NetStumbler.org Forums - View Single Post - Aircrack / Devine becoming famous : security focus article

sylvain · 12-16-2004

Hi

I have looked deeply in this article and the results posted are weird for the comparative tests between the different tools.

I was the first to make compartive tests (look at the initial threads for weplab) and I found weplab as efficient as aircrack most of the time.

So can someone explain me two things about the test described in this article?
I really don't understand why the author uses the 95% perc option in weplab, this figure looks very bad to me , it is really too high to obtain good results.
And the second question is about the graph called aircrack execution time..what's the deal with fudge factor > 30 ??? it it also reall weird figures as it is too high.
Moreover it is the contrary of what it is displayed in the comparative test : in the comparative test he said he could crack most of the time with a fudge factor of 4 and in the graph we can see that for a 4 fudge factor it's a failure....

so when you look deeply in this article, you can see that the method is not so good...

12-16-2004	#2 (permalink)
sylvain Wireless Auditor Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Paris, France Posts: 175	Hi I have looked deeply in this article and the results posted are weird for the comparative tests between the different tools. I was the first to make compartive tests (look at the initial threads for weplab) and I found weplab as efficient as aircrack most of the time. So can someone explain me two things about the test described in this article? I really don't understand why the author uses the 95% perc option in weplab, this figure looks very bad to me , it is really too high to obtain good results. And the second question is about the graph called aircrack execution time..what's the deal with fudge factor > 30 ??? it it also reall weird figures as it is too high. Moreover it is the contrary of what it is displayed in the comparative test : in the comparative test he said he could crack most of the time with a fudge factor of 4 and in the graph we can see that for a 4 fudge factor it's a failure.... so when you look deeply in this article, you can see that the method is not so good...