Message-ID: <3F39BF44.20006@2rosenthals.com>
Organization: Rosenthal & Rosenthal
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.4; MultiZilla v1.5.0.0) Gecko/20030622
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <auto-000178702987@admin.nni.com>
In-Reply-To: <auto-000178702987@admin.nni.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 00:32:09 EST5EDT4,M4.1,M10.5
Sender: os2-wireless_users-owner <os2-wireless_users-owner@2rosenthals.com>
Reply-To: os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com
From:  Lewis G Rosenthal <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>
To:  os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com
Subject: [OS2Wireless] WSF-1 rf detector

Stanley Sidlov wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:37:39 EST5EDT4,M4.1,M10.5, Neil Waldhauer wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I read the article using Lewis' URL. I guess I'd be vulnerable to random
>>tapping like that if I install a WAP.
>>    
>>
>
>But even in the article they say if you used WEP128 there wouldn't be much of an issue since it would 
>be at least encrypted enough to not make it 'easy' to hack. 
>
Yes WEP128 makes it harder. However, again, if you're in a public place, 
that's not really an option. Also, WEP128 beats the stuffing out of the 
throughput, and as access points function as hubs and not as switches 
(i.e., they divide bandwidth), 11 machines banging on an 802.11b AP full 
throttle will result in each one getting 1Mb of bandwidth, 22 machines, 
512Kb, etc. Add to (or subtract from?) that the overhead for the WEP, 
and these figures drop off dramatically. Again, in a public place, with 
lots of clients and few access points, WEP won't cut it. WEP also has 
several inherent flaws which make it rather easy (obviously harder than 
not having WEP, but still relatively easy) to decipher.

>The other thing is that these networks must be setup as Ad-hoc networks, which would allow the 
>individual computers to connect to each other. That can be controlled can't it by not allowing ad-hoc 
>networking...
>  
>
No. Ad-hoc only means that the machines communicate with each other 
without the need for an access point, a la crossover cable vis-à-vis two 
patch cables and a hub. If you and I are on the same Wi-Fi network, 
encrypted or no, and you have Wintendo file sharing wide open, I'm going 
to find you ad-hoc or infrastructure, it doesn't matter. The access 
point (infrastructure mode) doesn't preclude clients from connecting to 
one another.

-- 
Lewis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis G Rosenthal, CNA
Rosenthal & Rosenthal            :  Accountants / Network Consultants
New York / Northern Virginia     :                www.2rosenthals.com
Novell Users International       :                 www.whytheylie.com
OS/2's new face is eComStation   :                www.ecomstation.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
This OS/2 system (Apollo) uptime is 0 days 06:33 hours and 24 seconds


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
steward@2rosenthals.com with the command
"unsubscribe os2-wireless_users" in the body
(omit the quotes).

For help with other commands, send a message
to steward@2rosenthals.com with the command
"help" in the body (omit the quotes).

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=