Wireless network configuration

[Scott Kitterman]

On Friday 12 January 2007 01:42, Jeffrey F. Bloss wrote:
> 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".

Yes.  That would be another way to say not cryptographically secure.  The only 
advantage WEP has is that you neighbor may have no encryption at all.  

> 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.

This is progress.  A year or two ago it would have been < 90%.  I have seen 
similar results in my travels.  Almost all of them that I see are doing WEP 
which is better than nothing, but not significantly so if all your neighbors 
do WEP too.  

The moral is don't be the soft target.  A year ago that meant encrypt by any 
means possible (although even then WEP was already cracked).  We are getting 
close to the point where than means WPA.   If people have WPA capable 
hardware (most if they've bought in the last several years), they should use 
it.  If your hardward isn't WPA capable, it's time to be thinking about 
budgeting for an upgrade.

Scott K