home network security question

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by dfghjk, May 3, 2004.

  1. dfghjk

    dfghjk Guest

    I have my wireless router configured to only allow access to specific
    MAC addresses.

    Is there an issue with access to the laptop connecting to it?
    IE, can access be achieved without going thru the router - peer to
    peer?

    What are the security issues in connecting to other wireless networks,
    like at hotels, etc?

    Is WEP necessary at home with MAC filtering?

    OS= XP
    I am running outpost firewall.

    thanks
    dfghjk, May 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. dfghjk

    Dan Shea Guest

    On Mon, 03 May 2004 03:26:21 GMT, dfghjk <> wrote:

    >I have my wireless router configured to only allow access to specific
    >MAC addresses.
    >
    >Is there an issue with access to the laptop connecting to it?


    Where "it" = the wireless router... As long as the laptop NIC is
    possessed of one of those permitted MAC addresses, no. No issue.
    Your laptop can connect to "it".

    >IE, can access be achieved without going thru the router - peer to
    >peer?


    Where "it" = the rest of the wireless LAN, via wireless
    peer-to-peer... Yes. Your laptop can connect to "it", given the right
    configuration. Probably more trouble than it's worth -- why not just
    connect through the wireless router?

    >What are the security issues in connecting to other wireless networks,
    >like at hotels, etc?


    Public hotspots put you on a network with all and sundry. USA Today
    (seriously) has put together a pretty good list of things to check
    when using one.
    http://usatoday.jiwire.com/wi-fi-security-traveler-hotspot-1.htm

    >Is WEP necessary at home with MAC filtering?


    Yes. It is possible for someone to sniff all the unencrypted traffic,
    discover what MAC addresses are authorised, and spoof those addresses
    to gain access to your WLAN.

    Cheers,
    dan
    Dan Shea, May 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. dfghjk

    Toolman Tim Guest

    "Dan Shea" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 03 May 2004 03:26:21 GMT, dfghjk <> wrote:
    >
    > >I have my wireless router configured to only allow access to specific
    > >MAC addresses.
    > >
    > >Is there an issue with access to the laptop connecting to it?

    >
    > Where "it" = the wireless router... As long as the laptop NIC is
    > possessed of one of those permitted MAC addresses, no. No issue.
    > Your laptop can connect to "it".
    >
    > >IE, can access be achieved without going thru the router - peer to
    > >peer?

    >
    > Where "it" = the rest of the wireless LAN, via wireless
    > peer-to-peer... Yes. Your laptop can connect to "it", given the right
    > configuration. Probably more trouble than it's worth -- why not just
    > connect through the wireless router?
    >
    > >What are the security issues in connecting to other wireless networks,
    > >like at hotels, etc?

    >
    > Public hotspots put you on a network with all and sundry. USA Today
    > (seriously) has put together a pretty good list of things to check
    > when using one.
    > http://usatoday.jiwire.com/wi-fi-security-traveler-hotspot-1.htm
    >
    > >Is WEP necessary at home with MAC filtering?

    >
    > Yes. It is possible for someone to sniff all the unencrypted traffic,
    > discover what MAC addresses are authorised, and spoof those addresses
    > to gain access to your WLAN.
    >


    Good reply Dan - I would ALWAYS have WEP running on my wireless, because I
    do online banking, shopping, etc. and would not care for my neighbors
    hacking in and getting my financial info.
    Toolman Tim, May 3, 2004
    #3
  4. dfghjk

    Dan Shea Guest

    On Sun, 2 May 2004 21:14:43 -0700, "Toolman Tim"
    <tmayer541_at_charter.invalid> wrote:

    <snip>

    >> >Is WEP necessary at home with MAC filtering?

    >>
    >> Yes. It is possible for someone to sniff all the unencrypted traffic,
    >> discover what MAC addresses are authorised, and spoof those addresses
    >> to gain access to your WLAN.
    >>

    >
    >Good reply Dan - I would ALWAYS have WEP running on my wireless, because I
    >do online banking, shopping, etc. and would not care for my neighbors
    >hacking in and getting my financial info.


    Thanks. You gotta figure two methods of security are always better
    than one. Still it's tempting to think that, well, since I've
    specified exactly what MAC addresses are permitted...

    FWIW, WPA is *way* better than WEP. "Wired Equivalent Privacy" my
    Aunt Fanny! If your equipment supports it, use WPA. WEP can be
    cracked pretty straightforwardly by anyone with enough patience to do
    a dictionary attack. It's probably only a matter of time until WPA is
    old hat too, but so it goes. Wireless communication is by its nature
    an insecure medium.

    Cheers,
    dan
    Dan Shea, May 3, 2004
    #4
  5. dfghjk

    dfghjk Guest

    Thanks guys;

    the question re accessing via peer to peer was re someone else hacking
    in to the laptop that way, not me accessing the network that way.


    my router doesn't support WPA yet - USR - suppose to when WPA is
    ratified - I didn't know it wasn't yet!





    On Mon, 03 May 2004 05:17:15 GMT, Dan Shea <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 2 May 2004 21:14:43 -0700, "Toolman Tim"
    ><tmayer541_at_charter.invalid> wrote:
    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >>> >Is WEP necessary at home with MAC filtering?
    >>>
    >>> Yes. It is possible for someone to sniff all the unencrypted traffic,
    >>> discover what MAC addresses are authorised, and spoof those addresses
    >>> to gain access to your WLAN.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Good reply Dan - I would ALWAYS have WEP running on my wireless, because I
    >>do online banking, shopping, etc. and would not care for my neighbors
    >>hacking in and getting my financial info.

    >
    >Thanks. You gotta figure two methods of security are always better
    >than one. Still it's tempting to think that, well, since I've
    >specified exactly what MAC addresses are permitted...
    >
    >FWIW, WPA is *way* better than WEP. "Wired Equivalent Privacy" my
    >Aunt Fanny! If your equipment supports it, use WPA. WEP can be
    >cracked pretty straightforwardly by anyone with enough patience to do
    >a dictionary attack. It's probably only a matter of time until WPA is
    >old hat too, but so it goes. Wireless communication is by its nature
    >an insecure medium.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >dan
    dfghjk, May 3, 2004
    #5
  6. dfghjk

    Dan Shea Guest

    On Mon, 03 May 2004 21:48:02 GMT, dfghjk <> wrote:

    >Thanks guys;
    >
    >the question re accessing via peer to peer was re someone else hacking
    >in to the laptop that way, not me accessing the network that way.
    >
    >
    >my router doesn't support WPA yet - USR - suppose to when WPA is
    >ratified - I didn't know it wasn't yet!


    You're welcome. As far as someone hacking in via peer-to-peer
    wireless, just don't enable ad-hoc mode on any of your wireless NICs.
    No problem.

    Cheers,
    dan


    >On Mon, 03 May 2004 05:17:15 GMT, Dan Shea <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 2 May 2004 21:14:43 -0700, "Toolman Tim"
    >><tmayer541_at_charter.invalid> wrote:
    >>
    >><snip>
    >>
    >>>> >Is WEP necessary at home with MAC filtering?
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes. It is possible for someone to sniff all the unencrypted traffic,
    >>>> discover what MAC addresses are authorised, and spoof those addresses
    >>>> to gain access to your WLAN.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Good reply Dan - I would ALWAYS have WEP running on my wireless, because I
    >>>do online banking, shopping, etc. and would not care for my neighbors
    >>>hacking in and getting my financial info.

    >>
    >>Thanks. You gotta figure two methods of security are always better
    >>than one. Still it's tempting to think that, well, since I've
    >>specified exactly what MAC addresses are permitted...
    >>
    >>FWIW, WPA is *way* better than WEP. "Wired Equivalent Privacy" my
    >>Aunt Fanny! If your equipment supports it, use WPA. WEP can be
    >>cracked pretty straightforwardly by anyone with enough patience to do
    >>a dictionary attack. It's probably only a matter of time until WPA is
    >>old hat too, but so it goes. Wireless communication is by its nature
    >>an insecure medium.
    >>
    >>Cheers,
    >>dan
    Dan Shea, May 4, 2004
    #6
  7. dfghjk

    dfghjk Guest

    thanks that was the missing link, no ad hoc enabled.

    that brings up another question, how do I secure an ad hoc connection
    if I were using one?




    On Mon, 03 May 2004 23:50:14 GMT, Dan Shea <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 03 May 2004 21:48:02 GMT, dfghjk <> wrote:
    >
    >>Thanks guys;
    >>
    >>the question re accessing via peer to peer was re someone else hacking
    >>in to the laptop that way, not me accessing the network that way.
    >>
    >>
    >>my router doesn't support WPA yet - USR - suppose to when WPA is
    >>ratified - I didn't know it wasn't yet!

    >
    >You're welcome. As far as someone hacking in via peer-to-peer
    >wireless, just don't enable ad-hoc mode on any of your wireless NICs.
    >No problem.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >dan
    >
    >
    >>On Mon, 03 May 2004 05:17:15 GMT, Dan Shea <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 2 May 2004 21:14:43 -0700, "Toolman Tim"
    >>><tmayer541_at_charter.invalid> wrote:
    >>>
    >>><snip>
    >>>
    >>>>> >Is WEP necessary at home with MAC filtering?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes. It is possible for someone to sniff all the unencrypted traffic,
    >>>>> discover what MAC addresses are authorised, and spoof those addresses
    >>>>> to gain access to your WLAN.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Good reply Dan - I would ALWAYS have WEP running on my wireless, because I
    >>>>do online banking, shopping, etc. and would not care for my neighbors
    >>>>hacking in and getting my financial info.
    >>>
    >>>Thanks. You gotta figure two methods of security are always better
    >>>than one. Still it's tempting to think that, well, since I've
    >>>specified exactly what MAC addresses are permitted...
    >>>
    >>>FWIW, WPA is *way* better than WEP. "Wired Equivalent Privacy" my
    >>>Aunt Fanny! If your equipment supports it, use WPA. WEP can be
    >>>cracked pretty straightforwardly by anyone with enough patience to do
    >>>a dictionary attack. It's probably only a matter of time until WPA is
    >>>old hat too, but so it goes. Wireless communication is by its nature
    >>>an insecure medium.
    >>>
    >>>Cheers,
    >>>dan
    dfghjk, May 4, 2004
    #7
  8. dfghjk

    Dan Shea Guest

    On Tue, 04 May 2004 00:38:52 GMT, dfghjk <> wrote:

    >thanks that was the missing link, no ad hoc enabled.
    >
    >that brings up another question, how do I secure an ad hoc connection
    >if I were using one?


    What do you mean, "how"? ;) IANAEOAHWN (I am not an expert on ad hoc
    wireless networking), but I would guess use a funky SSID, you don't
    broadcast it (if that's possible in ad hoc mode) and you enable WEP.
    Maybe use some unusual IP addressing scheme as well. And you cross
    your fingers.

    Cheers,
    dan


    >On Mon, 03 May 2004 23:50:14 GMT, Dan Shea <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 03 May 2004 21:48:02 GMT, dfghjk <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Thanks guys;
    >>>
    >>>the question re accessing via peer to peer was re someone else hacking
    >>>in to the laptop that way, not me accessing the network that way.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>my router doesn't support WPA yet - USR - suppose to when WPA is
    >>>ratified - I didn't know it wasn't yet!

    >>
    >>You're welcome. As far as someone hacking in via peer-to-peer
    >>wireless, just don't enable ad-hoc mode on any of your wireless NICs.
    >>No problem.
    >>
    >>Cheers,
    >>dan
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Mon, 03 May 2004 05:17:15 GMT, Dan Shea <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Sun, 2 May 2004 21:14:43 -0700, "Toolman Tim"
    >>>><tmayer541_at_charter.invalid> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>><snip>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> >Is WEP necessary at home with MAC filtering?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yes. It is possible for someone to sniff all the unencrypted traffic,
    >>>>>> discover what MAC addresses are authorised, and spoof those addresses
    >>>>>> to gain access to your WLAN.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Good reply Dan - I would ALWAYS have WEP running on my wireless, because I
    >>>>>do online banking, shopping, etc. and would not care for my neighbors
    >>>>>hacking in and getting my financial info.
    >>>>
    >>>>Thanks. You gotta figure two methods of security are always better
    >>>>than one. Still it's tempting to think that, well, since I've
    >>>>specified exactly what MAC addresses are permitted...
    >>>>
    >>>>FWIW, WPA is *way* better than WEP. "Wired Equivalent Privacy" my
    >>>>Aunt Fanny! If your equipment supports it, use WPA. WEP can be
    >>>>cracked pretty straightforwardly by anyone with enough patience to do
    >>>>a dictionary attack. It's probably only a matter of time until WPA is
    >>>>old hat too, but so it goes. Wireless communication is by its nature
    >>>>an insecure medium.
    >>>>
    >>>>Cheers,
    >>>>dan
    Dan Shea, May 4, 2004
    #8
    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. Edward W. Thompson

    Home Network Security

    Edward W. Thompson, Jul 10, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,851
  2. Peter Afonin

    Home network security

    Peter Afonin, Dec 1, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,171
    Malke
    Dec 3, 2004
  3. =?Utf-8?B?bXBlcnJ5NTU=?=

    Steps to setup Wireless security on a home network to internet.

    =?Utf-8?B?bXBlcnJ5NTU=?=, Feb 2, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,243
  4. =?Utf-8?B?Unlhbg==?=

    Home Network Security

    =?Utf-8?B?Unlhbg==?=, Mar 1, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    427
  5. COMSOLIT Messmer

    IT-Security, Security, e-security

    COMSOLIT Messmer, Sep 5, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    603
    COMSOLIT Messmer
    Sep 5, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page