Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'WEP encryption useless' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
WEP encryption useless
Authored by: eaganj on Nov 21, '02 12:12:53PM

The standard warning about WEP encryption being broken should be inserted here. WEP, even with 128-bit keys, does not protect you against would-be eavesdroppers... the cryptography is sufficiently broken as to allow one to figure out the secret key with a fairly small amount of data. Since everything's going over the airwaves, snooping enough encrypted data to break the encryption is easy.

Don't rely on WEP to be secure. Does this mean that your nifty wireless LAN is useless? No. You just need to be aware that anything that you send over the network is being broadcast to anyone who cares to listen. If you want to make sure your transactions are secure (for example, when you send your password to your email account), make sure you're using an encrypted session on top of the network (for example, SSL). The key is to be conscious that EVERYTHING you do on your wireless LAN is broadcast and consequently public.

Additionally, WEP doesn't prevent unauthorized users from accessing your network. Since the key can so easily be obtained by an eavesdropper, anyone within range can use your bandwidth. There are solutions to this problem, but they are fairly involved, and for most people, probably not worth the effort, so long as you're aware that others could be using your network.



[ Reply to This | # ]
WEP encryption useless
Authored by: madoka on Nov 21, '02 12:30:28PM

Dang! you beat me to my post! Maybe it's time for me to improve my typing speed, and learn how to spell :-)



[ Reply to This | # ]
WEP encryption useless
Authored by: Lizard_King on Nov 22, '02 08:42:37AM

uhhh... this may not be the forum for debate, but WEP is *not* useless! You may be trying to say in a very extreme way that WEP is vulnerable, but readers shouldn't simply discount the technology altogether.

It is true that WEP encryption can easily be broken with the use of some freely available tools found on the Internet. If you think that data you put on the pipe on a WEP-enabled WAN is secure then you're dead wrong.

An advantage of using WEP is that it discourages the majority war-drivers, piggy-backs, script kiddies and other types of people that could leach your wireless bandwidth for personal use or fun. If you live in an apartment building and you are running a WEP-enabled WAN and your neighbor is running a completely open WAN, someone who wants a quick free ride will more often than not pass over your WAN for an easier target (because there are *sooo* many easy targets out there).

A disadvantage of using WEP (besides the obvious) is that it will slow your connection down (slightly) because of the added overhead of the encryption. Personally, I use MAC address filtering on my home network. I know that this can be broken as well (with MAC spoofing) but I'm ok with that risk for now.



[ Reply to This | # ]
WEP encryption useless
Authored by: kon21 on May 09, '03 11:29:45PM

Do you guys know of a utility I can use to krack WEP enabled
access-points?



[ Reply to This | # ]
WEP encryption useless
Authored by: pentiumburner on May 11, '03 12:05:53PM

On the MR314 the best thing to use for a secure wireles network is to use MAC filtering, this makes it impossible for the average hacker to get into your network and has been the preferred security measure for most.

---
The box said: "works with a Pentium 4 or better", so I got a Mac.



[ Reply to This | # ]
WEP encryption useless - other alternatives?
Authored by: circc on Aug 02, '03 12:43:46PM

I understand that WEP is not optimal for securing a wireless network. I just installed a wifi network, using the Belkin F5D7230-4 router. I use 128-bit WEP encryption and MAC address filertering. I use ssh for almost everything, but not all users on my network do so. What else could I do to protect their traffic?



[ Reply to This | # ]