WEP v. WPA advice for wireless neophyte please..

A wireless network in a recreational vehicle requires two
print servers. I'm having trouble finding one that has both
a parallel port and WPA security. Recognizing any node that
lacks WPA will degrade the entire network to a lower
security, can I abandon the quest for WPA?

The XP SP2 computers have user profiles and passwords. I
prefer to not use NTFS security at the folder or file level.

The network will operate in various North American
campgrounds, rarely near a big city. In this setting is
there any way to know whether WEP security is adequate to
prevent a hacker from reading and changing NTFS files?

--David

J David Ellis

J David Ellis wrote:

> A wireless network in a recreational vehicle requires two
> print servers. I'm having trouble finding one that has both
> a parallel port and WPA security. Recognizing any node that
> lacks WPA will degrade the entire network to a lower
> security, can I abandon the quest for WPA?
>
> The XP SP2 computers have user profiles and passwords. I
> prefer to not use NTFS security at the folder or file level.
>
> The network will operate in various North American
> campgrounds, rarely near a big city. In this setting is
> there any way to know whether WEP security is adequate to
> prevent a hacker from reading and changing NTFS files?
>
> --David

See my response to your other thread -- D-Link DP-G301.

Lem

Lem wrote:
> J David Ellis wrote:
>
>
>>A wireless network in a recreational vehicle requires two
>>print servers. I'm having trouble finding one that has both
>>a parallel port and WPA security. Recognizing any node that
>>lacks WPA will degrade the entire network to a lower
>>security, can I abandon the quest for WPA?
>>
>>The XP SP2 computers have user profiles and passwords. I
>>prefer to not use NTFS security at the folder or file level.
>>
>>The network will operate in various North American
>>campgrounds, rarely near a big city. In this setting is
>>there any way to know whether WEP security is adequate to
>>prevent a hacker from reading and changing NTFS files?
>>
>>--David
>
>
> See my response to your other thread -- D-Link DP-G301.
>
Can I conclude from your post in the other thread that using
WPA instead of WEP is important and that I should not settle
for WEP?

J David Ellis

J David Ellis wrote:

> Lem wrote:
> > J David Ellis wrote:
> >
> >
> >>A wireless network in a recreational vehicle requires two
> >>print servers. I'm having trouble finding one that has both
> >>a parallel port and WPA security. Recognizing any node that
> >>lacks WPA will degrade the entire network to a lower
> >>security, can I abandon the quest for WPA?
> >>
> >>The XP SP2 computers have user profiles and passwords. I
> >>prefer to not use NTFS security at the folder or file level.
> >>
> >>The network will operate in various North American
> >>campgrounds, rarely near a big city. In this setting is
> >>there any way to know whether WEP security is adequate to
> >>prevent a hacker from reading and changing NTFS files?
> >>
> >>--David
> >
> >
> > See my response to your other thread -- D-Link DP-G301.
> >
> Can I conclude from your post in the other thread that using
> WPA instead of WEP is important and that I should not settle
> for WEP?

the generally-accepted wisdom is that WEP is relatively easy to crack.
See, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/bykx8 I'm not convinced that a rural
setting is less likely to be inhabited by computerized evildoers than an
urban setting, but if you take other precautions, such as a good
firewall and use of NTFS permissions, you should probably be OK with
WEP. Use 128-bit WEP, a "good" password/passphrase (e.g., not your
name, ssid, or English word) to generate the WEP key (if you have to
manually enter the key--which you probably will if you mix
vendors--don't use patterns in the sequence), and change your key
regularly and often.

Lem

Lem wrote:
> J David Ellis wrote:
>
>
>>Lem wrote:
>>
>>>J David Ellis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>A wireless network in a recreational vehicle requires two
>>>>print servers. I'm having trouble finding one that has both
>>>>a parallel port and WPA security. Recognizing any node that
>>>>lacks WPA will degrade the entire network to a lower
>>>>security, can I abandon the quest for WPA?
>>>>
>>>>The XP SP2 computers have user profiles and passwords. I
>>>>prefer to not use NTFS security at the folder or file level.
>>>>
>>>>The network will operate in various North American
>>>>campgrounds, rarely near a big city. In this setting is
>>>>there any way to know whether WEP security is adequate to
>>>>prevent a hacker from reading and changing NTFS files?
>>>>
>>>>--David
>>>
>>>
>>>See my response to your other thread -- D-Link DP-G301.
>>>
>>
>>Can I conclude from your post in the other thread that using
>>WPA instead of WEP is important and that I should not settle
>>for WEP?
>
>
> the generally-accepted wisdom is that WEP is relatively easy to crack.
> See, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/bykx8 I'm not convinced that a rural
> setting is less likely to be inhabited by computerized evildoers than an
> urban setting, but if you take other precautions, such as a good
> firewall and use of NTFS permissions, you should probably be OK with
> WEP. Use 128-bit WEP, a "good" password/passphrase (e.g., not your
> name, ssid, or English word) to generate the WEP key (if you have to
> manually enter the key--which you probably will if you mix
> vendors--don't use patterns in the sequence), and change your key
> regularly and often.
>
Thank you very much for the tutorial. The route to a secure
wireless network is now clear -- until I begin installing
it. :=)

J David Ellis