Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11
    Okay, and now that I have said all that....

    I guess it really isn't any different then the brute force password attempts against my SSH server that I recieve on a regular basis. I do use very complex passwords (as well as pub-key auth on my SSH server-nevertheless I still get blasted with brute force password attacks!)

    I suppose really, if I set up a wireless segment [perhaps for laptops] and used good application layer security to whereas no passwords were ever sent out in plain text-which I never do. ISP mail over SSL, server logins via SSH, SSL admin logins, sftp/scp, etc. and used a good complex password [which I always do] then in the end, it would be no different then the brute force password attacks against my SSH server.

    So that being said, if I talk myself into setting up a wireless segment, can you recommend a good wireless card for Linux which can be used with WPA (or wpa_supplicant)

  2. #12
    Senior Member IKnowNot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    A WPA crack attempt IS well worth one's time.
    Could you explain that a little more? Naturally, as with anything else, someone is going to try and find a way to crack it. To my knowledge there is nothing out there yet, unless you know of something.

    On the original topic.
    WiMax promises a range of several miles between client and base station, with average speeds of about 40M bps per channel. While the technology road map calls for the eventual ability to roam among base stations, 802.16-2004, or fixed WiMax, does not.
    ( source: eWEEK.com's AT&T Tests Enterprise WiMax in the City

    Now, from the article you referenced, ( LinuxDevices.com's Security processors target WiMAX base stations, CPE
    Additionally Cavium's new WiMAX security SDKs are available for Linux, priced at $5K to $25K, including development boards, proprietary Linux kernel modules optionally available as source under NDA (non-disclosure agreements), and Linux API libraries.
    ( emphasis added; BTW, are there a lot of questionable sites linked to that page, or is that my imagination? )

    This really, no, I mean REALLY bothers me.

    Just so they don't violate the GNU license they provide the user with source code to build into the user's kernel? They can't ( as I understand the GNU license ) provide the user with a working system unless they release the code. So they provide the user with the code to build a module which will be built by the GNU licensed software, then run buy the same GNU licensed software, and require the user to sign a " non-disclosure agreement " all again, so they don't violate the GNU license, but at the same time have recourse so that they can sue somebody and everybody should they feel their code has somehow been distributed or copied in some manner?

    ( Does the acronym SCO haunt anyone on this? Oh, wait a miniute, they purchased the right to sue, in their minds, is that correct? So this is not hindsight, it is forethought? )

    I have no idea how many lawyers they used to think this up. And although I can not speak for any off hand I know of no lawyers who would recommend a company which they represent utilize such services under such dubious agreements and restrictions. So who will their clients be?

    Not being a student of the current GNU license I really am not sure if this would actually constitute a breech of that license, but as they are working an a new draft I think that they should consider actions such as this in their drafting process. If it does not technically violate the license, it certainly does in spirit.

    IMHO, based on information in the article referenced.

    I know this went off topic, but that is how my mind works, going off in countless directions.
    " And maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be" --Miguel Cervantes

  3. #13

    Could you explain that a little more? Naturally, as with anything else, someone is going to try and find a way to crack it. To my knowledge there is nothing out there yet, unless you know of something.
    Rather than print the same information over, let me give you a link to an excellent Flash tutorial on cracking WPA


    The attack uses airforge to create a de-authenticate packet and aireplay to inject the packets [both tools from the aircrack suite] Ethereal for capturing the EAPOL WPA packets and cowpatty for brute forcing.

    Now, before you say...brute forcing only works with weak passwords, I realize this! That is why I said earlier that using a complex password does go a long ways towards providing a degree of security. But on the other hand, you should see my user/password file for such attacks. It goes WAY beyond a standard dictionary file! [although a complete dictionary file is included! Merged, sorted and uniq'ed from several different dictionary's!] My User/pass file also contains other languages, computer specific terms, a complete 1337-speek'ed dictionary, etc, etc, etc! About the ONLY passwords my password file CAN'T crack are passwords which include symbols, passwords that are only made up of sentence initials [i.e, this is my example password=timep] and those sorts. It really is one hell of a password file! So....knowing this, I am sure that I am not the only one out there who has such a password file. Therefore, an attack such as the one above concerns me. Obviously I do use a complex password. Usually 16 characters or so, alphanumeric, includes symbols, etc. My password file could not crack a password such as these types of passwords that I use, and most likely neither could anyone else's. About the only thing that would crack it, would be a true brute force attack in which every possible combination of keyboard characters was tried. And that of course would take literally forever.

    So, on that note....I know that I am reasonably safe from such an attack. I could probably watch such an attack happening without having to worry about if they were going to get in or not. But I do still have my concerns about it.

    In regards to your quotes about WiMax IKnowNot, THAT I did not realize. I hadn't heard about that, but I don't like the sound of that either! Which would make me focus in a little more on 802.11i

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    I heard about this a few months ago when it comes out it is suppose to be great and the range of 30 miles will in reality be like 15 to 20 miles in normal weather with perfect weather and line of sight I think it would just about be 30 miles, but still 15 to 20 miles of range not bad. Also this gives huge problems with wireless hacking the security on the network would have to be much higher because of the extended range making it easer for hackers to get into a network because they can hack it from their house instead of their car and with a range of this size it would literally be impossible to catch some one who has hacked your network because they could be any ware unlike the networks of today ware they have to be close to the AP which it is still next to impossible to catch them its just that they have more places to hide with the bigger range.

  5. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Riga, Latvia
    Any WiMAX users in here ?
    WiMAX: Forum, Yellow Pages

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts