Slashdot Mirror
Attack Tool Released For WPS Setup Flaw
Trailrunner7 writes "Just a day after security researcher Stefan Viehbock released details of a vulnerability in the WiFi Protected Setup (WPS) standard that enables attackers to recover the router PIN, a security firm has published an open-source tool capable of exploiting the vulnerability. The tool, known as Reaver, has the ability to find the WPS PIN on a given router and then recover the WPA passphrase for the router, as well. Tactical Network Solutions has released the tool as an open-source project on Google Code, but also is selling a more advanced commercial version."
Oh, I see. It's a tool for retards.
Seriously, if you can't admin your router and at least setup a WPA2 protected network without resorting to some sort of giant "easy button", then you have absolutely no right to complain when someone breaks into your network and does whatever it is script kiddies do these days.
This dumbing down of consumer electronics needs to stop. Dilbert said something to the effect of "If you idiot proof something, someone invents a better idiot" (Scott Adams may not have come up with that quote, but that's where I first read it). Therefore, by trying to produce equipment that targets the stupidest of the stupid, we're only dooming everyone to greater depths of stupidity.
It will not end until we literally take a stand against stupidity- draw a line in the sand, and say "If you can't comprehend this stuff, you don't deserve to use it". This "black box" user thing has gone too far. Especially when I read about retarded things like WPS that serve no useful purpose then to let idiots use gear that they would not normally be able to- either because the manufacture fucked up the design and turned it into some obfuscated piece of crap, or because the user simply has no desire to understand things that must surely seem magical to them.
-AC
Seriously, what non-malicious purpose would this tool have? Anybody who read about the vulnerability knows how it works; there is no need to have a sample attack because it is obvious how this works; having an exploit tool cannot have any legitimate uses.
from: http://www.tacnetsol.com/news/2011/12/28/cracking-wifi-protected-setup-with-reaver.htm
Very nice way to make a profit there guys and ignore responsible disclosure.
yum install libpcap-devel
No, it's not on the RHEL6 installation media, you have to have registered the box for RHN.
(RH is really pathetic this way, lots of useful packages are left off the installation media, seems they are forcing you towards satellite, but if you don't have the bandwidth for satellite, or need to setup a box without internet access, sorry for you if you want to something like use oscap - they give you openscap, but not openscap-utils). Oracle is better in this regard, with a public yum repo for release packages (not updates). Of course, CentOS gives you everything, as do all other community-oriented distros.
From the product page:
And they thought that was a good idea to implement without even substantial rate limiting or such? What the hell were they thinking?
I wonder if people will use this as an excuse for in court cases and claim they didn't do something and blame it on someone "Hacking" their network.
Tactical Network Solutions' site mentions that they only sell to "U.S. federal, state, and local government agencies". What on earth would gov't institutions do with something that's essentially the digital equivalent of a crowbar? Isn't it much easier and more ethical for governments to get a court order to get the information they want, instead of breaking into WiFi networks? What on earth is going on here?
I sincerely hope you're joking with this. If you, I or anyone else only knew of the millions many three-letter agencies have spent on shit like this over the years...and in this day and age of warrantless wiretapping and eavesdropping, do you really have to wonder what any "U.S. federal, state, and local government agencies" would do with a "digital crowbar"? Please.
And remember, only Black Hats write "cracking software". White Hats offer "security affirmation solutions". There's a difference, although it's usually isolated around the price tag.
Coming from embedded device development, I can tell you that adding an LCD display is waaaay too expensive for these kind of devices to be considered. It's not only the LCD display itself, you also need the controller and the software to control it.
As a contrast, in the company I worked there was a bounty on reducing the BOM price. One employee won it with a 10 cents/piece reduction by using cheaper rubber material for the printer unit's paper transport system. The result was that the device was completely unusable (I had one of them on my workplace there), you had to supply the sheets manually one by one so it didn't mess up. But hey, it was 10 cents cheaper, so they went right ahead.