"Clive Coleman" wrote in message
...
In message .com,
writes
visible networks with SSID visible
What is SSID?

Service Set Identifier - effectively the name of the network, to distinguish
it from other networks that might be within network range of a PC that wants
to connect to the network.

By not broadcasting the SSID, any PC that wants to connect to a network must
be configured with the network's SSID - and if it can't supply that SSID, it
doesn't connect.

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Martin Underwood wrote:

"TheOneKEA" wrote in message
oups.com...
Robin Mayes wrote:

Yes, please don't try to hack into it.

British security at its finest!

IT contractors at they're usual competent selves!

There was a recent article - BBC News, i think - about the density of
unsecured wireless networks in central London; the specific examples were
ones in inns of court, a judge's office, and the MoD. TfL, though - that
could cause *real* disruption.

As it's not a safety critical bit of kit, not really.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:15:34 +0100, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

- don't broadcast SSID

A waste of time.

- only allow connections from PCs with specific MAC addresses (listed)

Not only a waste of time but superfluous.

MAC filtering is implicit in the way CCMP utilises both client and server
MACs for key exchange.

- WPA (or at the very least 128-bit WEP) security

WEP is a waste of time. 104 bit has been publicly broken in 3 minutes using
the latest tools.


WPA with at least a 30 character PSK at the very minimum.


greg

--
Delenda est Carthago

Martin Underwood wrote:
"Clive Coleman" wrote in message
...
In message .com,

writes
visible networks with SSID visible
What is SSID?

Service Set Identifier - effectively the name of the network, to
distinguish
it from other networks that might be within network range of a PC
that wants
to connect to the network.

By not broadcasting the SSID, any PC that wants to connect to a
network must
be configured with the network's SSID - and if it can't supply that
SSID, it
doesn't connect.

The SSID is a name which is used in software to help users decide which
network to connect to. If you set your laptop up to always connect to
'myCompany' then it will connect to any channel with an access point
called 'myCompany'.

That is the only use of the SSID, simply hiding it doesn't do much
because a client could still try to connect to 'channel 5' and doesn't
need to know the SSID in order to do this.

Anyways - sorry for the thread - it went very OT and has not infact
answered my query about the use of wireless networks on the tube

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:55:02 +0100, Martin Underwood wrote:

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Martin Underwood) wrote:

Presumably if the wireless LAN has been configured sensibly, it will
reject any "casual" attempts to connect to it:

- don't broadcast SSID

Security by obscurity, pretty useless.

Is the SSID readable by more subtle means, or is the only way to connect if
the SSID is not broadcast to try likely names in turn (brute force)?

It's covered in something I was reading earlier
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/index.php?p=43 "The six dumbest ways to secure a
wireless LAN "

Steve

Surely one cracks into networks, and a programmer hacks away at code?

Nick

"Robin Mayes" wrote in message
...
Yes, please don't try to hack into it.

Nick Evans wrote:
Surely one cracks into networks, and a programmer hacks away at code?

Nick

That was the original definition but the press (for some reason)
started using the term hacker instead of cracker and then 5 years ago
the newspaper definition became what was used in GCSE exams. So: No,
not anymore

wrote:
Nick Evans wrote:
Surely one cracks into networks, and a programmer hacks away at code?

That was the original definition but the press (for some reason)
started using the term hacker instead of cracker and then 5 years ago
the newspaper definition became what was used in GCSE exams. So: No,
not anymore

Read 'Hackers' by Stephen Levy (written in 1984) for the story of the
'hacking era'

On 15 Apr 2005 wrote:

Nick Evans wrote:

Surely one cracks into networks, and a programmer hacks away at code?

That was the original definition but the press (for some reason) started
using the term hacker instead of cracker and then 5 years ago the
newspaper definition became what was used in GCSE exams. So: No, not
anymore

Ahem. Some hackers still hack on code. It's just that there are now two
kinds of hackers, with the crhacker being the only type the unwashed
masses are aware of. Ironically, i don't think that sort refer to
themselves as hackers; they probably use some term with more digits in it.

And come on, the argument from authority is a bad enough fallacy to begin
with, but GCSE syllabuses? Or was it an attempt to not quite commit a
fallacy by using a not very authoritative authority?

tom

--
Vive la chimie, en particulier, et la connaissance en general. -- Herve This