Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[ham-80211] Re: WEP encryption?

Brian Riley (maillist) n1bq_list at wulfden.org
Fri Aug 6 22:14:42 UTC 2004


Neither would WEP - except that you control access via the SSH tables just
as ypou would 'manage' access by whomever got the WE{ password .. Which
could be cracked by any marginally competent script kiddie with time on his
hands. Not so SSH


On 7/28/04 5:25 AM, "Lyle Williams" <lyle.williams at bigpond.com> wrote:

> Running SSH/SSL over a WLAN wouldn't prevent non-amateurs from transiting
> across a network that operates under amateur regs...
> 
> Lyle Williams
> VK1KLW
> CCIE #4916
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Riley (maillist)" <n1bq_list at wulfden.org>
> To: "Amateur 802.11b Mailing List" <ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 11:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [ham-80211] Re: WEP encryption?
> 
> 
>> Ham satellite command uplinks have been encrypted for years with the FCCs
>> specific blessing ... all quite legal. The encryption's purpose is not to
>> "obscure" but to provide security.
>> 
>> In that sense WEP and WPA for that matter are a joke. They demand precious
>> horsepower from the relatively puny CPU's in the WAPs that they can ill
>> afford to give up. It would be better to run SSH/SSL and let the big iron
> on
>> our laptops and desktops do it with much greater ease. Use of SSH/SSL
> would
>> be just as legal as the use of WEP and a damned sight more manageable.
>> 
>> Here in the Burlington, VT area Univ of Vermont runs an enormous (50-75
>> WAPs) wireless network using this method with great success and pretty
> good
>> throughput.
>> 
>> On 6/23/04 11:53 AM, "Walt DuBose" <dubose at texas.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Without getting into details, Gerry and I are quite confident that
>>> encryption for the purpose of access/authentication control are
>>> acceptable to the FCC...we just need to sniff out at what level the FCC
>>> would be comfortable with.  Additionally, I personally believe that they
>>> were concerned with obscuration on frequencies below 2M anyway (this
>>> from orignal FCC documents fo 30-40 years ago) and perhaps today only on
>>> frequencies 900 MHz and up and especially where we share frequencies.
>>> In fact, they may not give a hoot if we encrypt or not on the higher
>>> bands.  But that's just my feeling.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ham-80211 mailing list
>> ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org
>> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ham-80211 mailing list
> ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211
> 






More information about the ham-80211 mailing list