Talk:Wireless security
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So you call them "crackers" instead? That term has its own set of derogatory misconceptions. I would think that the more common term "hacker" would apply itself better to this article as it is correctly calling to the proficency of a user (albiet, abuser) of computer networks. I would reccomend perhaps keeping the use of "crack" in reference to cracking a security algorithm, but not defining the perpitrator as a "cracker". --67.115.118.49 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
its worth mentioning that where it says that some parts of MITM is automated by Airjack, i'd point out that Airjack automated the entire thing, it came with monkeyjack which put you in the middle with an API for manipulating and monitoring the traffic, and krackerjack which actually broke some weakly authenticated VPNs crypto using the MITM...of course none of that is relevant really today as Airjack hasnt been maintained for years and requiers what is now very outdated hardware to run... (btw, i'm the author of Airjack, thats how I know this) --Michael Lynn 23:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Cleanup
This article needs to be copy-edited such that it no longer has a prescriptive tone. It ought to be informational, but not normative (i.e. 'these are the various security measures that exist to counteract these various threats,' NOT 'you should do this and that and the other thing'). The basic information is solid as far as I can tell--it just needs to be converted from an essay into an encyclopedia articl—thames 19:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I also feel that some of the diction is too casual, and that some of the paragraphs are so vague from the technical point of view as to be almost incomprehensible. To the extent that I can find the time, I will start working on both the stylistic and technical problems. This will be my first significant edit in Wikipedia, so I'd appreciate a lot of hand-holding. Tireisias 18:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
What is Wikipedia policy on the he/she business, referring to an individual of unknown and irrelevant sex? Tireisias 18:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The sentence length and complexity is significantly lacking which (I believe) leads to the casual tone. There is also little variation with sentence structure and very few compound or complex sentences.216.196.249.142 15:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I did some editing and took down the "marked for editing" sign which has been up for the past 10 months. I think this article looks like it is 90% there and I don't think it will get that much better from a structural standpoint. However, by all means keep working on it if you wish... Exsturmin8r 07:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ummm... Some of this was originally plagarised, hence the inappropriate tone. Caffe Latte Attack taken from http://www.airtightnetworks.net/knowledgecenter/wep-caffelatte.html Some of the article should be completely rewritten Aronzak (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Working on a wireless security project.
MAC address filtering is a very bad way of securing a network along with ESSID hiding. Both of these can be exploited easily.
[edit] Merger flag
Does anyone still think it a good idea to merge Wireless LAN security into this one? That one is more an elementary introduction, suitable at least in part to owners of ordinary LANs who barely know that the wireless router that shares their broadband Internet connection gave them a LAN. This one seems more deep, like a manual for computer professionals who spend hours every week in projects that protect a LAN with hundreds of computers and corporate secrets worth millions of dollars. Perhaps instead of coming together, the two articles should be made to drift further apart, with this one continuing to serve its tiny constituency, and that one ceding this territory in order to serve better the majority. Jim.henderson 05:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed overlook spam link
ERm, does anyone actually look at these links? Or are they just removed? That was an article about wireless security, no selling or anything ffs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by General Trelane (talk • contribs) 16:10, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wireless_security#Steps_in_securing_a_wireless_network
I've been doing simple wikification and noticed that this section is all about "how to" secure your wireless network. Although written well, Wikipedia is not a "how to" manual...
I'd like to propose we axe the section. The article is lengthy anyhow, with lots of different directions a reader could continue researching. E_dog95 Hi 07:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hooking on to my neighbours wireless broadband connection
Is it possible for me to use a wi-fi enabled laptop and use my neighbours wi-fi broadband connetion to surf the internet and do all i.net related activities free of cost?. The situation being I am living in a condo. and the appartment above mine has a 2mbps broadband connection on a wi-fi router. He has no wi-fi security enabled, thereby his appartment being wi-fi enabled, in that case it sounds logical that I could also patch in with my laptop at his cost. Is it technically true? Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulthottam (talk • contribs) 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] mixed security
Mixed security is a popular alternative for public access points because it has not special software requirements: only a 802.11 wireless access card (currently the lowest common denominator) and a web browser. Basically, it's an access point without encryption or uses WEP encryption with a pre-shared key, but restricts access until users have authenticated themselves on a webpage. Here's a few examples:
Toronto Hydro Telecom's "One Zone" does not use encryption. Instead, users are allowed to browse THT's website until they've purchased a plan and signed in. Other commercial hotspots, such as [Roger's HotSpot] also work this way
The University of Toronto Campus Wireless Network uses WEP encryption with a password available on the internet. (It's not entirely clear why they'd bother with encryption at all if the password is available to the general public.) On the first attempt to access a web page, users are redirected to an authentication page. After successfully authenticating, the user can use any internet service. Users have bandwidth quotas and are required to keep their operating system up to date.
The University of Toronto Computer Science Department has its own wireless network. WEP encryption is used, and the password is available on a website to authenticated users; the password is changed once a year. Users must have an ssh session to a special server open for their network access to work.
(Those are my rough notes for a new section. It's messy so I'm not putty it in the main article. Hopefully someone with more time on their hands can do this. Thx geoff_o (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC))
[edit] ESSID Hiding
SSID hiding is just as easily broken as MAC filtering, but if one is in the article, the other should be too. If not for else, to inform people that is almost useless. (so to stop people spreading misinformation all over the internet, how SSID hiding "protects" their network).
--Xerces8 (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Encrypted packets larger/slower ?
Are encrypted packets (WEP, WPA) larger than unencrypted ? IOW, has encrypted traffic less net bandwith ? This is a pretty common question about WLAN security (in forums).
--Xerces8 (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup - part II
Contents from previous editor (moved to new section)
Ummm... Some of this was originally plagarised, hence the inappropriate tone. Caffe Latte Attack taken from http://www.airtightnetworks.net/knowledgecenter/wep-caffelatte.html Some of the article should be completely rewritten Aronzak (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
