Aircrack / Devine becoming famous : security focus article

sylvain · 12-15-2004

check this article about aircrack :

http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1814

There is a very interesting comparative about the different tools to crack WEP.
One more time good job, Devine and Korek

Waiting for the second part of the 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...

renderman · 12-16-2004

The test method may not be that good, however he did establish quite well that the attack methods work and it's not a good idea to rely on WEP any more.

Congrats to Devine and Korek for helping prove what everyone already assumed. Been playing with Aircrack lately; definatly useful. Think I might re-visit some clients and tell them that what I warned them about is now true.

KoreK · 12-17-2004

Sylvain you forgot Amandine's interview. That's so cute. Birthday's coming soon, devine?

As for Ossmann's article, apparently he tried the crackers on a single sample, so "most of the time" considerations are irrelevant. I think he focused on cracking a single case. It's not supposed to be some statistics paper, just an experiment.

devine · 12-18-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by KoreK

Sylvain you forgot Amandine's interview. That's so cute. Birthday's coming soon, devine?

Maybe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KoreK

As for Ossmann's article, apparently he tried the crackers on a single sample, so "most of the time" considerations are irrelevant. I think he focused on cracking a single case. It's not supposed to be some statistics paper, just an experiment.

Yep. Unfortunately he forgot to include chopper in his tests. Good article nonetheless.

joswr1ght · 12-18-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by devine

Unfortunately he forgot to include chopper in his tests. Good article nonetheless.

Ossmann says he will be writing about aireplay, chopchop and WEPWedgie in part 2.

-Josh

12-15-2004	#1 (permalink)
sylvain Wireless Auditor Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Paris, France Posts: 175	Aircrack / Devine becoming famous : security focus article check this article about aircrack : http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1814 There is a very interesting comparative about the different tools to crack WEP. One more time good job, Devine and Korek Waiting for the second part of the article !!

12-16-2004	#3 (permalink)
renderman Drunken Stumbler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Anywhere but Utah Posts: 1,803	The test method may not be that good, however he did establish quite well that the attack methods work and it's not a good idea to rely on WEP any more. Congrats to Devine and Korek for helping prove what everyone already assumed. Been playing with Aircrack lately; definatly useful. Think I might re-visit some clients and tell them that what I warned them about is now true. __________________ Never drink anything larger than your head! Scaramental Wine Taster for the Church Of WiFi Buy our books! "I reject your reality, and substitute my own!" – Adam Savage CoWF WPA Hash Tables

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

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...

12-17-2004	#4 (permalink)
KoreK Banned in DC Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 102	Sylvain you forgot Amandine's interview. That's so cute. Birthday's coming soon, devine? As for Ossmann's article, apparently he tried the crackers on a single sample, so "most of the time" considerations are irrelevant. I think he focused on cracking a single case. It's not supposed to be some statistics paper, just an experiment.