things up quickly, often for testing, they take the easy way out. Since they are not audited as much as admins, they aren't as strict.

    2. Passwords don't get changed - Systems get complex, people change, people are lazy (#1) and so passwords don't get changed that often. EVEN ON CRITICAL (Sales, Finance) systems. People don't like change and I constantly see passwords that have been in use for years, including admin passwords. Try to change them and people scream.

    So, find an access point then search Monster and Dice for ex employees. How much do you think it would take for them to drop you a password? How many disgruntled GE/M$/Oracle/etc. employees are out there?