<div>On 30/05/07, Neil Greenwood <<a href="mailto:neil.greenwood.lug@gmail.com">neil.greenwood.lug@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On 30/05/07, Andrew Price <<a href="mailto:andy@andrewprice.me.uk">andy@andrewprice.me.uk</a>> wrote: > I'm sure someone will mention this next bit so I'll get there first: WEP > has been found to be quite easy to circumvent, so it's not that good a > way of securing a wireless network, but it's better than nothing and > it's still used quite widely. Sorry, but that's not correct. It's not better than nothing - at least with nothing you don't think you're secure! It takes about 2-3 minutes to capture enough wireless traffic to crack WEP now, followed by a few seconds of CPU time. WEP is now totally worthless. If you can, use WPA or WPA-2 instead. If your hardware only supports WEP, don't use it and set up a VPN (virtual private network - this encrypts all the data being sent over the air). I'd guess this is far too technical for the original poster, but I just wanted to point out how broken WEP is. Hwyl, Neil. P.S. If anyone wants slightly more technical info, search <a href="http://theregister.co.uk">theregister.co.uk</a> for the article called "Gone in 120 seconds!", a reference to the 2-3 minutes I mentioned above. </blockquote><div> I'm the original poster and I am using a WPA not sure which. </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> -- <a href="mailto:ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com">ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com</a> <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk</a> <a href="https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/"> https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/</a> </blockquote></div> -- --- London School of Puppetry <a href="http://www.londonschoolofpuppetry.com">www.londonschoolofpuppetry.com</a>