|
|
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:37:39 EST5EDT4,M4.1,M10.5, Neil Waldhauer wrote: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.
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.
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.
|
: ,
,
. |