From owner-cvs-all Thu Aug 9 20:49:13 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from wantadilla.lemis.com (wantadilla.lemis.com [192.109.197.80]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0242737B401; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 20:49:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from grog@lemis.com) Received: by wantadilla.lemis.com (Postfix, from userid 1004) id CDAA36ACE0; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:19:23 +0930 (CST) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:19:23 +0930 From: Greg Lehey To: Brooks Davis Cc: Warner Losh , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/wicontrol wicontrol.8 Message-ID: <20010810131923.I38896@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <200108092159.f79Lx8406626@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010809155123.A18472@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010809155123.A18472@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu>; from brooks@one-eyed-alien.net on Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 03:51:23PM -0700 Organization: The FreeBSD Project Phone: +61-8-8388-8286 Fax: +61-8-8388-8725 Mobile: +61-418-838-708 WWW-Home-Page: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-PGP-Fingerprint: 6B 7B C3 8C 61 CD 54 AF 13 24 52 F8 6D A4 95 EF Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thursday, 9 August 2001 at 15:51:23 -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 02:59:07PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: >> imp 2001/08/09 14:59:07 PDT >> >> Modified files: >> usr.sbin/wicontrol wicontrol.8 >> Log: >> Add a note that says: >> WEP IS INSECURE. DO NOT USE IT. >> and point people to details on the attack: >> http://www.cs.rice.edu/~astubble/wep/wep_attack.html >> and recommend people use ipsec instead if possible. >> >> Approved by: kris >> >> Mandoc police: Please do your worst. I'd like to merge similar text >> into ancontrol and ifconfig. > > I disagree with this statement. A more accurate statement would be: > > WEP IS INSECURE. DO NOT TRUST IT TO PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT SECURITY. > > The difference is that it totally open mode, anyone can walk up and > immediatly access the network. One the other hand, breaking WEP requires > the reception of 4-6 million packets according to the AT&T paper. Since > I rebooted my primary machine yesterday it has only transmitted around > 660K packets. Certaintly, WEP won't stop a dedicated attacker, but it > continues to provide some useful level of defense against casual > attackers with no easy place to access your air-space. I certaintly > plan to continue using some level of WEP on my wireless networks. Agreed. WEP can discourage casual crackers. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message