Possible to secure WEP?
in [Wireless Internet]
|
From: John Navas on 16 Mar 2006 18:19 [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] In <kk8912h8dbvhjdrdmmqecp23lad877qmtm(a)4ax.com> on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:38:16 +0000, Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre(a)spamcop.net> wrote: >On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 09:33:40 -0800, in alt.internet.wireless , Jeff >Liebermann <jeffl(a)comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote: > >>Derek Broughton <news(a)pointerstop.ca> hath wroth: >> >>>hmmm. I think "termination=server" might have been sufficient for Mark's >>>question, but this is all good for me :-) >> >>It doesn't have to be a "server". It can be terminated in the router >>at the other end. > >Replying to an oldish post I know, but you're simply repeating what >was said above. If its terminating, its a server. If that happens to >be inside your router, then thats interesting but beside the point. It's actually just a termination point. Nowhere is it written that VPN is always client-server(more accurately gateway) -- it can also be client-client, and gateway-gateway. See "Best Practices For VPN Implementation" <http://www.bcr.com/management/management_strategies/best_practices_vpn_implementation_20010301662.htm>: IPSecurity (IPSec) is a framework of open standards that provides data confidentiality, data integrity and authentication between participating peers (i.e., client to client, client to gateway, gateway to gateway). -- Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>
From: John Navas on 16 Mar 2006 18:21
[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] In <O7GRf.1268$k82.1085(a)bignews3.bellsouth.net> on Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:01:38 GMT, rico_001(a)hotmail.com (Rico) wrote: >In article <MPG.1e7fa99fbd229d7098a038(a)news.cable.ntlworld.com>, David Taylor <djtaylor(a)bigfoot.com> wrote: >>> Well the answer is yes, there you are mistaken and the example is secure >>> sockets empoyed above the hardware layer. >> >>Again, you've used a different approach. That hasn't secured WEP, that >>has secured the application layer. What if I'm using NetBEUI or IPX or >>any other protocol that doesn't offer a winsock interface and hence no >>SSL? > >Then you are secure through obscurity. Almost no one uses these protocols >wirelessly. Actually much more common than you seem to think. >>I don't care what *extra* encryption methods are added, adding them >>means that WEP isn't the security method hence WEP hasn't been secured. >>The link would be as secure using SSL either with or without WEP. > >Sure it is, it's just being enhanced. The WEP keeps the casual snooper away >... Only a very casual snooper. Better to say "it will only keep honest people honest." -- Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless> |