From owner-freebsd-security Thu Aug 9 16: 1:36 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4068337B401 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 16:01:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) id f79N1VV21397; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 19:01:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 19:01:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <200108092301.f79N1VV21397@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Brooks Davis Cc: security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/wicontrol wicontrol.8 In-Reply-To: <20010809155123.A18472@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> References: <200108092159.f79Lx8406626@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010809155123.A18472@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org < said: > WEP IS INSECURE. DO NOT TRUST IT TO PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT SECURITY. Let's keep in mind what WEP claims to be: Wired Equivalent Privacy. That is to say, the effort required to break WEP is comparable to the effort of plugging a wire into an outlet. It is not a security service. The mere existence of an (automatable) attack does not mean that WEP is irredeemably broken; for many applications, it is sufficient to protect against unintentional access. (We don't use WEP in our wireless network here, because to do so would defeat the purpose of the network. If I had a wireless network in my condo, on the other hand, you can be certain that I would be using it.) -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message