Does Kismet find networks that do not broadcast their SSID? if it doesn't
then your numbers won't include networks that have secured themselves in
this way. I recently bought a dlink DWL-900AP which is a clone of the
WAP11. Using the Atmel SNMP util I turned off SSID broadcasting, turned on
Netstumbler and didn't see my network listed. Basically you can't count
what you don't see so your assuming it's not there.
I also used the MAC address filtering (yes, yes I know it's easy to fake
but it raises the bar a little bit) which I don't know if it counts as
security from your perspective.
The number of DHCP leases I've allow is also equal to the number of
machines I have too.
how would these measures count towards being protected? what's
considered protected and what's not?
I don't want to come across as harsh or critical but there have been a lot
of the Netstumbler/wardriving style of surveying wireless network security
but some of the assumptions made by these surveys have holes in them. You
can add in usage of application level encryption, ipsec, or vpn as
security measures that don't show up on these surveys. Are there that many
networks that are insecure if we're to take these things into account? How
many people have actually gone to the trouble of looking a little deeper
than finding an SSID and checking for WEP in doing one of these surveys?
Just questions to think about, no flame intended.
-Ford
Flip Over Read Directions
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 22:33:54 -0400
> From: Mike Kershaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Apolinaras Sinkevicius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [BAWUG] Open WLAN systems in Chicago. Found more than a 100 in less
>than 2 minute drive.
>
> A recent trip down the eastern side of manhattan with Kismet running yielded
> approximately 300 networks, all visible from FDR drive alone.
>
> 23% were encrypted.
>
> 25% matched fingerprints of default configurations that had never been changed
> before being installed. This number is in reality much higher but I don't have
> fingerprints for all of them.
>
> By far, the majority of wireless lan installations are STILL unprotected,
> despite the number of articles and other press coverage.
>
> -m
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 07:23:19PM -0700, Apolinaras Sinkevicius wrote:
> > I have deployed a WLAN in my office today, and since I
> > was trying to test it with Netstumbler, I thought I
> > will take the top down on my Jeep and also drive
> > through Lake Shore Dirve and see how many access
> > points are wide open, to my surpirse right arround
> > 3600 N. Lake Shore Drive Netstumbler just went NUTS!
> > I am cancelling my cable internet service putting a
> > nice antenna in my highrise and I will have a CHOICE.
> > Wow, think about it, all of us IT managers fight spam
> > like crazy, but now anybody who has understanding of
> > WLAN can just attach themselves to those AP's and spam
> > spam spam.
> > As they say, every good thing has a bad side to it.
> >
> > Apollo
> >
--
general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/>
[un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
