Slashdot Mirror


80% of WiFi Networks are still Insecure, Kismet Author Says

acz writes "The brain and guts driving the development of Kismet is Mike Kershaw alias Dragorn, who works during the day on IBM mainframes and hacks code at night. Kismet is simply the best war driving tool out there plus it's free as in GPL and can even run on your linux PDA. In a recent interview posted on HERT today, he says: 'I've become entirely jaded towards security as a whole (or rather, people's complete lack of it) and not much surprises me when it comes to open wireless networks. ... the overall percentage of unencrypted networks is still at about 80%.'"

9 of 430 comments (clear)

  1. How is that surprising? by sunilonline · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Go for a drive around town running netstumbler or kismet. I can pick up two hundred access points in 5-10 miles, and the vast majority of them are unprotected... Probably more than 80%. Even more interesting than that is the fact that you can tell which people have actually tried to configure their access points. Many people are using default SSID's and no protection. Kind of scary if you ask me, but hey, it almost guarantees free internet in some neighborhoods.

  2. what does insecure mean? by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 5, Interesting

    from the post:

    80% of WiFi Networks are still Unsecure, Kismet Author Says

    from the article:

    Despite all the press about it, the overall percentage of unencrypted networks is still at about 80%

    An insecure network and an unencrypted network are not the same thing. WEP is encrypted, yet insecure, while secure IMAP and SSH are secure by providing end to end encryption, instead of relying on the network to provide it.

    -jim

  3. The whole Broadcom thing sucks. by teamhasnoi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It pisses me off that in order to use Kismac fully, I have to get another wireless card - even though I have Airport Extreme. Just release the specs already - what is the point of keeping them closed source?

  4. how many unsecure wired boxes are there? by jkravitz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder how many unpatched computers are connected to the wired web? Probably an equally scary amount. It seems to me that there are greater long term risks with this scenario. Most spammers and child pornographers unless they are your neighbor or using an antenna are not going to set up shop on your front lawn where as your unprotected wired box can be owned and operated by anyone in the world.

  5. The will to pay and be forced to by NeedleSurfer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All those talks on network security sometimes bugs me. All those leftist trying as hard as they can to make the right wing extremist's job easy.

    The lack of security over WI-FI is a good thing. Ever thought about the democratization of communications, WI-FI can bring you that, unsecure WI-FI WILL bring you that. With file encrytion files are safe (mostly) anyways, that's what we need to promote. Leaving your network open will just make it accessible by other people which, if they get the hardware themselves will make this network availlable to more and more people and so on.

    In a few years when you wanna call someone you basically open iChat, MSN messenger, whatever, turn on rendez-vous or equivalent find your contact name and double-click. Get it?

    Security isn't always a good thing, making everything locked just make sthe world harder to travel, some doors need to be opened.

    In the very unllikely event that I win a huge amount of cash, dream number one is to get several WI-FI routers and configure them to enable a neibourhood network, hoping to change it into a city network and so on. I dream of the day communication will be democratized, free, for everyone.

    Instead, as of now, the technology exist, it's there for everyone to grab, but they all stare at it, telling themselves: "too complicated and the router is around 200$CAN, it's expensive, I'd rather pay 30$ a month plus long distance and service fees for the rest of my life"...

  6. The Myth of Easy WEP Cracking by Karpe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Please check out this.

  7. Re:No WEP? So what! by dublin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In my setup WEP offers no advantages whatsoever so I never bothered with it, but I guess that makes me just another dumb newbie in their survey.

    The real problem isn't that people aren't using WEP (since any blackhat with a web browser to download the tools can crack WEP in a few hours at most.)

    The REAL problem is that ALL low-cost "wireless gateway" appliances treat wireless nodes as part of the LOCAL network, when, of course, the wireless segment should be treated as another WAN (Internet) link, where the bad guys live, and where you have to authenticate yourself before connecting to the LAN. As long as this remains true, wireless will continue to be a huge security hole in most networks.

    Unfortunately, the "business" networking vendors are more than happy with this arrangement, since it keeps savvy business users from buying their network gear at CompUSA or Fry's. The sad fact is that security comes at a very serious cost premium today - it shouldn't, but the factis that companies that value security will pay *much* more for it, so the vendors simply "de-feature" the mass market products to help justify "enterprise" capabilities such as this common-sense approach to wireless networks.

    This won't change until one of the SoHo/Home market vendors gets a clue and decides that their buyers might actually like a wireless router that can protect the rest of their network. Why that hasn't happened yet is a mystery.

    BTW: If anyone knows of a low-cost wirless router device that *can* treat wireless as an "outside" network, post a reply and let us know...

    --
    "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
  8. Re:Some on purpose to promote free WiFi. by medelliadegray · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I fail to see how sharing my wife, home, money, car, and clothes have anything to do with sharing an internet connection?

    you dont lose anything tangible if you share an internet connection properly.

    its simple: IPSEC (or VPN) your own connection while letting others through unencrypted. if you use WEP, you're screwed from the start if you want privacy, so why pretend.

    I plan on implementing a setup verymuch like this in the near future. the only deviance to this will be bandwith throtteling for the unencrypted packets. *GRIN* just incase i get a greedy neighbor.

    --
    Troll, Troll, go away and flame again some other day
  9. Re:Myth's about WEP by photonrider · · Score: 5, Interesting

    WEP is easy to crack *if* one or more of the nodes on the WLAN are not filtering weak IV's and is *not* using WPA. In my test setup using a Netgear wireless AP and a Netgear PCMCIA card in a laptop copying a 65 mb ISO image in an endless loop to a server on the wired network, it took 24 hours to capture enough weak iv's. DWepcrack took about 10 seconds to load the capture file and 3 seconds to break the WEP key (on a PII 333mhz Dell Laptop). Netgear doesn't filter weak IV's and they're cheap enough to buy for testing. Second test was with the Netgear AP and a Linksys PCMCIA card in the the laptop, Linksys filters weak IV's. This same test, copying the 65mb ISO image in an endless loop took 36 hours to capture enough weak IV's. To contrast, using an AP and a PCMCIA card that both filter weak iv's (Cisco) I ran the same test for 8 full days and still had not captured enough weak IV's to crack the WEP key. If you have an environment where one or more nodes are not filtering weak IV's AND they have not implemented WPA or other protections, it's just a matter of time. In my research, I checked Netgear, Dlink, Cisco, Linksys, Intel, and Dell(branded intel I think). Only Cisco and Linksys filtered weak IV's. Recent discussions with Dell and Intel reveal that they don't think it's worth their time to filter weak IV's. They think everyone will run WPA and the problem will go away. WPA isn't the default setup either so if they're not filtering weak IV's... It seems to me that filtering weak IV's is such a simple thing for them to implement that it is simply negligent not to. IMHO it provides a big bang for the security buck.