Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[ham-80211] Re: WEP encryption?

Walt DuBose dubose at texas.net
Wed Jul 28 19:58:38 UTC 2004


Lyle Williams wrote:
> 
> We can't stop unlicenced operators from transmitting on the input frequency
> of a 2m repeater either.
> 
> We (normally quite effectively) manage 2m FM pirate problems through a
> series of weak controls such as:
>   -Limited availability of equipment
>   -Radiocommunication laws
>   -Not engaging in conversations with obvious pirate operators

-Turning off repeaters.
-Adding unpublished CTCSS 
-Beating the &*(&*^%%$#@ out of them if we catch them (Oh sorry, that's
just in some parts unknown.)

> 
> I wouldn't class WEP/WPA as a "gate without a lock", but a "gate with a
> cheap lock".  Sure, someone can pick your lock, but nobody can ACCIDENTALLY
> pick your lock.  If you don't make the configuration blunders that instantly
> leak your key to the world, even the original WEP requires quite a bit of
> captured traffic before a key can be recovered and a pirate can join your
> WLAN.

Ok...I'll buy that.

> 
> If we configure ham APs carefully, and we control the distribution of
> WEP/etc keys (ie don't publish "Our local ham key is 0123456789A" on a
> public web site) we will keep 99% of people out.  The other 1% of people we
> quickly move onto something else unless we engage them in an online game of
> cat-and-mouse.

Well, right NOW I think here in the Colonies we might have to "publish"
the WEP key somewhere whnere hams know it is but not the general public
but hopefully we can get that changed.

Walt/K5YFW

> 
> Lyle Williams
> VK1KLW
> CCIE #4916
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <dubose at texas.net>
> To: "TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11"
> <ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 1:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [ham-80211] Re: WEP encryption?
> 
> > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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