NetStumbler.org Forums

Go Back   NetStumbler.org Forums > Software > Mac OS
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2004   #1 (permalink)
audiboy90
dillingerhasescaped
 
audiboy90's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Northern CA
Posts: 6
Need security pointers

What would you guys recommend to me as far a securing my wireless home network? I am running Mac OS 10.3.3 with an airport card and a linksys BEF11S4W router. I have a 64-bit WEP encrypted password but do not feel that this is sufficient by any means. Software, hardware, I do not really mind. But I am a college student and on a budget. Thanks.
audiboy90 is offline  
Old 07-28-2004   #2 (permalink)
Barry
Managing the iTards.
 
Barry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 5,248
If you can, go 128bit and turn on the firewall on, on your mac. Use mac address authintication(that's not spelled right).
__________________
Penny's giving it up. She's giving it up hard. Cause she's with Captain Hammer, and these, are not the hammer...... The hammer is my penis. --- Captain Hammer, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.
Barry is offline  
Old 07-29-2004   #3 (permalink)
audiboy90
dillingerhasescaped
 
audiboy90's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Northern CA
Posts: 6
Ok now when I was having trouble with my WEP and getting the $ before it, Thorn told me to use open authentication. I am confused as to what is what and could use a little help here. Thanks.
audiboy90 is offline  
Old 07-29-2004   #4 (permalink)
wrzwaldo
I amuse you?
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 9,127
There are several good articles on the web describing this. Do a google search and read away.
wrzwaldo is offline  
Old 07-29-2004   #5 (permalink)
Starpoint
Pr0nStumbler Expert Level
 
Starpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiboy90
What would you guys recommend to me as far a securing my wireless home network? I am running Mac OS 10.3.3 with an airport card and a linksys BEF11S4W router. I have a 64-bit WEP encrypted password but do not feel that this is sufficient by any means. Software, hardware, I do not really mind. But I am a college student and on a budget. Thanks.

Set the WEP key to the highest you can, change the SSID word to something different, AFTER you turn off its broadcast. If the router supports it, switch to MAC Address Authentication. What that means is only MAC address's entered into the router can use the router for intra and internet access etc..
Also if you have DHCP ON, you might want limit the IP pool to cover your computers and nothing more.. aka set the DHCP IP pool to a small number of IP's prefferably to how many PC's you have.

There are truly open wireless places out there but they made that choice and accept the responsibility of doing so.... you do not wanna be the onramp for some spammer, hacker, or worse..
__________________
Against the run of the mill, static as it seems

We break the surface tension with our wild kinetic dreams
Curves and lines -- of grand designs...


Tonight's movie "Soylent Green" has been brought to you by our sponsor - Waste Management

My mind is like a Steel trap - Rusty and Illegal in most states
Starpoint is offline  
Old 08-06-2004   #6 (permalink)
audiboy90
dillingerhasescaped
 
audiboy90's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Northern CA
Posts: 6
What WEP default key should I be using for maximum security, 1, 2, 3, or 4?
audiboy90 is offline  
Old 08-06-2004   #7 (permalink)
Barry
Managing the iTards.
 
Barry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 5,248
I don't think it matters.
__________________
Penny's giving it up. She's giving it up hard. Cause she's with Captain Hammer, and these, are not the hammer...... The hammer is my penis. --- Captain Hammer, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.
Barry is offline  
Old 08-06-2004   #8 (permalink)
Thorn
Did you do the math?
 
Thorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Villa Straylight
Posts: 10,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiboy90
What WEP default key should I be using for maximum security, 1, 2, 3, or 4?
Default keys are usually a bad idea, for the simple reason that they are known. You're much better off using custom keys.
__________________
Thorn
"Lawyers should never marry lawyers. This is called inbreeding. It produces idiot children and more lawyers."
Thorn is offline  
Old 08-06-2004   #9 (permalink)
KoreK
Banned in DC
 
KoreK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 102
I don't want to disappoint you, but if you are using wep, and somebody wants to screw you, he won't have much trouble. WEP is broken (officially since 2001). WEP-64 with a passphrase is even worse, since it's not even 40-bit security (easy brute force, 90 seconds on a PII-233, according to the README in Tim Newsham's wep_util). WEP-64 in hex can be brute-forced (day-days?). WEP-128 can not be brute-forced, nevertheless WEP has so many holes, that cracking it takes minutes/hours, depending on the tools/conditions. For example, if you are using P2P (ie lot of traffic), it will be crackable in less than a day. If the attacker generates a lot of traffic (wnet), it will be crackable in a few hours. You can configure WEP to use 4 keys, rotating them, nevertheless your solution is still broken. Answer is WPA, which means new card/new access point, or some IPsec/VPN solution, which also means new hardware. Do use WEP (13-byte hex key - passphrases generally don't work), if you don't have a choice, nevertheless never consider your link safe.

Authentification method should be open-system. As you can guess, WEP shared-key authentification is also broken. It gives attacker a simple way to inject any kind of traffic on your wireless network (wepwedgie). Not that it really matters, since as I mentionned somewhere above, WEP is broken.

MAC address authentification is commonly known as "MAC address filtering". Kismet or ethereal will get you the MAC connected to an AP.

SSID cloaking is pretty useless. Waiting for a new connection, or simply sending a Dissassociate frame will reveal the SSID. Only nice thing about it, is that Windows XP Wireless Configuration for Zeros doesn't like it...

Of the three measures, WEP is probably the least weak (since it requires more than a bit of sniffing around).

Post-edit: Removed a word. BTW don't forget to change the AP default password (admin).

Last edited by KoreK : 08-06-2004 at 05:44 PM.
KoreK is offline  
Old 08-06-2004   #10 (permalink)
Thorn
Did you do the math?
 
Thorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Villa Straylight
Posts: 10,032
WEP is not as bad as the nay-sayers would have you believe. It is hardly a great encryption method, but it takes a fair amount of traffic (~4GB) to break it, and the some packets have to be "weak" or "interesting" packets. Most modern firmware eliminates such packets, so it's not really a problem unless you have old firmware and a lot a traffic.
__________________
Thorn
"Lawyers should never marry lawyers. This is called inbreeding. It produces idiot children and more lawyers."
Thorn is offline  
Old 08-06-2004   #11 (permalink)
KoreK
Banned in DC
 
KoreK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 102
I got this half-baked cracker, which sometimes can crack wep with less 100,000 IVs. There was a post quite while on netstumbler with a reference to 13% cases. Reinjection greatly speeds up the process (if the users are not using p2p). WEP is really bad. It's just that the tools haven't been made/released. Let's say 200000 IVs are necessary + injection tool (500 packet/s, packets are 100byte long): less than 7minutes/20Megs.

Two flaws I have never seen discussed:
Chopping:
Take a WEP packet. Chop off the last byte. The CRC/ICV is broken. Now if the last byte was 0, you xor last the last 4 bytes with a certain value and the CRC will become valid again. Retransmit the packet. Does it get through? If not, then if the last byte is 1...

What FMS conveniently forgot to say/Demo of other statistical flaws of WEP:
Code:
/* main.c
   Compile with:
   gcc -o main main.c
   Use:
   ./main <byte_number>
   collects statistics for the <byte_number>th byte of the rc4 key 
   (3 for the first byte of the WEP-key,...)  

   Variable p gives the byte to attack in the key K
   Description of the output: 
   * Value of the key
   * Number of times attack 1 worked (% of the total)
   * Number of times attack 2 worked (% of when detection was effective,
     % of the total)
   * Number of times attack 3 worked (% of the total)
   * ...
   * inverted attack!

   Attack 1 [FMS] is part stable/part unstable, so it sometimes gives 
   false positive.
   Attack 2 is consistently stable.
   Attack 3 is unstable: False positive/negative appear from time to time
   (it doesn't work on p=3, works on p=4 (24%!) except there is a false
   positive (18%), works correctly on p=5 (22%)/no false positive)
   Attack 4 and 5 (5%) are unstable, but not as much as 3.

   Attack 6 is an "inverted attack". It helps weeding out guesses. 
   Worst case should be like at most 2 detections for 256000 IVs or 
   less, 3 for 256000-512000, to be adjusted... Quite useful to get 
   rid of false positives.

   FMS Attack gets more and more samples as p increases, so other attacks 
   are useful for cracking wep with as few IV's as possible.

*/

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

void swap(int *a,int *b) 
{
    int c;
    c=*a;
    *a=*b;
    *b=c;
}

int main(int argc,char **argv)
{
    unsigned int i,j,o1,o2,tmp,jp,p;
    unsigned int S[256];
//    unsigned int K[16]={0x00,0x00,0x00,0x45,0x15,0xa1,0x42,0x96,
//			0x45,0x23,0x53,0x53,0x56,0x16,0x44,0x32};
//    unsigned int K[16]={0x00,0x00,0x00,0x1f,0x58,0xa1,0xb2,0x86,
//			0x45,0x13,0x53,0x6e,0xa6,0x16,0x84,0xc2};
    unsigned int K[16]={0x00,0x00,0x00,0x1f,0x58,0xa1,0xb2,0x86,
			0x04,0x13,0x53,0x6e,0xa6,0x16,0x84,0xc2};
    int stat1[256],tstat1;
    int stat2[256],pstat2[256],tstat2;
    int stat3[256],tstat3;
    int stat4[256],tstat4;
    int stat5[256],tstat5;
    int stat6[256];

    if (argc>1) p=atoi(argv[1]);
    else p=3;

    for (i=0; i<256; i++) {
	stat1[i]=0;
	stat2[i]=0;
	pstat2[i]=0;
	stat3[i]=0;
	stat4[i]=0;
	stat5[i]=0;
	stat6[i]=0;
    }

    for (K[0]=0; K[0]<256; K[0]++) 
	for (K[1]=0; K[1]<256; K[1]++)
	    for (K[2]=0; K[2]<256; K[2]++) {
		// first get the data
		for (i=0; i<256; i++) S[i]=i;
		for (i=0,j=0; i<256; i++) {
		    j=(j+K[i & 0x0f]+S[i]) & 0xff;
		    swap(S+i,S+j);
		}
		i=1;
		j=S[1];
		tmp=(S[i]+S[j]) & 0xff;
		swap(S+i,S+j);
		o1=S[tmp];
		i=2;
		j=(j+S[2]) & 0xff;
		tmp=(S[i]+S[j]) & 0xff;
		swap(S+i,S+j);
		o2=S[tmp];

		// then do the attacks
		for (i=0; i<256; i++) S[i]=i;
		for (i=0,j=0; i<p; i++) {
		    j=(j+K[i & 0x0f]+S[i]) & 0xff;
		    swap(S+i,S+j);
		}
	     
		// first type of attack FMS 5%
		if ((S[1] < p) && ((S[1]+S[S[1]]) == p)) {
		    jp=o1;
		    stat1[(jp-j-S[p]) & 0xff]++;
		}

		// second type of attack 13%
		if (S[1] == p) {
		    for (jp=0; S[jp]!=0; jp++);
		    if (o1 == p) {
			stat2[(jp-j-S[p]) & 0xff]++;
		    }
		    // for statistical purposes
		    pstat2[(jp-j-S[p]) & 0xff]++;
		}

		// another one
		if ((o2 == 0) && (S[p] == 0) && (S[2] != 0)) {
		    stat3[(2-j-S[p]) & 0xff]++;
		}
		
		// and two more (well there are still about 10 of 'em left:)
		if ((S[1] > p) && (((S[2]+S[1]-p) & 0xff) == 0)) {
		    if (o2 == S[1]) {
			for (jp=0; S[jp] != ((S[1]-S[2]) & 0xff); jp++);
			if ((jp!=1) && (jp!=2)) stat4[(jp-j-S[p]) & 0xff]++;
		    }
		    else if (o2 == ((2-S[2]) & 0xff)) {
			for (jp=0; S[jp] != o2; jp++);
			if ((jp!=1) && (jp!=2)) stat5[(jp-j-S[p]) & 0xff]++;
		    }
		}

		// inverted attack
		if (S[2] == 0) {
		    if ((S[1] == 2) && (o1 == 2)) {
			stat6[(1-j-S[p]) & 0xff]++;
			stat6[(2-j-S[p]) & 0xff]++;
		    }
		    else if (o2==0) {
			stat6[(2-j-S[p]) & 0xff]++;
		    }
		}
		if ((S[1] == 1) && (o1 == S[2])) {
		    stat6[(1-j-S[p]) & 0xff]++;
		    stat6[(2-j-S[p]) & 0xff]++;
		}
		if ((S[1] == 0) && (S[0] == 1) && (o1 == 1)) {
		    stat6[(-j-S[p]) & 0xff]++;
		    stat6[(1-j-S[p]) & 0xff]++;
		}

		if ((K[1]==0) && (K[2]==0)) fprintf(stderr,".");

	    }

    fprintf(stderr,"\n");
		    
    tstat1=0;
    tstat2=0;
    tstat3=0;
    tstat4=0;
    tstat5=0;
    for (i=0 ; i<256 ;i++) {
	tstat1+=stat1[i];
	tstat2+=stat2[i];
	tstat3+=stat3[i];
	tstat4+=stat4[i];
	tstat5+=stat5[i];
    }
	
    for (i=0; i<256; i++) 
	printf("0x%02x: %3d(%4.1f%%) %2d(%4.1f%%-%4.1f%%) "
	       "%3d(%4.1f%%) %2d(%4.1f%%) %2d(%4.1f%%) %5d(%s)\n",i,
	       stat1[i],(100.0*stat1[i])/tstat1,
	       stat2[i],(100.0*stat2[i])/pstat2[i],(100.0*stat2[i])/tstat2,
	       stat3[i],(100.0*stat3[i])/tstat3,
	       stat4[i],(100.0*stat4[i])/tstat4,
	       stat5[i],(100.0*stat5[i])/tstat5,
	       stat6[i],(stat6[i] < 32 ? "possible" : "impossible"));

    return 0;

}
KoreK is offline  
Old 08-06-2004   #12 (permalink)
wrzwaldo
I amuse you?
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 9,127
Is that based on the WEP key never changing? What about low use networks with the key changed monthly/weekly/daily? I would suspect that on my wireless the WEP would possibly be cracked just about the same time I change the WEP key. Of course there are still a few what ifs.
wrzwaldo is offline  
Old 08-06-2004   #13 (permalink)
KoreK
Banned in DC
 
KoreK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrzwaldo
Is that based on the WEP key never changing? What about low use networks with the key changed monthly/weekly/daily? I would suspect that on my wireless the WEP would possibly be cracked just about the same time I change the WEP key. Of course there are still a few what ifs.
If I move my lame arse, if I decide to crack your WEP key, if some mild conditions are met (for example two clients on the AP/a few encrypted packet), then there is a quite high probability that I can crack your WEP key under an hour, there is a lower probability that I can crack your WEP key under 30 minutes, and (maybe with a bit of luck, or is it wishful thinking) there is still a non-zero probability that I can crack your WEP key under 10 minutes. As long as you don't change it. That's my estimation of WEP security. Ain't theory great...
KoreK is offline  
Old 05-01-2007   #14 (permalink)
sumatra
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiboy90
What would you guys recommend to me as far a securing my wireless home network? I am running Mac OS 10.3.3 with an airport card and a linksys BEF11S4W router. I have a 64-bit WEP encrypted password but do not feel that this is sufficient by any means. Software, hardware, I do not really mind. But I am a college student and on a budget. Thanks.

I would recommend leaving your wireless traffic unencrypted. This gives you plausible deniability for any P2P "violations". Anything sensitive you are sending over the internet should be already encrypted anyway, so an open wireless channel will not change that.
sumatra is offline  
Old 05-01-2007   #15 (permalink)
itsnotme
Dumbass checker
 
itsnotme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere below Lake Ontario
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumatra
I would recommend leaving your wireless traffic unencrypted. This gives you plausible deniability for any P2P "violations". Anything sensitive you are sending over the internet should be already encrypted anyway, so an open wireless channel will not change that.
Did you look at the date of the last post? I think they stopped caring back in 2004.

Read the Welcome Desk and look at the rules and pay special attention to #4.
itsnotme is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Google
 
Web NetStumbler.org

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.


All messages express the views of the author and are for entertainment purposes only. Netstumbler.org cannot be held responsible for the authenticity of the content or the actions of its members. By using this site and its services, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are discriminating, obscene, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violates any laws and you release Netstumbler.org from any future claims of any kind whatsoever including, but not limited to, addiction and loss of productivity. All forum messages, private messages and any other content are properties of Netstumbler.org. Even if publicly available, personal or copyrighted information are not to be posted without the consent of the owner. Distribution of licensed and copyrighted materials in any way not endorsed by the copyright owner is strictly prohibited. You may not use this site and its resources to spam other sites or individuals or perform any action that violates any law. Items sold or bought in the For Sale forum are sold as is and no warranty or insurance of any kind is provided. Netstumbler.org cannot be held responsible for the outcome of any transactions and no warranty of any kind is provided, either express or implied. Vulgar words are not allowed in the subject lines ; they may be used in the message body in any forum. The Administrator, Super Moderators and Moderators of Netstumbler.org have the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason and to reveal your identity and other known information in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you.