Slashdot Mirror


The Dark Side Of DefCon's Wireless Network

An anonymous reader writes "While there's been a few postings on events happening at DefCon 12, one event seems to have been overlooked. A new wireless packet injection tool was quietly released (unleashed?) during DefCon: AirPwn. Here's a write-up of the tool as deployed by its author and crew at DefCon 12."

44 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. awesome . . . by randyest · · Score: 4, Informative

    . . . but you need two wifi cards one on machine to use it.

    --
    everything in moderation
  2. Ethereal dump? by scubacuda · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Anyone have an ethereal dump of what all of this looks like?

    1. Re:Ethereal dump? by thinkfat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      figure you'd see a regular HTTP response packet that fits your TCP sequence numbers quite nicely, and a RST afterwards because the numbers got messed up as the faked response didn't have the same length as the real server response. Perhaps they hold down the server by injecting RST packets, too, like juggernauts TCP stream capturing mode did...

  3. Early ./? by Chibo · · Score: 2, Funny

    At Defcon 12 this year my cow-orkers and I brought along a little piece of code called "airpwn." Airpwn is a platform for injection of application layer data on an 802.11b network. Although the potential for evil is very high with this tool, we decided to demonstrate it (and give it its first real field trial) on something nasty, but harmless (compared to say, wiping your hard-drive) Over the course of defcon, we fielded 7 different airpwn configurations to see how well it worked, and of course to watch as 31337 h4x0rz got goatse up in their mug. The configurations were: * HTTP goatse, 100% of the screen * HTTP goatse replacing all images * HTTP goatse as the page background via CSS * HTTP tubgirl replacing all images * HTTP "owned" graphic, replacing all images (eventually I felt bad about all the ass pictures) * HTTP javascript alert boxes, letting people know just how pwned they were * FTP banners (while this worked, nobody pays attention to FTP banners so we abandoned this quickly) How does it work? airpwn requires two 802.11b interfaces, one for listening, and another for injecting. It uses a config file with multiple config sections to respond to specific data packets with arbitrary content. For example, in the HTML goatse example, we look for any TCP data packets starting with "GET" or "POST" and respond with a valid server response including a reference to the canonical goatse image. Here's the configuration file used for this mode: begin goatse_html match ^(GET|POST) ignore ^GET [^ ?]+\.(jpg|jpeg|gif|png|tif|tiff) response content/goatse_html and here is the content that we return when the match is triggered: HTTP/1.1 200 OK Connection: close Content-Type: text/html pwnedOPEN YOUR MIND -- TO THE ANUS!! Each of the 7 modes mentioned previously varied in the configuration and content returned. In each case the poor user of the web browser was left feeling disgusted, afraid and/or confused. While I was busy operating airpwn at the laptop, my accomplices wandered the show-floor taking pictures and the occasional video of our victims. Links to our victims are at the top of the page. In all honesty, the reaction to airpwn wasn't exactly what I had expected. When I was writing the code, I imagined that the second I turned airpwn on we'd hear immediate groans of disgust radiating out at the speed of light. In practice, airpwn's effect was simultaneously more private, and more full of personal drama. First off, the full-screen goatse seemed to be too powerful. The second it flashed on the screen, the savvy user would have the browser closed already. This made it incredibly difficult to actually catch the victims on film. Based on the logs generated by airpwn we would be hitting multiple people per second, but finding someone with goatse up on their screen was still a bit of a challenege.. Once we did find a victim, the results were pretty hillarious.. I had tears rolling down my cheeks on multiple occasions. The typical goatse reaction went something like this: * Open browser, see goatse, jump backwards a little * quickly close browser, take a breath * open browser, see goatse, close browser (faster this time) * scratch head, quit browser process, re-launch browser * see page indicating that goatse will load soon (page header, etc.) immediately close browser. * open up browser preferences, click all the tabs, look for the "no goatse" checkbox * clear the browser cache * open browser, see goatse, close browser * open network preferences, click on all the tabs, look for the "no goatse" checkbox. * disconnect from network, re-associate * open browser, see goatse, close browser At this point, the less l33t people would generally give up and either 1) do something else or 2) look deep into goatse's anus with a 10-yard stare.. The more l33t victims would launch ethereal and try to figure out what was going on.. Eventually they would mumble something about "rogue APs" (WRONG!) or ARP poisoning (WRONG!) or D

  4. wireless protection by scubacuda · · Score: 4, Funny
    You gotta love the condom over the little antenna.

    1. Re:wireless protection by beyonddeath · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well they are geeks, its not like they have any real use for it... *ducks*

    2. Re:wireless protection by Biogenesis · · Score: 3, Funny

      Finally! Geeks have a reason to buy condoms!

  5. i was owned by daevux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was a victim of this at defcon, but since I was using lynx, I really didn't see any of the images mentioned. Actually, most of the surfing I did at defcon was using links or w3m over ssh (on a home box).

    1. Re:i was owned by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So really you weren't because this wouldn't have affected you at all.

      This type of attack doesn't bother people that don't request images.

      Stop karma whoring.

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
  6. Server dead, here's the text: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    airpwn - bringing goatse (and friends) to Defcon 12!

    Images from Dave's camera
    Movies from Dave's camera
    Images from my phone
    At Defcon 12 this year my cow-orkers and I brought along a little piece of code called "airpwn." Airpwn is a platform for injection of application layer data on an 802.11b network. Although the potential for evil is very high with this tool, we decided to demonstrate it (and give it its first real field trial) on something nasty, but harmless (compared to say, wiping your hard-drive)

    Over the course of defcon, we fielded 7 different airpwn configurations to see how well it worked, and of course to watch as 31337 h4x0rz got goatse up in their mug. The configurations were:

    HTTP goatse, 100% of the screen
    HTTP goatse replacing all images
    HTTP goatse as the page background via CSS
    HTTP tubgirl replacing all images
    HTTP "owned" graphic, replacing all images (eventually I felt bad about all the ass pictures)
    HTTP javascript alert boxes, letting people know just how pwned they were
    FTP banners (while this worked, nobody pays attention to FTP banners so we abandoned this quickly)

    How does it work?

    airpwn requires two 802.11b interfaces, one for listening, and another for injecting. It uses a config file with multiple config sections to respond to specific data packets with arbitrary content. For example, in the HTML goatse example, we look for any TCP data packets starting with "GET" or "POST" and respond with a valid server response including a reference to the canonical goatse image. Here's the configuration file used for this mode:

    begin goatse_html
    match ^(GET|POST)
    ignore ^GET [^ ?]+\.(jpg|jpeg|gif|png|tif|tiff)
    response content/goatse_html

    and here is the content that we return when the match is triggered:
    HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    Connection: close
    Content-Type: text/html

    pwnedOPEN YOUR MIND -- TO
    THE ANUS!!

    Each of the 7 modes mentioned previously varied in the configuration and content returned. In each case the poor user of the web browser was left feeling disgusted, afraid and/or confused. While I was busy operating airpwn at the laptop, my accomplices wandered the show-floor taking pictures and the occasional video of our victims. Links to our victims are at the top of the page.
    In all honesty, the reaction to airpwn wasn't exactly what I had expected. When I was writing the code, I imagined that the second I turned airpwn on we'd hear immediate groans of disgust radiating out at the speed of light. In practice, airpwn's effect was simultaneously more private, and more full of personal drama. First off, the full-screen goatse seemed to be too powerful . The second it flashed on the screen, the savvy user would have the browser closed already. This made it incredibly difficult to actually catch the victims on film. Based on the logs generated by airpwn we would be hitting multiple people per second, but finding someone with goatse up on their screen was still a bit of a challenege.. Once we did find a victim, the results were pretty hillarious.. I had tears rolling down my cheeks on multiple occasions. The typical goatse reaction went something like this:

    Open browser, see goatse, jump backwards a little
    quickly close browser, take a breath
    open browser, see goatse, close browser (faster this time)
    scratch head, quit browser process, re-launch browser
    see page indicating that goatse will load soon (page header, etc.) immediately close browser.
    open up browser preferences, click all the tabs, look for the "no goatse" checkbox
    clear the browser cache
    open browser, see goatse, close browser
    open network preferences, click on all the tabs, look for the "no goatse" checkbox.
    disconnect from network, re-associate
    open browser, see goatse, close browser
    At this point, the less l33t people would generally give up and either 1) do something else or 2) look deep into goatse's anus with a 10-yard stare.. The m

  7. Hardly bad by shfted! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a hacker conference. There is probably no more tolerant place to release such a piece of code, where your talents will be respected instead of persecuted. There were also no doubt many members of the computer security community present who would want to be aware of any new vulnerabilities immediately. I think it's a great thing it was tried and released at DefCon first.

    --
    He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
    1. Re:Hardly bad by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those were the same people that were afraid to use the network (because they don't know how to do it securely) and also the same people that don't get how the tool works.

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
  8. flipping the bird by scubacuda · · Score: 2, Funny
    What kind of middle finger is that?

  9. why.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do people still do this? Packet injections of various and sundry sorts are old news.

    There's a worrisome pattern, in the IT security biz, of repetition. Hacks discovered a few years ago re-appear in new clothes as "new," technologies for protecting against them resurface every few years in the same way. Computing as a whole tends to re-invent things on something like a 15 year cycle, but security seems to be on a truly frenetic clock, cycling every 2 years or so (very very approximately ;)

    Is there some connection between this and that vulnerabilties re-surface in new clothes constantly as well?

    1. Re:why.. by thinkfat · · Score: 5, Funny
      Is there some connection between this and that vulnerabilties re-surface in new clothes constantly as well?

      Yes. Human Stupidity

  10. Fuck. by sekzscripting · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, it looks like all you hax0rz got them back by slashdotting their site.

    Mirror mirror on the wall?

  11. Starbucks! by eingram · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone get to a local Starbucks with this, fast! Oh, and bring your camera!

    1. Re:Starbucks! by jrockway · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's an interesting point you bring up. Defcon-goers have likely seen goatse, but some random business-mom with her kids would probably shit herself. Off to starbucks indeed!!!

      --
      My other car is first.
  12. Working on a mirror of the video/images by Moonwick · · Score: 2, Informative

    Go easy on it.

    http://leela.lasthome.net/airpwn/

    --
    Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
  13. There could be uses by Rob_Warwick · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This could actually be a fairly annoying tool in the hands of advertisers. It also has some pretty good uses I can think of.

    Three scenarios to point this out.

    You're at Joes Internet Cafe, munching on your slightly overpriced muffin and glad for the free Wi-Fi access since you're out of town, and don't get to check your email much on the road. You hit the link to a message you want to read on webmail, when all of a sudden, an ad comes up. Nothing too bad, but it seems that Joe has decided that instead of charging people directly for 'net access, he'll rig up an old desktop with wireless to transmit the ad source for every 100th HTTP request that comes through his system.

    This is a potentially annoying way of using the technology, but it also sounds like it could be a good way for Joe to help recoup his costs on the internet. Not a place I'd mind going.

    Scenario Two

    You're at Joes Internet Cafe, munching on your slightly overpriced bagel, glad for the...well, you know. This time the 'net access isn't free, but Joe's giving it out for $1 an hour, more than reasonable. 58 minutes in, you make an HTTP request, and a small javascript window pops up informing you that you've just got a couple minutes left, more time can be bought at the counter. After 60 minutes, instead of locking you out, all your requests simply get a screen advising you that if you want to keep going, Joe's going to need a dollar at the counter.

    Seems useful to me.

    Scenario Three

    You're in Joes Internet Cafe, sipping some slightly overpriced coffee and you try to get online. After you've payed your dollar to the friendly man at the counter.

    You keep gettings ads. You click out, thinking that it's a popup window, and no, you really don't need to enlarge that, it's fine how it is.

    All browser windows closed. You try again.

    No, I don't really need those drugs...

    Or those pieces of software

    Or...

    You get the idea. Turns out, that guy in the corner is making some quick cash by spamming everyone in the place. The only sites that are coming through are from those ads. He leaves after about 15 minutes, because it can't be long until someone figures it out, but you've just lost 15 minutes of your time.

    I realize it's an extreme example, but you think someone won't try it?

    Joe, if you're out there, we need to talk. I've got some ideas for you.

    1. Re:There could be uses by SKorvus · · Score: 5, Interesting
      If you're at Joe's cafe, there's there's no need for Joe to use AirPwn. He already pwns the net connection you're connecting through (wirelessly). He can intercept & replace any packet he wants to anyway.

      The point of AirPwn is intercepting wifi traffic on someone else's network; the uses of which are overwhelmingly malicious than benign, to my thinking. Exactly like Scenario 3. Or worse, detecting passwords, requests for secure connections to eBay, banks, etc.

      My question to the crowd is, how effective would existing wireless encryption standards be at disabling AirPwn?

      --
      Live simply, that others may simply live. -Gandhi
    2. Re:There could be uses by Homology · · Score: 3, Informative
      My question to the crowd is, how effective would existing wireless encryption standards be at disabling AirPwn?

      Use IPSec instead of WEP for the wireless network, and AirPwn would not amount to much more than DoS. OpenBSD has IPSec in the base install, and is fairly easy to setup.

      ssh with protocoll 2 is also safe. If you connect to someone impersonating the ssh server, and you try to connect, ssh will give a warning that the keys on the ssh server has changed.

    3. Re:There could be uses by Xylantiel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, read that article again. SSH2 provides an additional protection to MITM attacks for users of public key user authentication. In ssh1 only the client having the server host key prevented MITM, the opportunity to make a second check was missed. dnsiff simply provided a new implementation of an known attack, if you use password authentication it will work just as well on ssh2.

      If your servers share user directories and allow public key user authentication, you should probably disable ssh1 to force your users' clients to make this second check.

  14. response of a victim by menscher · · Score: 5, Informative
    Ok, so I got hit by this, when attempting to check slashdot during one of the talks. First reaction was to hit the Back button as fast as I could, to get the image off my screen.

    Once the shock wore off, I pointed out the issue to my friends sitting next to me. They spent some time analyzing ethereal output, while I downloaded and ran arpwatch. It's pretty sad to hear that some kiddies were checking browser settings....

    The article claims there was no arp poisoning going on, but actually there was. I saw plenty of that. Which kinda confused us, since there doesn't seem to be much need for that in a wireless environment. You can sniff w/o arping, and you can inject traffic (as they were). But yes, it was definitely happening, though apparently by a different group. (Actually, I detected three different MAC addresses competing for the AP's IP.)

    In hindsight I should have saved some of my packet captures. Might have been fun to look over later.

  15. Re:awesome . . . by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have two extra wifi cards sitting in a box. But if you don't, why not just use two USB wifi adapters?

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  16. Bad News... by Piranhaa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder what this will be for people at home browsing the internet on their wireless computers. There's nothing parents can do to stop their children from seeing images that are being injected like this with Frank next door beaming modified HTTP requests through the neighbourhood. The only way to do that would be a) Disabling *ALL* images displayed on their web browser b) Running wires through the house. I'll be this will be another push for WEP and other forms of wireless encryptions. I wouldn't want my 4 year old nephew opening up internet explorer to find a Playboy bunny sitting on the top of their MSN.ca startup page! Anyways... back to sleep...

    1. Re:Bad News... by Homology · · Score: 4, Interesting
      You can setup IPSec for your wireless network. Or if that becomes to troublesome to setup, you can use OpenVPN that is easy to configure and has a client for Windows as well.

      After reading a few posts on this thread, I find it peculiar that so many slashdotters don't know that IPSec or related vpn products can be used to secure wireless.

  17. A few questions by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1) does SSL prevent this attack from working?

    2) What about the data stream that ocmes thru the wire legimately?

    3) What effect does WEP encryption have on the new "sploit"?

    4) What about SSL? Do HTTPS websites remain at all vulnerable to this attack? Nearest I can tell, the answer is "no".

    So, what we have herei is a lame way to spoof packets for unsecuredd onnections. So.... secure your IP already!

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:A few questions by thinkfat · · Score: 2, Informative
      1) does SSL prevent this attack from working?
      Yes. You cannot hack into a SSL stream by just injecting packets, you'd have to recover the session key first
      2) What about the data stream that ocmes thru the wire legimately?
      If the faked response arrives earlier, the legitmate data gets discarded.
      3) What effect does WEP encryption have on the new "sploit"?
      WEP will prevent the attack, unless it has been hacked itself before
      4) What about SSL? Do HTTPS websites remain at all vulnerable to this attack? Nearest I can tell, the answer is "no".
      See 1)
    2. Re:A few questions by westyvw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nope. Nothing about wireless should be considered secure. WEP doesnt guarantee security, the tools are already out there to crack that (although it takes time).
      Additionally, copied from Jim Geier's article at wi-fi planet.com:

      "You can view the frames sent back and forth between a user's radio NIC and access point during the association process. As a result, you'll learn information about the radio card and access point, such as IP address of both devices, association ID for the radio NIC, and SSID of the network.

      With this information, someone can setup a rogue access point (on a different radio channel) closer to a particular user to force the user's radio NIC to reassociate with the rogue access point. Because 802.11 doesn't provide access point authentication, the radio NIC will happily reassoicate with the rogue access point. Once reassociation occurs, the rogue access point will capture traffic from unsuspected users attempting to login to their services. Of course this exposes sensitive user names and passwords to a hacker who has an interface with the rogue access point.

      Someone can also use man-in-the-middle techniques using a rogue radio NIC. After gleaning information about a particular wireless LAN by monitoring frame transmissions, a hacker can program a rogue radio NIC to mimic a valid one. This enables the hacker to deceive the access point by disassociating the valid radio NIC and reassociating again as a rogue radio NIC with the same parameters as the valid radio NIC. As a result, the hacker can use the rogue radio NIC to steal the session and carryon with a particular network-based service, one that the valid user had logged into."

    3. Re:A few questions by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful


      1) does SSL prevent this attack from working?

      Yes and no. If you do the packet injection after the SSL session is negotiated, yes (since you'll no longer be able to read the HTTP get or post). If you do the packet injection before the SSL session is negotiated (and setup your own SSL session with your own self-signed certificate), no.

      Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the way it works is to hijack the TCP connection. If you can do that, you can take over anything (though obviously authentication schemes will still blow up and complain about wrong authentication).

      My question is, is IPV6 immune to this at all?

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:A few questions by JSmooth · · Score: 4, Informative

      To Actually answer your questions.

      1. SSL would effectively block this attack IF the user pays attention to invalid certs. Your browser contains certain CAs it trusts and, unless they had control of your PC which is certainly possible but was not done in this case, the CA they would use would be invalid and generate that pop-up box telling you so. If you ignore that box and click yes you do so at your own peril.

      2. What about it? Once the data is on wifi than it is fair game for any type of manipulation. That is why they have 2 nics. The first nic "hears" your request for content "GET" and then responded much more quickly than the remote web server can with the corrupted "POST". When the correct information finally gets to your PC it is simply ignored as invalid TCP traffic and a RST packet is generated.

      3. WEP would have stopped it in this instant. WEP is breakable but requires a good amount of data to be sent over the wire. Since your average user is not going to send GBs of data over HTTP and the processing power needed to break 100s of connection would be more than a couple of laptops could handle this attack would have been alot less fun. Still possible but would need to be much more dedicated. I run WEP at home, I know it will not stop the determined hacker but the casual war-drive will ignore me in favor of my many neighbors with open APs.

      4. You are correct AS LONG AS you pay attention to the cert's trail. SSL really is two seperate pieces in my mind. 1 - encryption - End - To - End data encryption and 2 - Trust - I know the data I am receiving comes from the correct website. This is done with certificates. Since there is no God of the internet and we have to trust someone initially companies like verisign, etc have working with Microsoft, Mozilla, etc to get their root certs pre-installed in your browser. Anybody can generate a certificate but only companies that have passed the "Idenitifcation Test" with Verisgin or whoever can issue certs that will have the proper path back to a valid root cert. Please note Verisign has been duped before and even given out valid MS certs to non-microsoft organizations.

      You may think it is lame but it is actually a harmless example of things to come. Why is wardriving so popular? Because 90% of the APs do NOT use WEP. If everyone used WEP that would stop casual attacks. Consider two fences. One a 3-ft high fence. This fence is only going to stop people who don't want to go in. The 2nd fence is 10' high with barbed wire. This can still be overcome but will require some dedication. That is the difference between open and WEP. The problem is nobody uses WEP so this attack will work most of the time with ease.

      Regards

  18. Re:Multiple Wifi Cards!?? by gabebear · · Score: 2, Informative
    I have the Belkin 802.11b USB adapter and it has official drivers from Belkin for Mac and the chipset manufacture has good Linux drivers. It has REALLY excellent range, it can pull in just about anything my Cisco 350 card can.Also, the airport cards all support a promiscuous mode, so you can always use them to scan.

    I doubt this tool will make it's way to OSX anytime soon, but OSX(and OS9) has EtherPEG. When I run it in my dorm I get a nice porn collage.

  19. I wrote the man page for airpwn by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hi.

    I wrote the manual page for airpwn.

    All I see in this discussion is either people joking, bitching or having no idea how airpwn works.

    Let's just set things straight.
    First of all, there is no arp posioning.
    Do you disagree? Well it's a GPL app, go read the source, show me the arp posion part of the code. What's that you can't find it? Oh, well jesus, it's because it doesn't do that.

    You can hijack any tcp connection with this, it cannot be blocked without blocking the legit traffic.

    This is accomplished by using raw frame injection.
    One network card listens on a given channel (or in the case of a cisco card, all channels) and the other card simply injects custom frames with perfect replies. If your reply (it's up to you how big it is) is the right size, it's injected so perfectly that the connection not only still works, all of your webpage stuff still works, images just load as whatever the attacker wants.

    It works with ftp, http, aim or whatever.
    You can just have a ball.

    It would be entirely possible to write regex that replied over aim or icq or any of that crap with a raw frame telling the other people in the conversation that they were coming out, it's up to you.

    The software uses a very customizable framework to allow for use of regular expressions for matching. It's really useful for things other than goatse, but at defcon, they deserve the best.

    Anyway, the totally clueless people here that claim to know how it works haven't even compiled it, so don't listen to them.

    If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

    --


    "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    1. Re:I wrote the man page for airpwn by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How the fuck can you expect to be taken seriously when you distribute that crap?

      I've never even bothered to attend defcon and I can field this one. Defcon is not about being taken seriously by the mainstream. It's about networking (in the older sense, and the newer) with other geeks, it's about alcohol, it's about strippers, and it's about destroying hotels. I've heard even seasoned geeks speak with glee about the destruction of property, which is kind of amusing and kind of sad.

      The people who they want to be taken seriously by, the only people they care about, will take them seriously (or not) based on the code and the results, and will get a chuckle out of the images. Those people are their peers.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:I wrote the man page for airpwn by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For those that "secure" their dos network, this isn't going to anything unless they write the proper matching regex and haveit reply with a deauth frame. This isn't included as part of the code base, so they have to figure it out.

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    3. Re:I wrote the man page for airpwn by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know many assorted people who have gone to defcon and returned to tell me stories, not all of whom are the get drunk types. Nonetheless there is no need whatsoever to go to defcon to learn this shit, to interface with these people, et cetera, thanks to the internet. It's a party, build a bridge and get over it.

      Incidentally, your little comment about laps flipping - was that intentional? If so, it wasn't clever - just marks you as being the same kind of wanker that I expect to try to defend the reputation of defcon.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  20. I'm new to wireless by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just got an Airport Express recently and during the setup process it gave me the option of using WEP or WPA, which it said was more secure, so I chose the latter. Why hasn't anyone mentioned WPA in this discussion? I don't really know anything about it other than it is supposed to be a more secure alternative to WEP, yet I've never heard anyone mention it even from the store I bought the Airport Express from.

    Also, is there IPSEC for OS X? It's not mentioned anywhere in the Airport Admin Utility. Is it built-in? I Googled for it, and some of the first few links mention vulnerabilities in Mac OS X IPSEC. What's this all about?

    1. Re:I'm new to wireless by mgv · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I just got an Airport Express recently and during the setup process it gave me the option of using WEP or WPA, which it said was more secure, so I chose the latter. Why hasn't anyone mentioned WPA in this discussion? I don't really know anything about it other than it is supposed to be a more secure alternative to WEP, yet I've never heard anyone mention it even from the store I bought the Airport Express from.

      I don't think that alot of wireless vendors implement WPA. Apple has chosen to do so for a while now, because they actually seem to understand default security alot better than the windows world.

      The trouble with WPA is mostly getting windows machines to look on the network for it - most of my windows boxes cant see WPA, and using them wirelessly requires me to turn off WPA (which I do as little as possible)

      By the way, its totally reasonable to have unsecured public access wireless at defcon - there is no point in securing a public network. If they used WEP, they would have to give everyone at the conference the key - thus negating the security.

      The point of this discussion relates more to private networks where you are assuming that it is trusted.

      My 2c

      Michael

      --
      There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
  21. Re:Is the use of AirPwn anonymous? by skinfitz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you can't figure out how it works (and therefore how easily you could be located), you shouldn't be using it, script kiddie.

    I mean, get real. You won't get any chicks because of it.


    ...as we all know, chicks just love haxx0rs...

  22. It could be worse... by Photo_Nut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're at Joe's internet cafe, or in an airport, etc. Suddenly, your internet explorer gets a web page redirect to some random porno movie of 3 guys raping a rather unattractive asian girl, complete with audio... in full screen mode. Since your laptop's audio is on, everyone in the area, including your girlfriend hear, "No don't put it in my pussy. [scream]"... And you're joe blow who doesn't know how to use the keyboard to close the window to save your life.

    Yes, it could happen, particularly, if the geek in the corner is sniffing your WiFi traffic, and singles you out.

    More serious would be something which noted when you wanted a secure site, such as a bank, and proxied to a full-screen web page image complete with security icons that tricked the user into sending you their password in the clear.

    There are malicious 14 year olds with laptops out there that would find this awfully amusing.

  23. SSH port forward is your friend by freelunch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When using WIFI, I generally always use an SSH port forward to encrypt and tunnel my traffic back to a 'safe' host.

    At home, my AP is connected to a dedicated interface that only allows SSH. You could add port knocking for additional security.

    Sure, SSH port forwards can still be disrupted or messed with. But not like plain HTTP.

    BTW, nice hack!

  24. Headless chickens by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I can't wait for the headless-chicken legal/political responses. When they discovered that anyone could listen to their cell-radio conversations, they banned scanners that could cover those frequencies. (Wow, that was effective!) Eventually the technical solution was to go digital/encrypted.

    What are they going to do this time, ban WiFi cards? (Perhaps a warning sticker on products: "This is not a phone or a LAN. This is a two-way radio. Wireless means they don't need wires either.")

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  25. Re:awesome . . . by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Funny



    When you got your gmail account, I got no invite. Now, you come to me asking a favor...

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano