From: "Andy Willis" Received: from mxout4.mailhop.org ([63.208.196.168] verified) by 2rosenthals.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.1) with ESMTP id 70284 for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:48:57 -0400 Received: from mxin1.mailhop.org ([63.208.196.175]) by mxout4.mailhop.org with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1FWhxF-000H10-Ra for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:48:54 -0400 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.236]) by mxin1.mailhop.org with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1FWhxF-000EJy-K7 for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:48:53 -0400 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i28so198399wra for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:48:51 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=aWw6QjAv7dMm2ik3vjMflvJ4tP/jurgxrPUWNsBXoKXojkrrTnwhoACHxG0JzgbuaisiqN1hcNwZ07iyKtny6C3wlfeTZaG9VzzIpAXfNLt++SMNYM7FGt4LQ11EVzL1i0wQn/OsbVuEPrT8gw1uTsbeM8nhLd8NJ90wks9fgEA= Received: by 10.54.106.17 with SMTP id e17mr1113956wrc; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:48:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.88? ( [32.97.110.142]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 28sm196302wrl.2006.04.20.15.48.50; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:48:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <44480FD1.7080704@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:48:49 -0600 Reply-To: abwillis1@gmail.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20060330 SeaMonkey/1.5a MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OS/2 Wireless Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [OS2Wireless]Re: WEP with Cisco 340 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Miles Kuperus wrote: > I guess that would be why. Thanks for the quick reply. I'll stop beating my head > against the wall now ;) > > --Miles > > On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:25:53 -0700, Neil Waldhauer wrote: > >> I don't think WEP works on Cisco 340 or 350. >> >> Neil > Depends on which drivers you are using. The older 340 driver did support 64 bit encryption but I found those drivers to not be entirely stable. The newer 350/340 driver was stable but did not have encryption. Andy