Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[ham-80211] Re: WEP encryption?

dubose at texas.net dubose at texas.net
Wed Jul 28 15:15:19 UTC 2004


Technically you need to prevent them from making your 802.l1 device ever 
transmit.  Well you can't do that because of some network issues so the first 
door you lock is with WEP...that's like a gate with a keep out sign on it and 
no lock.  Then other steps need to be taken to prevent access to you network.  
This is where SSH/SSL, etc. come in.

Walt/K5YFW


> 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