Wireless Networks... How Big a Security Risk?

[GTS]

(1) Arguing over the robustness of wireless security protocols is pretty pointless. Everyone thought WEP was secure until someone proved it wasnt. How much time passed between when it was cracked and when it became widespread knowledge it was cracked? Security is always a risk vs cost issue - do what you can so that someone else becomes the lower dangling fruit.

(2) Assuming that a large physical distance makes your wireless safe from attack/intereception is a dangerous assumption. Using specialized antennas, WiFi connections have been made successfully over miles. Not saying it likely, just that it can happen.

(3) Don't take any security advice from someone who doesn't know the difference between the wireless acronyms WAP and WPA.
(Sorry, cheap shot but had to do it) Hey you edited your post, how unfair...

 

[sim03]

Quote from GTS:

(3) Don't take any security advice from someone who doesn't know the difference between the wireless acronyms WAP and WPA.
(Sorry, cheap shot but had to do it)

Good point, GST, thanks.

My OP is correct, though... just checking to see if anyone was paying attention.

 

[GTS]

Quote from sim03:

Good point, GST, thanks.

My OP is correct, though... just checking to see if anyone is paying attention.

Glad you have a sense of humor

For the record I use WPA in my personal network, its good enough for me but I have a couple of other tricks up my network sleeve for those that would trespass on my network.

 

[osorico]

Anyone who thinks that some security acronym will remain secure for any extended period of time, doesn't deserve a gold watch.

If it's able to be copied to computer media, its crackable. If its stationary its hackable.

Technology marches on. Hackers and crackers march on. End-users get trampled under feet.

Osorico

 

[gnome]

For those of you who know little of WLAN (like me), I've been reading online today....

1. Lots of info about "cracking WLANs" is all about (a) cracking WEP systems, which have become recognized as little better than broadcasting in the clear, or (b) hacking into systems (mostly WEP) where the user never bothered to enable encryption.

2. Lots of statements of, "if you use a long, random pass key on a WPA or WPA2 system you're almost certainly secure". One statement was that "there is no documented evidence of even one long pass key WPA network being cracked". And WPA2 is stronger yet... "Military Grade", was a term used.

3. By using a encryption enabled WPA or WPA2 WLAN, your system would be hard enough that would-be crackers would rather move on to easier targets and not bother with yours.

For those of you who are WLAN experts, please comment on the veracity of the above...

TIA

 

[GTS]

Quote from gnome:
1. Lots of info about "cracking WLANs" is all about (a) cracking WEP systems, which have become recognized as virtually no better than having zero security

Actually I think WEP is far better then zero security (wide-open AP) but since it has been hacked you can't treat it like it is secure. It would stop 95% of your neighbors from getting on your network though. Without WEP people can join your AP by accident as well as maliciously.

Quote from gnome:
or (b) hacking into systems (mostly WEP) where the user never bothered to enable encryption at all.

You got me there...I thought that WEP was equated with encryption, you mean its possible to implement WEP and not be encrypted?

Quote from gnome:
2. Lots of statements of, "if you use a long, random pass key on a WPA or WPA2 system you're almost certainly secure". One statement was that "there is no documented evidence of even one long pass key WPA network being cracked". And WPA2 is stronger yet... "Military Grade", was a term used.

I haven't read anything about WPA/WPA2 being vulnerable (yet).

 

[gnome]

Quote from GTS:

Actually I think WEP is far better then zero security (wide-open AP) but since it has been hacked you can't treat it like it is secure. It would stop 95% of your neighbors from getting on your network though. Without WEP people can join your AP by accident as well as maliciously.

You got me there...I thought that WEP was equated with encryption, you mean its possible to implement WEP and not be encrypted?

I haven't read anything about WPA/WPA2 being vulnerable (yet).

1. Denying access to a casual passer-by is one thing. Trying to deny access to some degree of persistent hacker because you have information you want protected is another.

2. I guess the business about "not bothering to enable encryption" may be mostly semantic. Someone who knows he should be protecting his network with WPA would certainly enable encryption.

I also found today a few articles about things you could do maximize security even on your WPA/WPA2 system.

 

[cohenmichaela]

Quote from sim03:

Please re-read my OP. I am talking specifically about hacking a WPA, particularly WPA2, network.

WPA2 is actually divided into two different "classes" for lack of a better term. Home (pre-shared keys) and Enterprise (dynamic keys via Extensible Authentication Protocol or EAP).

The last I heard WPA2 with pre-shared keys is extremely hackable (just as easy as WEP these days). To date I don't believe anyone has broken into WPA with EAP. It requires a public key/private key encrypted session established through x.509 certificates just to exchange the dynamic key. Most security conscious businesses deploy this type of wireless security infrastructure.

 

[dandxg]

Quote from gnome:

For those of you who know little of WLAN (like me), I've been reading online today....

1. Lots of info about "cracking WLANs" is all about (a) cracking WEP systems, which have become recognized as little better than broadcasting in the clear, or (b) hacking into systems (mostly WEP) where the user never bothered to enable encryption.

2. Lots of statements of, "if you use a long, random pass key on a WPA or WPA2 system you're almost certainly secure". One statement was that "there is no documented evidence of even one long pass key WPA network being cracked". And WPA2 is stronger yet... "Military Grade", was a term used.

3. By using a encryption enabled WPA or WPA2 WLAN, your system would be hard enough that would-be crackers would rather move on to easier targets and not bother with yours.

For those of you who are WLAN experts, please comment on the veracity of the above...

TIA

Gnome, my last telecom job, the techs assured me when you use encryption on a wireless connection you slow down the data a little bit. What's a little bit, I don't know. This was over 2 years ago. That enough tells me not to day trade on wireless, no thanks no how.

 

[gnome]

Quote from dandxg:

Gnome, my last telecom job, the techs assured me when you use encryption on a wireless connection you slow down the data a little bit. What's a little bit, I don't know. This was over 2 years ago. That enough tells me not to day trade on wireless, no thanks no how. [/QUOTE

I doubt that I'd notice... I trade on dialup now.