Slashdot Mirror
WEP Broken Even Worse
collin.m writes in with news of results out of Darmstadt. Erik Tews and others there have demonstrated how to recover a 104-bit WEP key in under a minute, requiring the capture of fewer than 10% the number of packets the previous best method called for. The paper is here (PDF). Quoting: "We were able to extend Klein's attack and optimize it for usage against WEP. Using our version, it is possible to recover a 104 bit WEP key with probability 50% using just 40,000 captured packets... for 85,000 data packets [the success probability is] about 95%... 40,000 packets can be captured in less than one minute under good condition. The actual computation takes about 3 seconds and 3 MB main memory on a Pentium-M 1.7 GHz..."
Can ARC4 be used securely at all? Or are WEP's failings its own fault?
On a somewhat related note, I'm annoyed that wireless encryption was implemented in hardware. Nintendo DS's wireless is worthless to me since the encryption system can't be upgraded.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Case Dismissed!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
No. Even a cursory glance at your laptop next time you are in a commercial parking lot will tell you that (or at an apartment complex).
2 words: Legacy Hardware I have 2 computers in my house with cards that don't support WPA. If I were to set my router to run with WPA, then my sister would not be able to connect to the network. If i told her the security implications, she wouldn't understand nor care. Upgrading the network would mean me footing the bill for new wireless cards unless I can convince my dad that there is a real reason to upgrade to better security. However, this is unlikely.
For some reason I can't get the paper to load, but anyway, does this still depend on weak initialization vectors?
- plus.php )
I know that the original attack did depend on that, and most software and basestations have since been configured to avoid those weak IVs. I know that some stuff (like Nokia's basestations) are still weak agains the original attack (at least when tested with Kismet), however, against Cisco Aironets and almost any newer hardware I haven't been able to see this weakness in action when trying out if it really works...
(Terabeam uses the term "WEPPlus" about this - see http://www.terabeam.com/solutions/whitepapers/wep
Anyway, if this is just extension of the original attack, then it still requires those weak IVs to exist.
Or is it something completely new?
Unfortunately, Nintendo has outright refused to support WPA on the DS. Those who use the DS online regularly must either fall back to WPA or resort to completely unsecured communication. Or change their router's settings every single time they want to play online.
Nintendo's response to this is, last I checked, "well, disable WEP and then turn off your computer," which is obviously ridiculous.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
This may be a dumb question, but why does TFA only refer to 40 and 104 bit WEP when the more common variants seem to be 64 and 128 bits?
G-Force music visualization
I use 56-bit WEP and I've never had.... ATTN: YOU HAVE WON THE IRISH LOTTERY PLEASE respons immediately to... ...so I don't see why it is a big deal?
Some settling may occur during posting.
WEP insecure! Coming up at 6PM Bill Gates still really really rich.
Well, that was an incredibly arrogant response from someone who refuses to examine reality.
How many environments are you familiar with in which everything is always upgraded all at the same time, in which all of the hardware works the first time, and in which you never become dependent on a legacy product for any length of time?
Here in the really real world, we often have reasons to utilize legacy hardware. What if I've got one of those $1500 bar code scanner boxes and it doesn't support WPA and there's no upgrade to provide it? Am I going to spend $1600 for this year's model with two more buttons and WPA support? Or am I going to keep using this device as long as I think I can get away with it? What if I don't have budget to buy a replacement? What if it's not even my decision?
Like I said, here in the real world, we often have to use suboptimal equipment. And I assure you that huge numbers of corporations, including those amongst the fortune whatever, are still using wifi gear with no WPA support on a daily basis.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
My understanding is that it should be easy enough to implement WPA on older (.11a/b) hardware, but companies much rather sell end user new hardware (.11g etc.) than spending development time to upgrade old hardware (that does not generate additional revenue.) This is evident in that Apple's old AirPort (.11b) does support WPA but other venders' (that would include YOU, Linksys) old .11a/b products do not.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
WPA "cracks" are all just brute force, which you could also do with WEP and any other encryption algorithm. It just takes fucking forever (assuming the user chose a key that was more than just a dictionary word). These WEP attacks are actually flaws in the design of the system which allow you to crack a key many times faster than brute force.
Rainbow tables, dictionaries, and the like are all just variations on brute force. They accelerate the process, but either way you're not actually breaking the encryption but instead using a crapload of processor power to try one key after another until you hit the right one.
Saying WPA is insecure because there is a brute force tool for it is like saying the a lock is insecure because I could go and start trying combinations. 1-1-1....1-1-2....1-1-3.........
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
unless I can convince my dad that there is a real reason to upgrade to better security.
Is your sister cute? Does she have pictures of herself on her computer?
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
This isn't really news. It's pretty smart that they have managed to crack WEP with so few IVs (it usually takes about 200,000 for 64bit and just under a million for 128bit) but in reality this doesn't change (or expose) WEPs inherent vuneribilities at all, for example I am currently doing my dissertation on wireless security and in tests WEP64 on average can be cracked in about 3 minutes and WEP128 in about 10 minutes so getting this down to a minute doesn't really change the fact that a hacker could capture enough packets simply by hanging around and drinking a coffee using the "old" tools.
An interesting sidenote is that the amount of time a hacker needs to be near a target WLAN for WPA-PSK is measured in seconds making it much more insecure if it has a weak passphrase than WEP is even now with crack times under a minute.
Please if you want a secure home wireless network choose WPA-PSK and make the passphrase as long and as abstract as possible, nothing else is safe -and if you have the cash... buy a radius server
Hell, out of 5 wireless networks I can "see" from my house, two have no encryption on whatsoever.
I mean, no matter how bad WEP is, you'll never be able to hack into a WEP network as fast as you can an open one.
It may be where I live, but around town there are open networks virtually EVERYWHERE.
No. Even a cursory glance at your laptop next time you are in a commercial parking lot will tell you that (or at an apartment complex).
No. We use some prety antique hardware (laptop with embedded 11b no WPA). We are fairly remote so the number of potential attackers is pretty slim. To discourage them, DHCP is truned on. The DHCP range is blocked from the gateway by access control. To get a leachable connection, you will need to spoof a MAC address, use a fixed IP address, and hope we are not online at the moment. A conflict will be noticed.
We don't need a hack proof wireless. We just need to be more difficult than our neighbors.
The truth shall set you free!
As long as you secure your computers and data (and if you're not charged by the GB), it's really useful to be able to tell the judge that it was teH h4X0rZz when the RIAA rings at your door.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
The only real conduit one needs in a house are a crawlspace and an attic.
Slashdot editors suck at grammar. Obviously, the words they were looking for was supposed to be more brokener.
You still live with your parents?!.. Hahaha, you're such a lo.. Wait a minute, so do I!.. fuck.
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
From Wireless LAN security hall of shame:
"MAC filtering: This is like handing a security guard a pad of paper with a list of names. Then when someone comes up to the door and wants entry, the security guard looks at the person's name tag and compares it to his list of names and determines whether to open the door or not. Do you see a problem here? All someone needs to do is watch an authorized person go in and forge a name tag with that person's name. The comparison to a wireless LAN here is that the name tag is the MAC address. The MAC address is just a 12 digit long HEX number that can be viewed in clear text with a sniffer. A sniffer to a hacker is like a hammer to a carpenter except the sniffer is free. Once the MAC address is seen in the clear, it takes about 10 seconds to cut-paste a legitimate MAC address in to the wireless Ethernet adapter settings and the whole scheme is defeated. MAC filtering is absolutely worthless since it is one of the easiest schemes to attack. The shocking thing is that so many large organizations still waste the time to implement these things. The bottom line is, MAC filtering takes the most effort to manage with zero ROI (return on investment) in terms of security gain."