Wireless network configuration

Jeffrey F. Bloss jbloss at tampabay.rr.com
Fri Jan 12 06:42:32 UTC 2007


Scott Kitterman wrote:

> FWIW, while WEP is sigificantly better than no encryption, it should
> not be considered cryptographically secure.  WPS-PSK is a much better
> bet.  It is actually simpler to set up than WEP IME.

I'd be inclined to rewrite part of that paragraph to "should not be
considered secure against any script kiddie savvy enough to download
and install common programs like kismet and aircrack".

You might be shocked to find out just how popular those types of tools
are now that so many people run wireless at home. Of course I was
surprised the other evening when I took a stroll around my neighborhood
and within about a quarter a mile radius found about 40 access points,
almost exactly half running no encryption at all. Two of those I can
see from anywhere in my house full time.

Makes me wonder why I bother paying for Internet access. ;)

-- 
     _?_      Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
    (o o)         Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]--
    grok!              Registered Linux user #402208
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 892 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20070112/3b236d0a/attachment.pgp>


More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list