Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security

Discussion in 'Wireless Networking' started by =?Utf-8?B?a2g=?=, Aug 30, 2005.

  1. New Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security on a Windows XP
    SP2-based computer

    Columnist Barb Bowman introduces you to WPA2 and explains how to implement
    WPA2-Personal wireless security on your Windows XP SP2–based computers.

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/expert/bowman_wirelesssecurity.mspx

    Ask questions or post comments about the article here.

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

    --
    Kristen Heller
    Site Manager, vendor [MS}
     
    =?Utf-8?B?a2g=?=, Aug 30, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. I wish to implement WPA2-Personal wireless security but am unable downloading
    KB893357 - Error Message: Setup Error "Failed to migrate depended packages".

    I am not very technical...Grateful for any assistance to get my computer
    security up to speed, thanks.

    System Information:-

    Platform: OS Microsoft Win32 XPPro Version 5.12600 SP2 Build 2600
    Processor: x86 Family 15 Model 3 Stepping 4 GenuineIntel ~2400Mhz, Pentium4
    MSIE: Internet Explorer v6.0.2900.2180, Total Physical Memory 512MB
    Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0: x86 (KB829019),
    XP Hotfixes and Security Updates are current, (automatically
    downloaded/installed).

    TRENDnet (TEW-229UB) Wireless 11Mbps 802.11b USB Adapter.

    FireWall(s): ZoneAlarm v6.0.667.000 (Free Edition), Windows F/W (disabled).

    Residence/On-Demand Anti-Virus Anti-Spy, Malware
    detectors,scanners,removers,engines:-

    eTrust EZ AntiVirus v7.0.8.0, M/S AntiSpyWare (Beta), BitDefender v8 Free
    Edition, Ewido SecuritySuite v3.5, A-Squared v1.6, Ad-Aware SE Personal
    v1.06r1 with add-on Vx2 cleaner, Spybot S&D v1.4 (incl.Teatimer), Spyware
    Doctor v3.2, eScan AntiVirus Toolkit Utility v4.4.7 (powered by Kaspersky),
    Multi-Vendor Command Line Scanner utility (Sophos, Trend, McAfee &
    Kaspersky), SpywareBlaster v3.4, CrabCleaner v1.23.0.160,
    CW Shredder v2.18, WinPatrol v9.7.4.0.

    Also:
    HOSTS File installed and updated with 'HOSTS Secure' File version:
    1.0.2137.3124, HijackThis v1.99.1, X-Ray PC v1.0.0.6, Starter v5.6.1.40,
    Autorun v8.12.0.0, Karens Cookie Viewer v3.5.0.6, F-Secure BlackLight Beta
    v2.1.1013.0, WindsocksPFix v1.0.0.0, RootKit Revealer v1.55.0.0, Pocket
    Killbox v2.0.0.175.

    All applications are updated for latest virus definitions and computer is
    rebooted before scanning operation is initiated.

    "kh" wrote:

    > New Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security on a Windows XP
    > SP2-based computer
    >
    > Columnist Barb Bowman introduces you to WPA2 and explains how to implement
    > WPA2-Personal wireless security on your Windows XP SP2–based computers.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/expert/bowman_wirelesssecurity.mspx
    >
    > Ask questions or post comments about the article here.
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    >
    > --
    > Kristen Heller
    > Site Manager, vendor [MS}
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?S2F5bWFu?=, Nov 10, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. for starters, can you boot without the resident programs from the
    group below loaded and see if you get the same error?

    On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:53:44 -0800, Kayman
    <> wrote:

    >Residence/On-Demand Anti-Virus Anti-Spy, Malware
    >detectors,scanners,removers,engines:-
    >
    >eTrust EZ AntiVirus v7.0.8.0, M/S AntiSpyWare (Beta), BitDefender v8 Free
    >Edition, Ewido SecuritySuite v3.5, A-Squared v1.6, Ad-Aware SE Personal
    >v1.06r1 with add-on Vx2 cleaner, Spybot S&D v1.4 (incl.Teatimer), Spyware
    >Doctor v3.2, eScan AntiVirus Toolkit Utility v4.4.7 (powered by Kaspersky),
    >Multi-Vendor Command Line Scanner utility (Sophos, Trend, McAfee &
    >Kaspersky), SpywareBlaster v3.4, CrabCleaner v1.23.0.160,
    >CW Shredder v2.18, WinPatrol v9.7.4.0.

    --

    Barb Bowman
    MS Windows-MVP
    Expert Zone Columnist
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
     
    Barb Bowman MVP-Windows, Nov 11, 2005
    #3
  4. I informed you wrongly, sorry. The downloading operation went smoothly, but
    the INSTALLATION process is not going through as it should be. The 'wizard'
    appears and I click as recommended....installation appears to be processing.
    However after completion the error message pops up.
    I tried again with disabled firewall and antivirus applications but same
    result.

    "Barb Bowman MVP-Windows" wrote:

    > for starters, can you boot without the resident programs from the
    > group below loaded and see if you get the same error?
    >
    > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:53:44 -0800, Kayman
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >Residence/On-Demand Anti-Virus Anti-Spy, Malware
    > >detectors,scanners,removers,engines:-
    > >
    > >eTrust EZ AntiVirus v7.0.8.0, M/S AntiSpyWare (Beta), BitDefender v8 Free
    > >Edition, Ewido SecuritySuite v3.5, A-Squared v1.6, Ad-Aware SE Personal
    > >v1.06r1 with add-on Vx2 cleaner, Spybot S&D v1.4 (incl.Teatimer), Spyware
    > >Doctor v3.2, eScan AntiVirus Toolkit Utility v4.4.7 (powered by Kaspersky),
    > >Multi-Vendor Command Line Scanner utility (Sophos, Trend, McAfee &
    > >Kaspersky), SpywareBlaster v3.4, CrabCleaner v1.23.0.160,
    > >CW Shredder v2.18, WinPatrol v9.7.4.0.

    > --
    >
    > Barb Bowman
    > MS Windows-MVP
    > Expert Zone Columnist
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    > http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?S2F5bWFu?=, Nov 11, 2005
    #4
  5. I almost think that with all the utilities and gizmos you've installed
    or have run that it may be worth it to reset the stack natively in XP
    SP2 and try running the update again. disable the scanners and
    resident programs first.

    Open a cmd prompt (start, run, cmd [enter])

    then

    netsh winsock reset catalog [enter]

    then run the update again

    On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 06:04:02 -0800, Kayman
    <> wrote:

    >I informed you wrongly, sorry. The downloading operation went smoothly, but
    >the INSTALLATION process is not going through as it should be. The 'wizard'
    >appears and I click as recommended....installation appears to be processing.
    >However after completion the error message pops up.
    >I tried again with disabled firewall and antivirus applications but same
    >result.
    >
    >"Barb Bowman MVP-Windows" wrote:
    >
    >> for starters, can you boot without the resident programs from the
    >> group below loaded and see if you get the same error?
    >>
    >> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:53:44 -0800, Kayman
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Residence/On-Demand Anti-Virus Anti-Spy, Malware
    >> >detectors,scanners,removers,engines:-
    >> >
    >> >eTrust EZ AntiVirus v7.0.8.0, M/S AntiSpyWare (Beta), BitDefender v8 Free
    >> >Edition, Ewido SecuritySuite v3.5, A-Squared v1.6, Ad-Aware SE Personal
    >> >v1.06r1 with add-on Vx2 cleaner, Spybot S&D v1.4 (incl.Teatimer), Spyware
    >> >Doctor v3.2, eScan AntiVirus Toolkit Utility v4.4.7 (powered by Kaspersky),
    >> >Multi-Vendor Command Line Scanner utility (Sophos, Trend, McAfee &
    >> >Kaspersky), SpywareBlaster v3.4, CrabCleaner v1.23.0.160,
    >> >CW Shredder v2.18, WinPatrol v9.7.4.0.

    >> --
    >>
    >> Barb Bowman
    >> MS Windows-MVP
    >> Expert Zone Columnist
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    >> http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
    >>

    --

    Barb Bowman
    MS Windows-MVP
    Expert Zone Columnist
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
     
    Barb Bowman MVP-Windows, Nov 11, 2005
    #5
  6. Okay, will consider implementing your recommendations. Thank you very much
    for your time and advice.
    With best regards,

    "Barb Bowman MVP-Windows" wrote:

    > I almost think that with all the utilities and gizmos you've installed
    > or have run that it may be worth it to reset the stack natively in XP
    > SP2 and try running the update again. disable the scanners and
    > resident programs first.
    >
    > Open a cmd prompt (start, run, cmd [enter])
    >
    > then
    >
    > netsh winsock reset catalog [enter]
    >
    > then run the update again
    >
    > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 06:04:02 -0800, Kayman
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >I informed you wrongly, sorry. The downloading operation went smoothly, but
    > >the INSTALLATION process is not going through as it should be. The 'wizard'
    > >appears and I click as recommended....installation appears to be processing.
    > >However after completion the error message pops up.
    > >I tried again with disabled firewall and antivirus applications but same
    > >result.
    > >
    > >"Barb Bowman MVP-Windows" wrote:
    > >
    > >> for starters, can you boot without the resident programs from the
    > >> group below loaded and see if you get the same error?
    > >>
    > >> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:53:44 -0800, Kayman
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >Residence/On-Demand Anti-Virus Anti-Spy, Malware
    > >> >detectors,scanners,removers,engines:-
    > >> >
    > >> >eTrust EZ AntiVirus v7.0.8.0, M/S AntiSpyWare (Beta), BitDefender v8 Free
    > >> >Edition, Ewido SecuritySuite v3.5, A-Squared v1.6, Ad-Aware SE Personal
    > >> >v1.06r1 with add-on Vx2 cleaner, Spybot S&D v1.4 (incl.Teatimer), Spyware
    > >> >Doctor v3.2, eScan AntiVirus Toolkit Utility v4.4.7 (powered by Kaspersky),
    > >> >Multi-Vendor Command Line Scanner utility (Sophos, Trend, McAfee &
    > >> >Kaspersky), SpywareBlaster v3.4, CrabCleaner v1.23.0.160,
    > >> >CW Shredder v2.18, WinPatrol v9.7.4.0.
    > >> --
    > >>
    > >> Barb Bowman
    > >> MS Windows-MVP
    > >> Expert Zone Columnist
    > >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    > >> http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
    > >>

    > --
    >
    > Barb Bowman
    > MS Windows-MVP
    > Expert Zone Columnist
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    > http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?S2F5bWFu?=, Nov 12, 2005
    #6
  7. Thanks for the informative article.

    I was able to download the update and I'm using a Linksys WRT54GS router
    with WPA2 and also using a 40 byte network key.

    I am able to connect to the internet and see my sid listed on the top with
    WPA2, but on the bottom when i'm connected, occasionally a message will pop
    up and says:

    Wireless Network Connection is now connected

    Signal to: Stan (unsecured)
    Signal Strength: Excellent

    Why would this be shown as unsecured if in the display it shows WPA2? I'm
    using a Dell Inspiron 6000 with built in Intel Pro/Wireless 2200BG
    card/drivers.

    "kh" wrote:

    > New Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security on a Windows XP
    > SP2-based computer
    >
    > Columnist Barb Bowman introduces you to WPA2 and explains how to implement
    > WPA2-Personal wireless security on your Windows XP SP2–based computers.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/expert/bowman_wirelesssecurity.mspx
    >
    > Ask questions or post comments about the article here.
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    >
    > --
    > Kristen Heller
    > Site Manager, vendor [MS}
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?SmltYm8=?=, Nov 12, 2005
    #7
  8. It's unclear to me if you've setup the router to use WPA2? A 40 byte
    network key implies (to me) that you are using WEP 64 bit open. You
    would need to configure the Linksys for WPA2-PSK and select a
    passphrase and also have the proper drivers for the Intel card to
    support WPA2-PSK. According to
    http://www.intel.com/network/connectivity/products/wireless/prowireless_mobile.htm,
    the 2200 b.\/g is WPA only and not WPA2.

    On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 05:20:04 -0800, "Jimbo"
    <> wrote:

    >Thanks for the informative article.
    >
    >I was able to download the update and I'm using a Linksys WRT54GS router
    >with WPA2 and also using a 40 byte network key.
    >
    >I am able to connect to the internet and see my sid listed on the top with
    >WPA2, but on the bottom when i'm connected, occasionally a message will pop
    >up and says:
    >
    >Wireless Network Connection is now connected
    >
    >Signal to: Stan (unsecured)
    >Signal Strength: Excellent
    >
    >Why would this be shown as unsecured if in the display it shows WPA2? I'm
    >using a Dell Inspiron 6000 with built in Intel Pro/Wireless 2200BG
    >card/drivers.
    >
    >"kh" wrote:
    >
    >> New Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security on a Windows XP
    >> SP2-based computer
    >>
    >> Columnist Barb Bowman introduces you to WPA2 and explains how to implement
    >> WPA2-Personal wireless security on your Windows XP SP2–based computers.
    >>
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/expert/bowman_wirelesssecurity.mspx
    >>
    >> Ask questions or post comments about the article here.
    >>
    >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Kristen Heller
    >> Site Manager, vendor [MS}
    >>
    >>

    --

    Barb Bowman
    MS Windows-MVP
    Expert Zone Columnist
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
     
    Barb Bowman MVP-Windows, Nov 12, 2005
    #8
  9. The Intel drivers have recently been updated see the below link:

    http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df-external/Detail_Desc.aspx?&DwnldID=9563&ProductID=1784/



    "Barb Bowman MVP-Windows" wrote:

    > It's unclear to me if you've setup the router to use WPA2? A 40 byte
    > network key implies (to me) that you are using WEP 64 bit open. You
    > would need to configure the Linksys for WPA2-PSK and select a
    > passphrase and also have the proper drivers for the Intel card to
    > support WPA2-PSK. According to
    > http://www.intel.com/network/connectivity/products/wireless/prowireless_mobile.htm,
    > the 2200 b.\/g is WPA only and not WPA2.
    >
    > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 05:20:04 -0800, "Jimbo"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >Thanks for the informative article.
    > >
    > >I was able to download the update and I'm using a Linksys WRT54GS router
    > >with WPA2 and also using a 40 byte network key.
    > >
    > >I am able to connect to the internet and see my sid listed on the top with
    > >WPA2, but on the bottom when i'm connected, occasionally a message will pop
    > >up and says:
    > >
    > >Wireless Network Connection is now connected
    > >
    > >Signal to: Stan (unsecured)
    > >Signal Strength: Excellent
    > >
    > >Why would this be shown as unsecured if in the display it shows WPA2? I'm
    > >using a Dell Inspiron 6000 with built in Intel Pro/Wireless 2200BG
    > >card/drivers.
    > >
    > >"kh" wrote:
    > >
    > >> New Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security on a Windows XP
    > >> SP2-based computer
    > >>
    > >> Columnist Barb Bowman introduces you to WPA2 and explains how to implement
    > >> WPA2-Personal wireless security on your Windows XP SP2–based computers.
    > >>
    > >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/expert/bowman_wirelesssecurity.mspx
    > >>
    > >> Ask questions or post comments about the article here.
    > >>
    > >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Kristen Heller
    > >> Site Manager, vendor [MS}
    > >>
    > >>

    > --
    >
    > Barb Bowman
    > MS Windows-MVP
    > Expert Zone Columnist
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    > http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?SmltYm8=?=, Nov 12, 2005
    #9
  10. Just to clarify a few more things:

    1) I am not using the software froom Intel. I've setup Windows as WPA2-PSK
    TKIP and with a key.

    2) The router firmware has been setup with WPA2 - personel with the same key.

    "Jimbo" wrote:

    > The Intel drivers have recently been updated see the below link:
    >
    > http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df-external/Detail_Desc.aspx?&DwnldID=9563&ProductID=1784/
    >
    >
    >
    > "Barb Bowman MVP-Windows" wrote:
    >
    > > It's unclear to me if you've setup the router to use WPA2? A 40 byte
    > > network key implies (to me) that you are using WEP 64 bit open. You
    > > would need to configure the Linksys for WPA2-PSK and select a
    > > passphrase and also have the proper drivers for the Intel card to
    > > support WPA2-PSK. According to
    > > http://www.intel.com/network/connectivity/products/wireless/prowireless_mobile.htm,
    > > the 2200 b.\/g is WPA only and not WPA2.
    > >
    > > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 05:20:04 -0800, "Jimbo"
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >Thanks for the informative article.
    > > >
    > > >I was able to download the update and I'm using a Linksys WRT54GS router
    > > >with WPA2 and also using a 40 byte network key.
    > > >
    > > >I am able to connect to the internet and see my sid listed on the top with
    > > >WPA2, but on the bottom when i'm connected, occasionally a message will pop
    > > >up and says:
    > > >
    > > >Wireless Network Connection is now connected
    > > >
    > > >Signal to: Stan (unsecured)
    > > >Signal Strength: Excellent
    > > >
    > > >Why would this be shown as unsecured if in the display it shows WPA2? I'm
    > > >using a Dell Inspiron 6000 with built in Intel Pro/Wireless 2200BG
    > > >card/drivers.
    > > >
    > > >"kh" wrote:
    > > >
    > > >> New Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security on a Windows XP
    > > >> SP2-based computer
    > > >>
    > > >> Columnist Barb Bowman introduces you to WPA2 and explains how to implement
    > > >> WPA2-Personal wireless security on your Windows XP SP2–based computers.
    > > >>
    > > >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/expert/bowman_wirelesssecurity.mspx
    > > >>
    > > >> Ask questions or post comments about the article here.
    > > >>
    > > >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    > > >>
    > > >> --
    > > >> Kristen Heller
    > > >> Site Manager, vendor [MS}
    > > >>
    > > >>

    > > --
    > >
    > > Barb Bowman
    > > MS Windows-MVP
    > > Expert Zone Columnist
    > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    > > http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
    > >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?SmltYm8=?=, Nov 12, 2005
    #10
  11. what happens if you remove all security from the client and try to
    connect to Stan?

    what happens if you remove Stan from the list of preferred networks
    and then reconfigure it in the client?

    On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 11:30:05 -0800, "Jimbo"
    <> wrote:

    >Just to clarify a few more things:
    >
    >1) I am not using the software froom Intel. I've setup Windows as WPA2-PSK
    >TKIP and with a key.
    >
    >2) The router firmware has been setup with WPA2 - personel with the same key.
    >
    >"Jimbo" wrote:
    >
    >> The Intel drivers have recently been updated see the below link:
    >>
    >> http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df-external/Detail_Desc.aspx?&DwnldID=9563&ProductID=1784/
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "Barb Bowman MVP-Windows" wrote:
    >>
    >> > It's unclear to me if you've setup the router to use WPA2? A 40 byte
    >> > network key implies (to me) that you are using WEP 64 bit open. You
    >> > would need to configure the Linksys for WPA2-PSK and select a
    >> > passphrase and also have the proper drivers for the Intel card to
    >> > support WPA2-PSK. According to
    >> > http://www.intel.com/network/connectivity/products/wireless/prowireless_mobile.htm,
    >> > the 2200 b.\/g is WPA only and not WPA2.
    >> >
    >> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 05:20:04 -0800, "Jimbo"
    >> > <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > >Thanks for the informative article.
    >> > >
    >> > >I was able to download the update and I'm using a Linksys WRT54GS router
    >> > >with WPA2 and also using a 40 byte network key.
    >> > >
    >> > >I am able to connect to the internet and see my sid listed on the top with
    >> > >WPA2, but on the bottom when i'm connected, occasionally a message will pop
    >> > >up and says:
    >> > >
    >> > >Wireless Network Connection is now connected
    >> > >
    >> > >Signal to: Stan (unsecured)
    >> > >Signal Strength: Excellent
    >> > >
    >> > >Why would this be shown as unsecured if in the display it shows WPA2? I'm
    >> > >using a Dell Inspiron 6000 with built in Intel Pro/Wireless 2200BG
    >> > >card/drivers.
    >> > >
    >> > >"kh" wrote:
    >> > >
    >> > >> New Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security on a Windows XP
    >> > >> SP2-based computer
    >> > >>
    >> > >> Columnist Barb Bowman introduces you to WPA2 and explains how to implement
    >> > >> WPA2-Personal wireless security on your Windows XP SP2–based computers.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/expert/bowman_wirelesssecurity.mspx
    >> > >>
    >> > >> Ask questions or post comments about the article here.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> --
    >> > >> Kristen Heller
    >> > >> Site Manager, vendor [MS}
    >> > >>
    >> > >>
    >> > --
    >> >
    >> > Barb Bowman
    >> > MS Windows-MVP
    >> > Expert Zone Columnist
    >> > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    >> > http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
    >> >

    --

    Barb Bowman
    MS Windows-MVP
    Expert Zone Columnist
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
     
    Barb Bowman MVP-Windows, Nov 12, 2005
    #11
  12. WPA-2 Personal Questions

    1. I just tried to implement WPA-2 AES on an Airlink MIMO router. I was
    able to set up. The problem is that some XP machines could no longer
    communicate within the workgroup (e.g. could not ping node, see shared
    folders etc) and uPnP devices (Roku Soundbridge) could no longer see the wmc
    server running on one of the XP clients. The Roku's are wireless devices but
    on a separate acesss point using wep only.

    I was previously using WPA TKIP for this envirnoment. All of this worked
    perfectly. As soon as I switched back to WPA TKIP, everything returned to
    normal working state. Why do I get these problems with WPA-2?

    2. Whether I am using WPA or WPA-2, I normally have SSID broadcast turned
    off, which means that I cannot "see" a wireless listing in the "view wireless
    networks/choose a wireless network" dialogue. As such, there is no official
    confirmation within "Windows Zero Configuration" that I really have a certain
    level security. Is there any way to have the network show up in "view
    Wireless networks" for a given node when SSID broadcast is disabled?



    "kh" wrote:

    > New Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security on a Windows XP
    > SP2-based computer
    >
    > Columnist Barb Bowman introduces you to WPA2 and explains how to implement
    > WPA2-Personal wireless security on your Windows XP SP2–based computers.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/expert/bowman_wirelesssecurity.mspx
    >
    > Ask questions or post comments about the article here.
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    >
    > --
    > Kristen Heller
    > Site Manager, vendor [MS}
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?cmtub3g=?=, Apr 19, 2006
    #12
  13. In a previous article (July 28, 2003) Barb discusses using a separate WEP
    network for those devices that do not have a higher level security. This is
    a strategy I have implemented for this and for other reasons (increasing
    bandwith for streaming music etc). I have always wondered though whether
    having a separate WEP network leaves my overall home network more vulnerable
    to attack, i.e. could someone obtain information that I think is secured on
    my wpa-secured router network, by penetrating the wep part of the network?
    In other words, does the traffic on the main network also end up in the wep
    part of the network? If so, is there a practical way to isolate the wep
    network as a subnet?

    "kh" wrote:

    > New Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security on a Windows XP
    > SP2-based computer
    >
    > Columnist Barb Bowman introduces you to WPA2 and explains how to implement
    > WPA2-Personal wireless security on your Windows XP SP2–based computers.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/expert/bowman_wirelesssecurity.mspx
    >
    > Ask questions or post comments about the article here.
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    >
    > --
    > Kristen Heller
    > Site Manager, vendor [MS}
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?cmtub3g=?=, Apr 19, 2006
    #13
  14. If you set it up per this article:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/networking/expert/bowman_03july28.m
    spx

    Then - yes, it's all one network regardless of how you connect to it - note
    that MAC address filtering is recommended for the WEP router. If you wanted
    to isolate the WPA devices from the WEP devices:

    1. Re-enable DHCP on the WEP router and connect its WAN port to your
    modem/broadband device.

    2. Make sure the WPA router's LAN is a different subnet, then connect its
    WAN port to a LAN port on the WEP router.

    The result would be that WPA connected computers will be able to access WEP
    connected computers, but WEP connected computers cannot access WPA connected
    computers.

    Doug Sherman
    MCSE, MCSA, MCP+I, MVP

    "rknox" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In a previous article (July 28, 2003) Barb discusses using a separate WEP
    > network for those devices that do not have a higher level security. This

    is
    > a strategy I have implemented for this and for other reasons (increasing
    > bandwith for streaming music etc). I have always wondered though whether
    > having a separate WEP network leaves my overall home network more

    vulnerable
    > to attack, i.e. could someone obtain information that I think is secured

    on
    > my wpa-secured router network, by penetrating the wep part of the network?
    > In other words, does the traffic on the main network also end up in the

    wep
    > part of the network? If so, is there a practical way to isolate the wep
    > network as a subnet?
    >
    > "kh" wrote:
    >
    > > New Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security on a Windows XP
    > > SP2-based computer
    > >
    > > Columnist Barb Bowman introduces you to WPA2 and explains how to

    implement
    > > WPA2-Personal wireless security on your Windows XP SP2-based computers.
    > >
    > >

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/expert/bowman_wirelesssecu
    rity.mspx
    > >
    > > Ask questions or post comments about the article here.
    > >
    > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no

    rights.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Kristen Heller
    > > Site Manager, vendor [MS}
    > >
    > >
     
    Doug Sherman [MVP], Apr 19, 2006
    #14
  15. See what Doug replied first. Some access points have the ability to
    serve DHCP. I used the DWL-7100 for this when I was still running WEP
    only devices and was able to isolate the WEP only segment from the
    rest of the LAN. That was a little too deep to go into in that column.
    I've since found ways to get rid of WEP only devices or use their
    wired Ethernet ports and attached a WPA capable bridge/gaming adapter
    like the DGL-3420.

    So yes, your network is only as secure as the weakest link. If you
    have to run WEP, a seperate subnet and isolation will help alot.

    On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:11:02 -0700, rknox
    <> wrote:

    >In a previous article (July 28, 2003) Barb discusses using a separate WEP
    >network for those devices that do not have a higher level security. This is
    >a strategy I have implemented for this and for other reasons (increasing
    >bandwith for streaming music etc). I have always wondered though whether
    >having a separate WEP network leaves my overall home network more vulnerable
    >to attack, i.e. could someone obtain information that I think is secured on
    >my wpa-secured router network, by penetrating the wep part of the network?
    >In other words, does the traffic on the main network also end up in the wep
    >part of the network? If so, is there a practical way to isolate the wep
    >network as a subnet?
    >
    >"kh" wrote:
    >
    >> New Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security on a Windows XP
    >> SP2-based computer
    >>
    >> Columnist Barb Bowman introduces you to WPA2 and explains how to implement
    >> WPA2-Personal wireless security on your Windows XP SP2–based computers.
    >>
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/expert/bowman_wirelesssecurity.mspx
    >>
    >> Ask questions or post comments about the article here.
    >>
    >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Kristen Heller
    >> Site Manager, vendor [MS}
    >>
    >>

    --

    Barb Bowman
    MS Windows-MVP
    Expert Zone Columnist
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
     
    Barb Bowman MVP-Windows, Apr 19, 2006
    #15
  16. Thanks -- of course dealing with multiple routers, subnets etc gets more
    complicated in a hurry. Any suggestions on a good source of information on
    setting up subnets etc? For example, it may be that my wep devices need to
    communicate both ways with nodes on the secure subnet. My experience thus
    far is that it can be difficult to get this all to work.

    Secondly, any thoughts on my questions posted in another message earlier
    today at 12:10 pst?

    ------------

    "Barb Bowman MVP-Windows" wrote:

    > See what Doug replied first. Some access points have the ability to
    > serve DHCP. I used the DWL-7100 for this when I was still running WEP
    > only devices and was able to isolate the WEP only segment from the
    > rest of the LAN. That was a little too deep to go into in that column.
    > I've since found ways to get rid of WEP only devices or use their
    > wired Ethernet ports and attached a WPA capable bridge/gaming adapter
    > like the DGL-3420.
    >
    > So yes, your network is only as secure as the weakest link. If you
    > have to run WEP, a seperate subnet and isolation will help alot.
    >
    > On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:11:02 -0700, rknox
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >In a previous article (July 28, 2003) Barb discusses using a separate WEP
    > >network for those devices that do not have a higher level security. This is
    > >a strategy I have implemented for this and for other reasons (increasing
    > >bandwith for streaming music etc). I have always wondered though whether
    > >having a separate WEP network leaves my overall home network more vulnerable
    > >to attack, i.e. could someone obtain information that I think is secured on
    > >my wpa-secured router network, by penetrating the wep part of the network?
    > >In other words, does the traffic on the main network also end up in the wep
    > >part of the network? If so, is there a practical way to isolate the wep
    > >network as a subnet?
    > >
    > >"kh" wrote:
    > >
    > >> New Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security on a Windows XP
    > >> SP2-based computer
    > >>
    > >> Columnist Barb Bowman introduces you to WPA2 and explains how to implement
    > >> WPA2-Personal wireless security on your Windows XP SP2–based computers.
    > >>
    > >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/expert/bowman_wirelesssecurity.mspx
    > >>
    > >> Ask questions or post comments about the article here.
    > >>
    > >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Kristen Heller
    > >> Site Manager, vendor [MS}
    > >>
    > >>

    > --
    >
    > Barb Bowman
    > MS Windows-MVP
    > Expert Zone Columnist
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    > http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?cmtub3g=?=, Apr 19, 2006
    #16
  17. before going any further - can you provide some details of what kind
    of WEP devices you have?

    can you repost the questions you refer to please?

    On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:13:01 -0700, rknox
    <> wrote:

    >Thanks -- of course dealing with multiple routers, subnets etc gets more
    >complicated in a hurry. Any suggestions on a good source of information on
    >setting up subnets etc? For example, it may be that my wep devices need to
    >communicate both ways with nodes on the secure subnet. My experience thus
    >far is that it can be difficult to get this all to work.
    >
    >Secondly, any thoughts on my questions posted in another message earlier
    >today at 12:10 pst?
    >
    >------------
    >
    >"Barb Bowman MVP-Windows" wrote:
    >
    >> See what Doug replied first. Some access points have the ability to
    >> serve DHCP. I used the DWL-7100 for this when I was still running WEP
    >> only devices and was able to isolate the WEP only segment from the
    >> rest of the LAN. That was a little too deep to go into in that column.
    >> I've since found ways to get rid of WEP only devices or use their
    >> wired Ethernet ports and attached a WPA capable bridge/gaming adapter
    >> like the DGL-3420.
    >>
    >> So yes, your network is only as secure as the weakest link. If you
    >> have to run WEP, a seperate subnet and isolation will help alot.
    >>
    >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:11:02 -0700, rknox
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In a previous article (July 28, 2003) Barb discusses using a separate WEP
    >> >network for those devices that do not have a higher level security. This is
    >> >a strategy I have implemented for this and for other reasons (increasing
    >> >bandwith for streaming music etc). I have always wondered though whether
    >> >having a separate WEP network leaves my overall home network more vulnerable
    >> >to attack, i.e. could someone obtain information that I think is secured on
    >> >my wpa-secured router network, by penetrating the wep part of the network?
    >> >In other words, does the traffic on the main network also end up in the wep
    >> >part of the network? If so, is there a practical way to isolate the wep
    >> >network as a subnet?
    >> >
    >> >"kh" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> New Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security on a Windows XP
    >> >> SP2-based computer
    >> >>
    >> >> Columnist Barb Bowman introduces you to WPA2 and explains how to implement
    >> >> WPA2-Personal wireless security on your Windows XP SP2–based computers.
    >> >>
    >> >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/expert/bowman_wirelesssecurity.mspx
    >> >>
    >> >> Ask questions or post comments about the article here.
    >> >>
    >> >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    >> >>
    >> >> --
    >> >> Kristen Heller
    >> >> Site Manager, vendor [MS}
    >> >>
    >> >>

    >> --
    >>
    >> Barb Bowman
    >> MS Windows-MVP
    >> Expert Zone Columnist
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    >> http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
    >>

    --

    Barb Bowman
    MS Windows-MVP
    Expert Zone Columnist
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
     
    Barb Bowman MVP-Windows, Apr 20, 2006
    #17
  18. Reposting Questions from 4/19/06

    1. I just tried to implement WPA-2 AES on an Airlink MIMO router. I was
    able to set up. The problem is that some XP machines could no longer
    communicate within the workgroup (e.g. could not ping node, see shared
    folders etc) and uPnP devices (Roku Soundbridge) could no longer see the wmc
    server running on one of the XP clients. The Roku's are wireless devices but
    on a separate acesss point using wep only.

    I was previously using WPA TKIP for this envirnoment. All of this worked
    perfectly. As soon as I switched back to WPA TKIP, everything returned to
    normal working state. Why do I get these problems with WPA-2?

    2. Whether I am using WPA or WPA-2, I normally have SSID broadcast turned
    off, which means that I cannot "see" a wireless listing in the "view wireless
    networks/choose a wireless network" dialogue. As such, there is no official
    confirmation within "Windows Zero Configuration" that I really have a certain
    level security. Is there any way to have the network show up in "view
    Wireless networks" for a given node when SSID broadcast is disabled?



    "kh" wrote:

    Click to show or hide original message or reply text.


    > New Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security on a Windows XP
    > SP2-based computer
    >
    > Columnist Barb Bowman introduces you to WPA2 and explains how to implement
    > WPA2-Personal wireless security on your Windows XP SP2–based computers.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/expert/bowman_wirelesssecurity.mspx
    >
    > Ask questions or post comments about the article here.
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    >
    > --
    > Kristen Heller
    > Site Manager, vendor [MS}
    >
    >



    "Barb Bowman MVP-Windows" wrote:

    > See what Doug replied first. Some access points have the ability to
    > serve DHCP. I used the DWL-7100 for this when I was still running WEP
    > only devices and was able to isolate the WEP only segment from the
    > rest of the LAN. That was a little too deep to go into in that column.
    > I've since found ways to get rid of WEP only devices or use their
    > wired Ethernet ports and attached a WPA capable bridge/gaming adapter
    > like the DGL-3420.
    >
    > So yes, your network is only as secure as the weakest link. If you
    > have to run WEP, a seperate subnet and isolation will help alot.
    >
    > On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:11:02 -0700, rknox
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >In a previous article (July 28, 2003) Barb discusses using a separate WEP
    > >network for those devices that do not have a higher level security. This is
    > >a strategy I have implemented for this and for other reasons (increasing
    > >bandwith for streaming music etc). I have always wondered though whether
    > >having a separate WEP network leaves my overall home network more vulnerable
    > >to attack, i.e. could someone obtain information that I think is secured on
    > >my wpa-secured router network, by penetrating the wep part of the network?
    > >In other words, does the traffic on the main network also end up in the wep
    > >part of the network? If so, is there a practical way to isolate the wep
    > >network as a subnet?
    > >
    > >"kh" wrote:
    > >
    > >> New Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security on a Windows XP
    > >> SP2-based computer
    > >>
    > >> Columnist Barb Bowman introduces you to WPA2 and explains how to implement
    > >> WPA2-Personal wireless security on your Windows XP SP2–based computers.
    > >>
    > >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/expert/bowman_wirelesssecurity.mspx
    > >>
    > >> Ask questions or post comments about the article here.
    > >>
    > >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Kristen Heller
    > >> Site Manager, vendor [MS}
    > >>
    > >>

    > --
    >
    > Barb Bowman
    > MS Windows-MVP
    > Expert Zone Columnist
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    > http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?cmtub3g=?=, Apr 20, 2006
    #18
  19. I reposted my original questions on a separate reply.

    Regarding wep devices, I have two Roku Soundbridges (uPnp music renderers),
    a work laptop that uses a vpn to access corporate network, and a Linksys
    printserver. All are b devices except the printserver. I put the
    printserver on this auxillary network because it only supports wep.

    Currently these are all connected to a Linksys AP in b/g mode. It is
    connected to a port on a Linksys router. The router is the gateway for
    Internet connection. I also have a NAS device and two XP machines: a general
    PC running XP Home, and an HP entertainment center running MCE 2005 and wmc.

    The goal is to maximize security of overall home network while working with
    the b/wep constraints as well as other requirements for serving music. As I
    indicated, I'm concerned that I'm really only at a WEP level of security,
    although I do use the MAC filitering on both wireless units, as well as
    turning off ssid etc. I just replaced the Linksys router with a Airlink101
    MIMO router, so I now have an spare router (the Linksys) to consider. From
    what I've been reading, and Doug's comments, seems having a b/g router as
    primary gateway, then a wpa(2) router off that first one makes sense. In
    essence a double firewall/gateway configuration. But, will I need
    port-forwarding, subnet?, routing table changes?

    Ralph

    "Barb Bowman MVP-Windows" wrote:

    > before going any further - can you provide some details of what kind
    > of WEP devices you have?
    >
    > can you repost the questions you refer to please?
    >
    > On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:13:01 -0700, rknox
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >Thanks -- of course dealing with multiple routers, subnets etc gets more
    > >complicated in a hurry. Any suggestions on a good source of information on
    > >setting up subnets etc? For example, it may be that my wep devices need to
    > >communicate both ways with nodes on the secure subnet. My experience thus
    > >far is that it can be difficult to get this all to work.
    > >
    > >Secondly, any thoughts on my questions posted in another message earlier
    > >today at 12:10 pst?
    > >
    > >------------
    > >
    > >"Barb Bowman MVP-Windows" wrote:
    > >
    > >> See what Doug replied first. Some access points have the ability to
    > >> serve DHCP. I used the DWL-7100 for this when I was still running WEP
    > >> only devices and was able to isolate the WEP only segment from the
    > >> rest of the LAN. That was a little too deep to go into in that column.
    > >> I've since found ways to get rid of WEP only devices or use their
    > >> wired Ethernet ports and attached a WPA capable bridge/gaming adapter
    > >> like the DGL-3420.
    > >>
    > >> So yes, your network is only as secure as the weakest link. If you
    > >> have to run WEP, a seperate subnet and isolation will help alot.
    > >>
    > >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:11:02 -0700, rknox
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >In a previous article (July 28, 2003) Barb discusses using a separate WEP
    > >> >network for those devices that do not have a higher level security. This is
    > >> >a strategy I have implemented for this and for other reasons (increasing
    > >> >bandwith for streaming music etc). I have always wondered though whether
    > >> >having a separate WEP network leaves my overall home network more vulnerable
    > >> >to attack, i.e. could someone obtain information that I think is secured on
    > >> >my wpa-secured router network, by penetrating the wep part of the network?
    > >> >In other words, does the traffic on the main network also end up in the wep
    > >> >part of the network? If so, is there a practical way to isolate the wep
    > >> >network as a subnet?
    > >> >
    > >> >"kh" wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> New Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security on a Windows XP
    > >> >> SP2-based computer
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Columnist Barb Bowman introduces you to WPA2 and explains how to implement
    > >> >> WPA2-Personal wireless security on your Windows XP SP2–based computers.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/expert/bowman_wirelesssecurity.mspx
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Ask questions or post comments about the article here.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> --
    > >> >> Kristen Heller
    > >> >> Site Manager, vendor [MS}
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> --
    > >>
    > >> Barb Bowman
    > >> MS Windows-MVP
    > >> Expert Zone Columnist
    > >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    > >> http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
    > >>

    > --
    >
    > Barb Bowman
    > MS Windows-MVP
    > Expert Zone Columnist
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    > http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?cmtub3g=?=, Apr 20, 2006
    #19
  20. if it were me, I'd buy and attach 3 DGL-3420's to the WIRED ethernet
    ports of these devices and use WPA and not the devices built in
    wireless. plus this would provide G capabilities. That's what I ended
    up doing with some of my older equipment.

    if you went with the two router solution, you'd have to configure DNS
    manually for sure. What I'm not sure about is what will happen to UPnP
    (Windows Media Connect or whatever the Roku uses) across two routers.

    On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:13:01 -0700, rknox
    <> wrote:

    >I reposted my original questions on a separate reply.
    >
    >Regarding wep devices, I have two Roku Soundbridges (uPnp music renderers),
    >a work laptop that uses a vpn to access corporate network, and a Linksys
    >printserver. All are b devices except the printserver. I put the
    >printserver on this auxillary network because it only supports wep.
    >
    >Currently these are all connected to a Linksys AP in b/g mode. It is
    >connected to a port on a Linksys router. The router is the gateway for
    >Internet connection. I also have a NAS device and two XP machines: a general
    >PC running XP Home, and an HP entertainment center running MCE 2005 and wmc.
    >
    >The goal is to maximize security of overall home network while working with
    >the b/wep constraints as well as other requirements for serving music. As I
    >indicated, I'm concerned that I'm really only at a WEP level of security,
    >although I do use the MAC filitering on both wireless units, as well as
    >turning off ssid etc. I just replaced the Linksys router with a Airlink101
    >MIMO router, so I now have an spare router (the Linksys) to consider. From
    >what I've been reading, and Doug's comments, seems having a b/g router as
    >primary gateway, then a wpa(2) router off that first one makes sense. In
    >essence a double firewall/gateway configuration. But, will I need
    >port-forwarding, subnet?, routing table changes?
    >
    >Ralph
    >
    >"Barb Bowman MVP-Windows" wrote:
    >
    >> before going any further - can you provide some details of what kind
    >> of WEP devices you have?
    >>
    >> can you repost the questions you refer to please?
    >>
    >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:13:01 -0700, rknox
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Thanks -- of course dealing with multiple routers, subnets etc gets more
    >> >complicated in a hurry. Any suggestions on a good source of information on
    >> >setting up subnets etc? For example, it may be that my wep devices need to
    >> >communicate both ways with nodes on the secure subnet. My experience thus
    >> >far is that it can be difficult to get this all to work.
    >> >
    >> >Secondly, any thoughts on my questions posted in another message earlier
    >> >today at 12:10 pst?
    >> >
    >> >------------
    >> >
    >> >"Barb Bowman MVP-Windows" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> See what Doug replied first. Some access points have the ability to
    >> >> serve DHCP. I used the DWL-7100 for this when I was still running WEP
    >> >> only devices and was able to isolate the WEP only segment from the
    >> >> rest of the LAN. That was a little too deep to go into in that column.
    >> >> I've since found ways to get rid of WEP only devices or use their
    >> >> wired Ethernet ports and attached a WPA capable bridge/gaming adapter
    >> >> like the DGL-3420.
    >> >>
    >> >> So yes, your network is only as secure as the weakest link. If you
    >> >> have to run WEP, a seperate subnet and isolation will help alot.
    >> >>
    >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:11:02 -0700, rknox
    >> >> <> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >In a previous article (July 28, 2003) Barb discusses using a separate WEP
    >> >> >network for those devices that do not have a higher level security. This is
    >> >> >a strategy I have implemented for this and for other reasons (increasing
    >> >> >bandwith for streaming music etc). I have always wondered though whether
    >> >> >having a separate WEP network leaves my overall home network more vulnerable
    >> >> >to attack, i.e. could someone obtain information that I think is secured on
    >> >> >my wpa-secured router network, by penetrating the wep part of the network?
    >> >> >In other words, does the traffic on the main network also end up in the wep
    >> >> >part of the network? If so, is there a practical way to isolate the wep
    >> >> >network as a subnet?
    >> >> >
    >> >> >"kh" wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> New Column: Implement WPA2-Personal wireless security on a Windows XP
    >> >> >> SP2-based computer
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Columnist Barb Bowman introduces you to WPA2 and explains how to implement
    >> >> >> WPA2-Personal wireless security on your Windows XP SP2–based computers.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/expert/bowman_wirelesssecurity.mspx
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Ask questions or post comments about the article here.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> --
    >> >> >> Kristen Heller
    >> >> >> Site Manager, vendor [MS}
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>
    >> >> --
    >> >>
    >> >> Barb Bowman
    >> >> MS Windows-MVP
    >> >> Expert Zone Columnist
    >> >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    >> >> http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
    >> >>

    >> --
    >>
    >> Barb Bowman
    >> MS Windows-MVP
    >> Expert Zone Columnist
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    >> http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
    >>

    --

    Barb Bowman
    MS Windows-MVP
    Expert Zone Columnist
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/bowman.mspx
    http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
     
    Barb Bowman MVP-Windows, Apr 20, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rasoul Khoshravan Azar

    personal.htm & personal.xls in Macro

    Rasoul Khoshravan Azar, Jan 23, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    617
    Rasoul Khoshravan Azar
    Jan 23, 2004
  2. =?Utf-8?B?V2lyZWxlc3NOZXdiaWU=?=

    TOSHIBA TE2000 Laptop - WPA2-Personal compatible?

    =?Utf-8?B?V2lyZWxlc3NOZXdiaWU=?=, Aug 2, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,160
    Malke
    Aug 2, 2006
  3. sunset
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    800
    Paul Heslop
    Sep 10, 2007
  4. Mike_in_Nebraska

    Can't detect WPA2 Personal network

    Mike_in_Nebraska, Feb 20, 2008, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    3,016
    Mike_in_Nebraska
    Feb 21, 2008
  5. Mike_in_Nebraska

    some clients can't connect to WPA2 Personal WLAN

    Mike_in_Nebraska, Feb 21, 2008, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,258
    Mike_in_Nebraska
    Feb 21, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page