Message-ID: <40A14BE7.4000405@arhont.com>
From: mlists at arhont.com (Konstantin Gavrilenko)
Subject: Wireless ISPs

WEP will not help you in this situation, since the same key will be 
assigned to every client, making it virtually a "protected hub".
What you need to do is to persuade your ISPis to implement per-session 
key,  possible solution WPA+Radius.


cheers,
kos


-- 
Respectfully,
Konstantin V. Gavrilenko

Arhont Ltd - Information Security

web:    http://www.arhont.com
	http://www.wi-foo.com
e-mail: k.gavrilenko@...ont.com

tel: +44 (0) 870 44 31337
fax: +44 (0) 117 969 0141

PGP: Key ID - 0x4F3608F7
PGP: Server - keyserver.pgp.com



D B wrote:
> Hi Mr Coffee
> 
> Im using this venue to influence several wireless ISPs
> to use WEP
> 
> They claim the internet is insecure anyway so they
> wont use it.
> 
> I do understand the implications but yes wireless is
> totally legal to eavesdrop.
> 
> The bottom 6 channels run on HAM frequencies and that
> is specifically mentioned as legal to eavesdrop.
> 
> Tis a big can of worms this wireless garbage, I'm just
> using whatever I can to motivate ISPs ( especially the
> local one ) to encrypt data.
> 
> Thank you for your reply
> 
> Dan Becker
> 
> --- Mister Coffee <live4java@...rmcenter.net> wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 11:33:25AM -0700, D B wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not real sure how to post this, nor am I sure
>>
>>of
>>
>>>the scope. I am still learning about computers.
>>>
>>
>>Ok, no worries.  We all start somewhere, right?
>>
>>
>>>All transactions done via secure websites are
>>
>>secure,
>>
>>>however the auto mailing feature to confirm orders
>>>sometimes contains sensitive data.
>>>
>>
>>All transactions done via secure websites are
>>_supposed_ to be secure, but the fact is that
>>information leakage, poor configurations, MitM
>>attacks, and user error, amungst other issues, can
>>render a supposedly secure site insecure.
>>
>>You are right though.  Too many sites will send TMI
>>back in a confirmation email.
>>
>>
>>>When the customer
>>>is on a wireless connection, be it ISP or home LAN
>>>that data is broadcasted in the clear for anyone
>>>within range to eavesdrop.
>>>
>>
>>Not always.  The wireless link itself may be
>>encrypted between the AP and the user's portable
>>device - with various levels of security.  Also, if
>>they are using a secure website, the SSL traffic is
>>encrypted separately from the transport medium. 
>>That is an end-point to end-point system, so even
>>sniffing "clear" wirelss traffic will only gain the
>>attacker cyphertext.
>>
>>
>>>A wired internet connection
>>>limits the number of people who have access to
>>
>>this
>>
>>>data simply by the nature of the internet putting
>>
>>it
>>
>>>within acceptable risk.
>>>
>>
>>Define acceptable risk?  A wired connection is
>>inherently more secure than a wireless connection,
>>but there are going to be points where the traffic
>>can be compromised as long as the traffic is going
>>over the public internet.  Both wired and wireless
>>suffer from that.  The wireless is only inherently
>>less secure because of the broadcast element
>>somewhere in the data path.  That makes the traffic
>>easier to eavesdrop on, but it's not extraordinarly
>>difficult to eavesdrop on wired traffic either.
>>
>>
>>>It is legal according to US law to eavesdrop on
>>>wireless connections. 
>>>
>>
>>The safe answer is "No."  The real answer _may_ be
>>more complex depending on your circumstances.  For
>>example if there's an open AP that's not WEP
>>enabled, the users would have no reasonable
>>expectation of privacy.  However, if it came down to
>>how a US Court would see it, the safe answer is
>>usually "no."
>>
>>This is similar to overhearing conversations on
>>portable phones.  You're not supposed to listen in,
>>but if you and another user are sharing the freq, it
>>would be hard to charge either side with
>>eavesdropping.  This is NOT the same thing as
>>pointing a high gain 900Mhz antenna at the
>>neighbor's house with the intent to listen in.
>>
>>Intent does matter in the eyes of the law.
>> 
>>
> http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm
> 
>>>The only solutions I can offer are one of two
>>
>>things. 
>>
>>>1. Quit sending auto confirmations with sensitive
>>
>>data
>>
>>Agreed.
>> 
>>
>>>2. Encrypt all wireless transmissions at least
>>
>>making
>>
>>>someone who gains access to this data
>>
>>prosecutable. 
>>
>>Encryption is a good idea in any case.  But it only
>>changes slightly what a malicious user could be
>>charged with.  If someone steals your credit card
>>information and uses it, they are guilty of a crime
>>whether they grabbed it from a cleartext email,
>>sniffed it off the wire, or stole a carbon copy
>>receipt.  
>>
>>Simply having the data isn't really criminal.  EG. 
>>You print out an email that has that information and
>>leave it by the fax machine for some reason.  If I
>>pick up the paper to use as scratch paper or
>>something, I haven't done anything immoral,
>>unethical, or illegal - but I DO have your data.
>> 
>>
>>>Please direct all flames to /dev/null
>>>
>>
>>No flames.  Not even warm, really...
>>
>>
>>>Dan Becker
>>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>L4J
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists