Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NeoSparky
This argument only works if the very last possibilty is the one that works, and also assumes that your doing a brute force method of cracking on a single PC. What about distributed?
|
Did you read what I posted?
That is specifically what is meant by using heuristics, statistical probability filtering and the fast memory trade off.
Heuristics would mean that you populate the
beginning of your database (the one that has more records than there are molecules in the Universe) with more likely values and take intelligent field selection into account.
Statistical probability filtering means you set your database scanning to
"score" a hit if it gets 75% or 80% or 85% of values, rather than waiting for a perfect match.
Fast memory trade-off technique more or less means breaking your uber-database into several parts.
So, I'm
not talking about brute force. Even with all those tricks used, you are still talking about millions (if not BILLIONS) of years. And this to gain access to your home network?
lol
I think not.
Quote:
|
My personal network is set for mac filtering and wep is disabled. It keeps the honest people honest and I dont have to take a performance hit to keep wep up and running. Anyone that really wants into my network is going to get into it, but as soon as they do I'll know about it.
|
Wow. Personally, I'd go with WPA. The client impact of WPA is pretty neglibable unless you are using some kind of ASD (Application Specific Device). But your choice.
Quote:
|
I understand cyptography very well actually, There are more ways to break things than brute force methods, but thats not what this whole thing is about.
|
Yes there are more ways to crack passwords than the brute force method, and I
explicitly referenced and discussed them. :-)
Quote:
|
You were telling everyone that it's possible to completly secure a wifi network and I was correcting you that it is not,
|
I was telling people that current WLAN standards are
unbroken, not
unbreakable.
So therefore, for all intents and purposes, it IS possible to entirely secure a WLAN using current standards. I think the repeated and lengthy posts I made were quite clear. But if you want to be anally retentive, then ALL information, apart from that encrypted using one-time hashing, PKI or so-called quantum encryption is crackable.
So is your wired nework, by the way. But you don't see anyone scaring people about that, because
a) It is hard
b) It is unlikely
Also, 802.11i/WPA2 is even stronger than WPA, so the
conceptual weakness that WEP suffers does not even apply to AES.
Quote:
|
you can come close to being completly secure but you can never achieve 100% security with any network.
|
And your continuing to argue the point that WLANs are "unsecure" is like thelogians arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of pin.
It is
CONCEPTUALLY POSSIBLE for you to disappear in a flash of quantum uncertainty. This is entirely in line with the laws of Quantum Physics. But the likliehood of it happening is so low as to not warrant mentioning.
Let me repeat myself.
If you use WPA in PSK mode (Pre Shared Key), and implement it correctly, your network is entirely secure.
Whilst it is conceptually possible to crack WPA, to do so (using current technology) would take more years than life has existed on Earth.
If you use WPA in EAP mode (for enterprise deployments), then the liklihood is even lower, due to the enhanced key management provided by EAP.
If you use AES, then it is (as far as the US Government and Pentagon are concerned) unbroken and unbreakable. This is the encryption standard required for FIPS140 certification (as a reference). FIPS140 is the standard that the US Government require to secure confidential information.
Quote:
|
also anyone that broadcasts a wifi signal without some sort of security on it is just begging to have uninvited guests on their network. And those people that choose to be the uninvited guests are neither hackers or thief's in any sense of the word, bump up the security so you have to work to get into it.. then you may be called a hacker.. once on the network and you steal things you do not have access to otherwise then your a thief. But to use bandwidth from someone else, your not a hacker.
|
That's your opinion. I think jumping onto someone's network without explicitly being invited is wrong. If the owner "sees" you, the first thing they'll think is "There is a hacker on my network".
Therefore you ARE a hacker.
In other words, if you were not invited, you shouldn't be there and if the owner
thinks you're a hacker, then you
are a hacker.
If the label bothers you, don't steal someone's bandwidth.
Mr Mephisto