🚀 go-pugleaf

"Roy Amin" <rohitamin@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1128984941.98954f9a8141fc9ff06280cfbc628a55@teranews...
> I am a novice in security of wireless networks.
>
> I would be grateful if someone could explain some principles to me.
>
> If I have my router set up which is locked to specific MAC addresses, is
> it possible for anyone else to tap into my wirepless signal to access my
> broadband connection?

Yes, if they pretend they are one of the allowed MAC addresses while it's
not in use, and they have the encryption key (if there is one).

> Am I correct in assuming that the security measures such as WEP WPA etc
> is to prevent unauthorise people to make sense of the wireless traffic?

Yes.

> Is it possible to set up 128bit WEP for some clients and 64bit for
> others?

Not AFAIK with a single AP, but you could connect a second AP on another
channel (creating two bridged networks) with different encryption settings.

Alex

In article <1128984941.98954f9a8141fc9ff06280cfbc628a55@teranews>, Roy 
Amin says...
> I am a novice in security of wireless networks.
> 
> I would be grateful if someone could explain some principles to me.
> 
> If I have my router set up which is locked to specific MAC addresses, is it 
> possible for anyone else to tap into my wirepless signal to access my 
> broadband connection?
> 
Yes. If they're sad enough, they can sit there, listen in and grab the 
data and analyse it.

> Am I correct in assuming that the security measures such as WEP WPA etc is 
> to prevent unauthorise people to make sense of the wireless traffic?
> 
Yup. But they still can. Basically, anyone can hack it if they're 
willing to waste the time. The thing you're trying to achieve is to 
dissuade all except those with behavioural issues.


> Is it possible to set up 128bit WEP for some clients and 64bit for others?
> 
No. Will only work with one or another. You could use an additional 
access point and have one using 128bit and the other 64bit but you're 
making it complicated and as ALL clients support 128bit, it;s pretty 
pointless.




-- 
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen 
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <MPG.1db5a8acd100403498b01f@news.individual.net> on Tue, 11 Oct 2005
11:47:43 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:

>In article <1128984941.98954f9a8141fc9ff06280cfbc628a55@teranews>, Roy 
>Amin says...

>> Is it possible to set up 128bit WEP for some clients and 64bit for others?
>> 
>No. Will only work with one or another. You could use an additional 
>access point and have one using 128bit and the other 64bit but you're 
>making it complicated and as ALL clients support 128bit, it;s pretty 
>pointless.

Not all clients support 128 bit, and even some that do take a performance hit.

-- 
Best regards,        HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas           <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

I have two six months old laptop computers both with the internal 
wireless 802.11b/g option.  One is a DELL INSPIRON 6000 and the other a 
HP PAVILION ZV6000.  In using them at various sites and locations I've 
noticed the DELL Wireless is much more sensitive than the HP.  It can 
find and use sites the HP doesn't see or seem to determine exist from 
the exact same location.

I took the HP back for repair and I was told it was working correctly 
and no trouble was found.  It does seem to work fine if the signal is 
very strong within the same room or only a few feet distance.

Has anyone experienced poor sensitivity from the wireless card used in 
the HP Pavilion series?

Thanks

Regards,

Bob

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <aQCaf.1984$5e4.347263@news.sisna.com> on Thu, 03 Nov 2005 22:03:41 -0800,
Bob W7AVK <rsrolfne@atnet.net> wrote:

>I have two six months old laptop computers both with the internal 
>wireless 802.11b/g option.  One is a DELL INSPIRON 6000 and the other a 
>HP PAVILION ZV6000.  In using them at various sites and locations I've 
>noticed the DELL Wireless is much more sensitive than the HP.  It can 
>find and use sites the HP doesn't see or seem to determine exist from 
>the exact same location.
>
>I took the HP back for repair and I was told it was working correctly 
>and no trouble was found.  It does seem to work fine if the signal is 
>very strong within the same room or only a few feet distance.
>
>Has anyone experienced poor sensitivity from the wireless card used in 
>the HP Pavilion series?

Perhaps the antenna isn't connected properly.  I've seen that problem with
internal mini wireless PCI cards.

-- 
Best regards,        HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas           <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

"Roy Amin" <rohitamin@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1128984941.98954f9a8141fc9ff06280cfbc628a55@teranews...
>I am a novice in security of wireless networks.
>
> I would be grateful if someone could explain some principles to me.
>
> If I have my router set up which is locked to specific MAC addresses, is 
> it possible for anyone else to tap into my wirepless signal to access my 
> broadband connection?
>
> Am I correct in assuming that the security measures such as WEP WPA etc is 
> to prevent unauthorise people to make sense of the wireless traffic?
>
> Is it possible to set up 128bit WEP for some clients and 64bit for others?
>
> Thanks for your help
>
> Rohit


Wireless networks are the most insecure networks around. If I wanted I could 
gain access to a 128bit encrypted wireless network within 2-3hours depending 
on how many IVs are being transmitted. WEP is the most insecure encryption 
available. I would strongly reccomend ethernet rather than wireless. 

"C Denver" <sdenver@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:IbadnW1wCc-LA6nYnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@bt.com: 

> 
> "Roy Amin" <rohitamin@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:1128984941.98954f9a8141fc9ff06280cfbc628a55@teranews...
>>I am a novice in security of wireless networks.
>>
>> I would be grateful if someone could explain some principles to me.
>>
>> If I have my router set up which is locked to specific MAC addresses,
>> is it possible for anyone else to tap into my wirepless signal to
>> access my broadband connection?
>>
>> Am I correct in assuming that the security measures such as WEP WPA
>> etc is to prevent unauthorise people to make sense of the wireless
>> traffic? 
>>
>> Is it possible to set up 128bit WEP for some clients and 64bit for
>> others? 
>>
>> Thanks for your help
>>
>> Rohit


WEP is simply an encryption algothrim. Your network is effectively open 
to abuse (however limiting the MAC address does help, just make sure 
outsiders cannot query your computer for its MAC address)

For more protection set up a RADIUS server.

I would suggest buying a copy of Windows 2K server or 2003 server. 
'Depends if you have the money'  ;-)


The likelyness of anyone breaking into your HOME network and finding 
anything good would be pointless, just use whatever is available to you, 
but I would suggest the RADIUS server solution.

Saying that, MAC address' can be spoofed/snatched, so Anti-spoofing 
features would be good.


-- 
Kind Regards,

Alex Davies
TGTBT Media Web Design & Hosting Services

http://www.tgtbt-online.com

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:04:31 GMT, "TGTBT Media Web Design & Hosting
Services" <sales@tgtbt-online.com> wrote in
<Xns986CC18BDCDD8TGTBT@62.253.170.163>:

>WEP is simply an encryption algothrim. Your network is effectively open 
>to abuse (however limiting the MAC address does help, just make sure 
>outsiders cannot query your computer for its MAC address)

Sorry, but that's meaningless -- MAC spoofing is trivial, and thus MAC
filtering is essentially pointless.

>For more protection set up a RADIUS server.

Overkill for most home users.  WPA-PSK works quite well if you keep the
key secret.

>I would suggest buying a copy of Windows 2K server or 2003 server. 
>'Depends if you have the money'  ;-)

I would suggest something cheaper, easier to administer, and more
robust.

>The likelyness of anyone breaking into your HOME network and finding 
>anything good would be pointless,

Sorry again, but it's quite possible for someone breaking in to steal
your identity, and use that to steal a considerable amount of assets.

>just use whatever is available to you, 
>but I would suggest the RADIUS server solution.

For most users I would suggest WPA-PSK.

>Saying that, MAC address' can be spoofed/snatched, so Anti-spoofing 
>features would be good.

Sorry again, but no practical way to do that.

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas      FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:d83dk2l3j0bpfqonf1gp5m3da1bi5dqkb9@4ax.com: 

> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:04:31 GMT, "TGTBT Media Web Design & Hosting
> Services" <sales@tgtbt-online.com> wrote in
> <Xns986CC18BDCDD8TGTBT@62.253.170.163>:
> 
>>WEP is simply an encryption algothrim. Your network is effectively
>>open to abuse (however limiting the MAC address does help, just make
>>sure outsiders cannot query your computer for its MAC address)
> 
> Sorry, but that's meaningless -- MAC spoofing is trivial, and thus MAC
> filtering is essentially pointless.
> 
>>For more protection set up a RADIUS server.
> 
> Overkill for most home users.  WPA-PSK works quite well if you keep
> the key secret.
> 
>>I would suggest buying a copy of Windows 2K server or 2003 server. 
>>'Depends if you have the money'  ;-)
> 
> I would suggest something cheaper, easier to administer, and more
> robust.
> 
>>The likelyness of anyone breaking into your HOME network and finding 
>>anything good would be pointless,
> 
> Sorry again, but it's quite possible for someone breaking in to steal
> your identity, and use that to steal a considerable amount of assets.
> 
>>just use whatever is available to you, 
>>but I would suggest the RADIUS server solution.
> 
> For most users I would suggest WPA-PSK.
> 
>>Saying that, MAC address' can be spoofed/snatched, so Anti-spoofing 
>>features would be good.
> 
> Sorry again, but no practical way to do that.
> 



LOL Are you saying that these features are not available? .e.g MAC
Anti-spoof, MAC HIDEING, and that it is impossible to secure a network? 

I work with computers all day long, we (Signature Networks) provide
Reading (Madejski) football stadium, Lincoln university and Harefield
hospital  with their networks! 

you would THINK THAT I KNOW WHAT I AM ON ABOUT!   *SCREAMS*


>>>>I would suggest something cheaper, easier to administer, and more
>>>>robust.

So what do you suggest? 

As you have failed to contruct a CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM, just managed to
criticise. Which I find rather derogatory. 

However, your mention of identity theft is a valid point, but with these
features, how would initial intrusion be possible?  It is denying at
LAYER 2 of the OSI model! 

-- 
Kind Regards,

Alex Davies
IT & Networking Solutions Developer for Signature Networks

TGTBT Media Web Design & Hosting Services

http://www.tgtbt-online.com

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:30:34 GMT, "TGTBT Media Web Design & Hosting
Services" <sales@tgtbt-online.com> wrote in
<Xns986D5815B7C4TGTBT@62.253.170.163>:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:d83dk2l3j0bpfqonf1gp5m3da1bi5dqkb9@4ax.com: 

>>>Saying that, MAC address' can be spoofed/snatched, so Anti-spoofing 
>>>features would be good.
>> 
>> Sorry again, but no practical way to do that.
>
>LOL Are you saying that these features are not available? .e.g MAC
>Anti-spoof, MAC HIDEING, and that it is impossible to secure a network? 

What I'm actually saying is that MAC addresses are sent in the clear
(You know that, right?), so there's no practical way to "HIDE" them.
(Can you prove me wrong?)  The best you can do is MAC spoof detection,
but that's impractical for typical home users.

>I work with computers all day long, we (Signature Networks) provide
>Reading (Madejski) football stadium, Lincoln university and Harefield
>hospital  with their networks! 
>
>you would THINK THAT I KNOW WHAT I AM ON ABOUT!   *SCREAMS*

I would hope so, but apparently not (no offense intended).

>>>>>I would suggest something cheaper, easier to administer, and more
>>>>>robust.
>
>So what do you suggest? 

You really don't know?  Or are you just trying to argue?

>As you have failed to contruct a CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM, just managed to
>criticise. Which I find rather derogatory. 

I wrote:  "For most users I would suggest WPA-PSK."  You missed that?

>However, your mention of identity theft is a valid point, but with these
>features, how would initial intrusion be possible?  It is denying at
>LAYER 2 of the OSI model! 

The only truly effective protections for typical home users are (a) WPA,
(b) personal firewalls, and (c) isolation (if in the router, but
unfortunately not available in most low-end products).

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas      FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:nn3ek2hhdgiqvria2fgc2bll5m5jsn6ps4@4ax.com: 

> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:30:34 GMT, "TGTBT Media Web Design & Hosting
> Services" <sales@tgtbt-online.com> wrote in
> <Xns986D5815B7C4TGTBT@62.253.170.163>:
> 
>>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>news:d83dk2l3j0bpfqonf1gp5m3da1bi5dqkb9@4ax.com: 

> What I'm actually saying is that MAC addresses are sent in the clear
> (You know that, right?), so there's no practical way to "HIDE" them.
> (Can you prove me wrong?)  The best you can do is MAC spoof detection,
> but that's impractical for typical home users.
> 


Why is it impractical ?  


ONLY ANSWER:  They are not informed of how it works and never get a
chance to understand it, it's why forums are a place to ask questions,
they expect good results, and if they want good results, they have to be
taught to understand it.   

Do you see my concept ? of making computer users more informed?




> 
>>>>>>I would suggest something cheaper, easier to administer, and more
>>>>>>robust.
>>
>>So what do you suggest? 
> 
> You really don't know?  Or are you just trying to argue?
> 



I was trying to invoke what your suggestion was.



>>As you have failed to contruct a CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM, just managed
>>to criticise. Which I find rather derogatory. 
> 
> I wrote:  "For most users I would suggest WPA-PSK."  You missed that?
> 


No I read it, but as you stated 'I can break into them' so how is it
secure if it doesnt work for security! lol 

My general security concept is: 'Prevention a.k.a isolation is the best
way' 


We are talking about making it as secure as possible.

The reason why home networking is generally so bad, is because people
just dont know or understand how to do things, thats why I was
introducing rather cheap industrial ways of implementing network
security. 





>>However, your mention of identity theft is a valid point, but with
>>these features, how would initial intrusion be possible?  It is
>>denying at LAYER 2 of the OSI model! 
> 
> The only truly effective protections for typical home users are (a)
> WPA, (b) personal firewalls, and (c) isolation (if in the router, but
> unfortunately not available in most low-end products).
> 

Well I essentially started out as a home user, just as we all did!

Again, Concept: Without information, they would never know how it's
possible! 


-- 
Kind Regards,

Alex Davies
IT & Networking Solutions Developer for Signature Networks

TGTBT Media Web Design & Hosting Services

http://www.tgtbt-online.com

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:57:38 GMT, "TGTBT Media Web Design & Hosting
Services" <sales@tgtbt-online.com> wrote in
<Xns986E7D5B981TGTBT@80.5.182.99>:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:nn3ek2hhdgiqvria2fgc2bll5m5jsn6ps4@4ax.com: 
>
>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:30:34 GMT, "TGTBT Media Web Design & Hosting
>> Services" <sales@tgtbt-online.com> wrote in
>> <Xns986D5815B7C4TGTBT@62.253.170.163>:
>> 
>>>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>>news:d83dk2l3j0bpfqonf1gp5m3da1bi5dqkb9@4ax.com: 
>
>> What I'm actually saying is that MAC addresses are sent in the clear
>> (You know that, right?), so there's no practical way to "HIDE" them.
>> (Can you prove me wrong?)  The best you can do is MAC spoof detection,
>> but that's impractical for typical home users.
>
>Why is it impractical ?  
>
>ONLY ANSWER:  They are not informed of how it works and never get a
>chance to understand it, it's why forums are a place to ask questions,
>they expect good results, and if they want good results, they have to be
>taught to understand it.   

REAL ANSWER: Because it's way too hard for them to do.  They shouldn't
have to learn much of anything, any more than they should have to learn
much of anything to (say) drive a car -- the anti-lock brakes and
airbags just work, without having to be taught.

>Do you see my concept ? of making computer users more informed?

Nope.  I think that's wildly unrealistic.

>>>As you have failed to contruct a CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM, just managed
>>>to criticise. Which I find rather derogatory. 
>> 
>> I wrote:  "For most users I would suggest WPA-PSK."  You missed that?
>
>No I read it, but as you stated 'I can break into them' so how is it
>secure if it doesnt work for security! lol 

I said nothing of the kind.  WPA-PSK (with a strong passphrase) is quite
secure.

>My general security concept is: 'Prevention a.k.a isolation is the best
>way' 

My general security concept (for typical users) is: 'Make it easy and
practical enough that they will actually do it' 

>We are talking about making it as secure as possible.

I'm talking about making it workable.

>The reason why home networking is generally so bad, is because people
>just dont know or understand how to do things, thats why I was
>introducing rather cheap industrial ways of implementing network
>security. 

Those ways are neither cheap nor practical for typical home users.

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas      FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:3ntfk291f4hrfudvpbh55rcgt2uo2vtu2u@4ax.com: 

> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:57:38 GMT, "TGTBT Media Web Design & Hosting
> Services" <sales@tgtbt-online.com> wrote in
> <Xns986E7D5B981TGTBT@80.5.182.99>:
> 
>>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>news:nn3ek2hhdgiqvria2fgc2bll5m5jsn6ps4@4ax.com: 
>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:30:34 GMT, "TGTBT Media Web Design & Hosting
>>> Services" <sales@tgtbt-online.com> wrote in
>>> <Xns986D5815B7C4TGTBT@62.253.170.163>:
>>> 
>>>>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>>>news:d83dk2l3j0bpfqonf1gp5m3da1bi5dqkb9@4ax.com: 
>>
>
> 
> REAL ANSWER: Because it's way too hard for them to do.  They shouldn't
> have to learn much of anything, any more than they should have to
> learn much of anything to (say) drive a car -- the anti-lock brakes
> and airbags just work, without having to be taught.
> 

> 
> Nope.  I think that's wildly unrealistic.
> 

> 
> I said nothing of the kind.  WPA-PSK (with a strong passphrase) is
> quite secure.
> 
> 
> I'm talking about making it workable.
> 
> 
> Those ways are neither cheap nor practical for typical home users.
> 



Oops sorry John, I was getting confused with another post:



"Wireless networks are the most insecure networks around. If I wanted I
could gain access to a 128bit encrypted wireless network within 2-3hours
depending on how many IVs are being transmitted. WEP is the most
insecure encryption available. I would strongly reccomend ethernet
rather than wireless. "    By C DENVER 


I am aware and agree with making it user friendly, however, what about
the users who do actually know a bit and want to learn more ?  

If they don't they would ignore this post anyway!


I mean the 'average person' of the world dont know how to use
NEWSGROUPS. 

They hear about 'this person doing this, and they want to have that, so
this is how' 

Its the rarely documented stuff for users, I am simply answering the
questions put forward, with a solution that would work provided the
person knew / could figure out  how to configure it. 

Its a little like web design, im sick of seeing really easy to use
websites that all look the same, graphically stunning but of no actual
use. 

Then we have the opposite, really awful design but full of useful
things, which is hard to use because of the design. 


I would say what i suggested was 'happy medium / intermediate computer
user advice' 

If they can set up a wireless AP, setting up RADIUS isnt MUCH harder.


I would agree with you, WPA should be sufficient for most novice users,
however if you wish to go a 'step further', learn and PROTECT your
network with more than just encryption, get a RADIUS setup! 


Did you know: driving a car, you have to know/do much much more than
what you obviously think, in order to pass your driving test these days! 

Basic troubleshooting is common,  Basic concepts are what I work and
develop with. 

Most things I know are either from corporate training or hands on
experience(self taught) 

-- 
Kind Regards,

Alex Davies
IT & Networking Solutions Developer for Signature Networks

TGTBT Media Web Design & Hosting Services

http://www.tgtbt-online.com

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:02:41 GMT, "TGTBT Media Web Design & Hosting
Services" <sales@tgtbt-online.com> wrote in
<Xns986ECC3CDC1DDTGTBT@62.253.170.163>:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:3ntfk291f4hrfudvpbh55rcgt2uo2vtu2u@4ax.com: 

>> ...  WPA-PSK (with a strong passphrase) is
>> quite secure.
>> 
>> I'm talking about making it workable.
>> 
>> Those ways are neither cheap nor practical for typical home users.

>Oops sorry John, I was getting confused with another post:
>
>"Wireless networks are the most insecure networks around. If I wanted I
>could gain access to a 128bit encrypted wireless network within 2-3hours
>depending on how many IVs are being transmitted. WEP is the most
>insecure encryption available. I would strongly reccomend ethernet
>rather than wireless. "    By C DENVER 

Apples and oranges:
 * WEP (no matter what the key) ISN'T secure.
 * WPA (with a strong passphrase) IS secure.

>If they can set up a wireless AP, setting up RADIUS isnt MUCH harder.

I think setting up a RADIUS server is much harder than deploying an AP.
For those that need RADIUS, I recommend a wireless router with RADIUS
(PEAP) built in (e.g., ZyXEL ZyAIR G-2000).  As usual, you tend to get
what you pay for, although still far less expensive than setting up a
"Windows 2K server or 2003 server".

>I would agree with you, WPA should be sufficient for most novice users,
>however if you wish to go a 'step further', learn and PROTECT your
>network with more than just encryption, get a RADIUS setup! 

RADIUS doesn't make WPA more secure.  It's just more flexible and robust
than PSK.  Different issues.

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas      FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

In MsgID<nn3ek2hhdgiqvria2fgc2bll5m5jsn6ps4@4ax.com> on Tue, 31 Oct 2006
09:06:53 GMT, in uk.comp.home-networking, 'John Navas' wrote:

>The best you can do is MAC spoof detection,
>but that's impractical for typical home users.

I'm sorry to jump in on an old thread but this caught my eye as I was
updating on this group. How could I (as a fairly untypical home
experimenter) implement 'MAC spoof detection' It's an IDS I've not heard
of. Thanks if you can be bothered :)

Perhaps it's no more than detecting two simultaneous uses of the same MAC
and a difference in latency between the two?? Surely not possible unless
the genuine MAC is also active at the time of the spoofing?

Quite a deep interest, a response would be greatly appreciated though I do
know the fastish turnaround here.

Dave J.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:19:49 +0000, Dave J. <requiem@freeuk.com> wrote
in <hnp0m2lpkgk52uijoo748ad7r7vlphdf0k@4ax.com>:

>In MsgID<nn3ek2hhdgiqvria2fgc2bll5m5jsn6ps4@4ax.com> on Tue, 31 Oct 2006
>09:06:53 GMT, in uk.comp.home-networking, 'John Navas' wrote:
>
>>The best you can do is MAC spoof detection,
>>but that's impractical for typical home users.
>
>I'm sorry to jump in on an old thread but this caught my eye as I was
>updating on this group. How could I (as a fairly untypical home
>experimenter) implement 'MAC spoof detection' It's an IDS I've not heard
>of. Thanks if you can be bothered :)
>
>Perhaps it's no more than detecting two simultaneous uses of the same MAC
>and a difference in latency between the two?? Surely not possible unless
>the genuine MAC is also active at the time of the spoofing?
>
>Quite a deep interest, a response would be greatly appreciated though I do
>know the fastish turnaround here.

Google "mac spoofing detection".

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas      FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>