WPA-PSK is vulnerable to offline attack.
WPA-TKIP has been cracked.
TO AVOID THESE PROBLEMS:
1. USE WPA-AES or WPA2 instead of WPA-TKIP (or WEP)
2. USE A PASSPHRASE WITH MORE THAN 20 CHARACTERS. Examples:
BAD: "vintage wine"
GOOD: "floor hiking dirt ocean"
(pick your own words, even longer is better)
FOR HIGH SECURITY, USE MORE THAN 32 CHARACTERS.
BACKGROUND:
Weakness in Passphrase Choice in WPA Interface
<http://wifinetnews.com/archives/002452.html>
Practical attacks against WEP and WPA
<http://dl.aircrack-ng.org/breakingwepandwpa.pdf>
A Practical Message Falsi cation Attack on WPA
<http://jwis2009.nsysu.edu.tw/location/paper/A%20Practical%20Message%20Falsification%20Attack%2 0on%20WPA.pdf>
New attack cracks common Wi-Fi encryption in a minute
<http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/082709-new-attack-cracks-common-wi-fi.html>
Passphrase Flaw Exposed in WPA Wireless Security
<http://www.technewsworld.com/story/32070.html>
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
In article <fDJym.225073$sC1.60897@newsfe17.iad>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> SUMMARY:
>
> WPA-PSK is vulnerable to offline attack.
> WPA-TKIP has been cracked.
>
> TO AVOID THESE PROBLEMS:
>
> 1. USE WPA-AES or WPA2 instead of WPA-TKIP (or WEP)
>
> 2. USE A PASSPHRASE WITH MORE THAN 20 CHARACTERS. Examples:
> BAD: "vintage wine"
> GOOD: "floor hiking dirt ocean"
> (pick your own words, even longer is better)
> FOR HIGH SECURITY, USE MORE THAN 32 CHARACTERS.
Why do you even recommend a phrase made of dictionary words? Just insert
a few random non-alphabetic characters in a word and one is way better
off anyway.
BETTER: Jul4iet&Hora!tio
BEST: SiuOvcsdf2394DFSKJFH (and let Keychain, or your local equivalent,
remember it).
Steve
--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:37:40 -0700, Steve Fenwick
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in
<nospam-858FC1.18374006102009@news.eternal-september.org>:
>In article <fDJym.225073$sC1.60897@newsfe17.iad>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> SUMMARY:
>>
>> WPA-PSK is vulnerable to offline attack.
>> WPA-TKIP has been cracked.
>>
>> TO AVOID THESE PROBLEMS:
>>
>> 1. USE WPA-AES or WPA2 instead of WPA-TKIP (or WEP)
>>
>> 2. USE A PASSPHRASE WITH MORE THAN 20 CHARACTERS. Examples:
>> BAD: "vintage wine"
>> GOOD: "floor hiking dirt ocean"
>> (pick your own words, even longer is better)
>> FOR HIGH SECURITY, USE MORE THAN 32 CHARACTERS.
>
>Why do you even recommend a phrase made of dictionary words? Just insert
>a few random non-alphabetic characters in a word
Because it's much easier to enter than random characters.
>and one is way better
>off anyway.
Key entropy with diceware words can be just as good as random
characters.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
In article <g42oc5t0ar68cuk3vgjr1gf2b4qbkqt48t@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:37:40 -0700, Steve Fenwick
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in
> <nospam-858FC1.18374006102009@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
> >In article <fDJym.225073$sC1.60897@newsfe17.iad>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> SUMMARY:
> >>
> >> WPA-PSK is vulnerable to offline attack.
> >> WPA-TKIP has been cracked.
> >>
> >> TO AVOID THESE PROBLEMS:
> >>
> >> 1. USE WPA-AES or WPA2 instead of WPA-TKIP (or WEP)
> >>
> >> 2. USE A PASSPHRASE WITH MORE THAN 20 CHARACTERS. Examples:
> >> BAD: "vintage wine"
> >> GOOD: "floor hiking dirt ocean"
> >> (pick your own words, even longer is better)
> >> FOR HIGH SECURITY, USE MORE THAN 32 CHARACTERS.
> >
[SNIPPAGE REVERSED]
> > Why do you even recommend a phrase made of dictionary words? Just insert
> > a few random non-alphabetic characters in a word and one is way better
> > off anyway.
> >
> > BETTER: Jul4iet&Hora!tio
> >
> > BEST: SiuOvcsdf2394DFSKJFH (and let Keychain, or your local equivalent,
> > remember it).
>
> Because it's much easier to enter than random characters.
<NavasResponseMode>
I disagree.
</NavasResponseMode>
One of my recommendations was for characters inserted in and around
dictionary words or proper names. Quite easy; been doing it for years.
And good practice for good password usage for other uses (e.g., web
sites that need a password) where long passphrases can't be used.
Steve
> Key entropy with diceware words can be just as good as random
> characters.
--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:29:38 -0700, Steve Fenwick
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in
<nospam-F0FEC0.20293806102009@news.eternal-september.org>:
>In article <g42oc5t0ar68cuk3vgjr1gf2b4qbkqt48t@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:37:40 -0700, Steve Fenwick
>> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in
>> <nospam-858FC1.18374006102009@news.eternal-september.org>:
>> > Why do you even recommend a phrase made of dictionary words? Just insert
>> > a few random non-alphabetic characters in a word and one is way better
>> > off anyway.
>> >
>> > BETTER: Jul4iet&Hora!tio
>> >
>> > BEST: SiuOvcsdf2394DFSKJFH (and let Keychain, or your local equivalent,
>> > remember it).
>>
>> Because it's much easier to enter than random characters.
>[SNIP childish discourtesy]
>I disagree.
>One of my recommendations was for characters inserted in and around
>dictionary words or proper names. Quite easy; been doing it for years.
>And good practice for good password usage for other uses (e.g., web
>sites that need a password) where long passphrases can't be used.
Your BEST is too painful to be practical for most users.
Your BETTER is no better than diceware words.
Read up on "password entropy" and diceware (and grow up).
To get you started:
<http://www.gcn.com/Articles/2005/08/10/How-strong-is-your-password-NIST-has-some-formulas.aspx>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diceware>
<http://world.std.com/~reinhold/diceware.html>
<http://world.std.com/~reinhold/dicewarefaq.html>
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:jkbpc5dm5e6tnvp47aja2cv1s445vqn4bh@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:29:38 -0700, Steve Fenwick
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in
> <nospam-F0FEC0.20293806102009@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>>In article <g42oc5t0ar68cuk3vgjr1gf2b4qbkqt48t@4ax.com>,
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:37:40 -0700, Steve Fenwick
>>> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in
>>> <nospam-858FC1.18374006102009@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>>> > Why do you even recommend a phrase made of dictionary words? Just
>>> > insert a few random non-alphabetic characters in a word and one is
>>> > way better off anyway.
>>> >
>>> > BETTER: Jul4iet&Hora!tio
>>> >
>>> > BEST: SiuOvcsdf2394DFSKJFH (and let Keychain, or your local
>>> > equivalent, remember it).
>>>
>>> Because it's much easier to enter than random characters.
>
>>[SNIP childish discourtesy]
>
>>I disagree.
>
>>One of my recommendations was for characters inserted in and around
>>dictionary words or proper names. Quite easy; been doing it for years.
>>And good practice for good password usage for other uses (e.g., web
>>sites that need a password) where long passphrases can't be used.
>
> Your BEST is too painful to be practical for most users.
> Your BETTER is no better than diceware words.
> Read up on "password entropy" and diceware (and grow up).
> To get you started:
> <http://www.gcn.com/Articles/2005/08/...r-password-NIS
> T-has-some-formulas.aspx> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diceware>
> <http://world.std.com/~reinhold/diceware.html>
> <http://world.std.com/~reinhold/dicewarefaq.html>
So I've read those pages, and it's still a mystery to me why using 4
words that *are* in a dictionary are better than: Jul4iet&Hora!tio
And why anyone needs a list to select x amount of completely unrelated
words to put in a passphrase is beyond me......
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:41:47 -0500, DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in
<Xns9C9D818DA8CDCthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.1 31>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:jkbpc5dm5e6tnvp47aja2cv1s445vqn4bh@4ax.com :
>> <http://www.gcn.com/Articles/2005/08/10/How-strong-is-your-password-NIST-has-some-formulas.aspx>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diceware>
>> <http://world.std.com/~reinhold/diceware.html>
>> <http://world.std.com/~reinhold/dicewarefaq.html>
>
>So I've read those pages, and it's still a mystery to me why using 4
>words that *are* in a dictionary are better than: Jul4iet&Hora!tio
It's "better" because it's easier for average people to use.
One of the biggest obstacles to real security is passwords too painful
for average people, resulting in frequent security lapses.
That the words are in a dictionary just means the passphrase has to be
longer for comparable key entropy.
>And why anyone needs a list to select x amount of completely unrelated
>words to put in a passphrase is beyond me......
What's important is that the words are truly random by virtue of using
dice to select them. They are not truly random if you make them up
yourself, thereby (unknowingly) reducing key entropy.
Common sense is another big obstacle to real security, how we got the
dangerously false security of WEP.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:37:40 -0700, Steve Fenwick
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <fDJym.225073$sC1.60897@newsfe17.iad>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> SUMMARY:
>>
>> WPA-PSK is vulnerable to offline attack.
>> WPA-TKIP has been cracked.
>>
>> TO AVOID THESE PROBLEMS:
>>
>> 1. USE WPA-AES or WPA2 instead of WPA-TKIP (or WEP)
>>
>> 2. USE A PASSPHRASE WITH MORE THAN 20 CHARACTERS. Examples:
>> BAD: "vintage wine"
>> GOOD: "floor hiking dirt ocean"
>> (pick your own words, even longer is better)
>> FOR HIGH SECURITY, USE MORE THAN 32 CHARACTERS.
>Why do you even recommend a phrase made of dictionary words? Just insert
>a few random non-alphabetic characters in a word and one is way better
>off anyway.
>
>BETTER: Jul4iet&Hora!tio
>
>BEST: SiuOvcsdf2394DFSKJFH (and let Keychain, or your local equivalent,
>remember it).
I promised not to get involved in any more security discussions, but
this is too much of a temptation. Methinks you're both wrong. The
pass phrase under discussion is for a pre-shared key used between
wireless access points, not a password that needs to be typed every
time the user logs in. There's no reason why the user needs to
remember this phrase, type it in more than once, or otherwise make it
easy or convenient. As long as it can't be easily cracked by brute
force, any key will work. Short keys are easier to crack by brute
force, so a minimum length (20 characters) is a good idea.
As for the degree of security, pre-shared keys suck. They can be
extracted from the Windoze registry. All the users of the system need
to know the key, so leaks are almost inevitable. Most users write
them down somewhere, which can be found. Discussing the relative
merits of how the key is generated is much like discussing whether
single cut or double cut car door keys are more secure, when the car
windows are left wide open.
For what it's worth, I use a compromise between obscurity and ease of
typing. I take a common phrase and concatenate it (join strings)
without spaces. Brute force and keyword attacks tend to rely on
knowing the word spacing. Jamming them all together makes key word
extraction far more difficult. Something like:
LittleRedRidingHood
TheQuickBrownFoxJumpedOver
IHateComputers
MaBellIsACheapMother
Incidentally, I once tested this method various password crackers.
Most could easily crack phrases with spaces, but rarely were able to
deal with 3 or more concatenated words.
<http://sectools.org/crackers.html>
Yes, it can be made more secure with additional obfuscatory
characters. No, I don't think it's worth the effort.
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:38:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote in <s3qpc51hpijcculqc0pl68toa81vpjb423@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:37:40 -0700, Steve Fenwick
><nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <fDJym.225073$sC1.60897@newsfe17.iad>,
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> 1. USE WPA-AES or WPA2 instead of WPA-TKIP (or WEP)
>>>
>>> 2. USE A PASSPHRASE WITH MORE THAN 20 CHARACTERS. Examples:
>>> BAD: "vintage wine"
>>> GOOD: "floor hiking dirt ocean"
>>> (pick your own words, even longer is better)
>>> FOR HIGH SECURITY, USE MORE THAN 32 CHARACTERS.
>
>>Why do you even recommend a phrase made of dictionary words? Just insert
>>a few random non-alphabetic characters in a word and one is way better
>>off anyway.
>>
>>BETTER: Jul4iet&Hora!tio
>>
>>BEST: SiuOvcsdf2394DFSKJFH (and let Keychain, or your local equivalent,
>>remember it).
>
>I promised not to get involved in any more security discussions, but
>this is too much of a temptation. Methinks you're both wrong.
What a shock. :)
>The
>pass phrase under discussion is for a pre-shared key used between
>wireless access points, not a password that needs to be typed every
>time the user logs in. There's no reason why the user needs to
>remember this phrase, type it in more than once, or otherwise make it
>easy or convenient.
The user needs to deal with it for each and every wireless device;
whenever wireless devices are changed; when giving access to guests; and
when changing passphrases, which should be done regularly.
>As long as it can't be easily cracked by brute
>force, any key will work. Short keys are easier to crack by brute
>force, so a minimum length (20 characters) is a good idea.
What matters is password entropy.
20 non-random keys aren't secure!
>As for the degree of security, pre-shared keys suck. They can be
>extracted from the Windoze registry. All the users of the system need
>to know the key, so leaks are almost inevitable. Most users write
>them down somewhere, which can be found.
All true.
>Discussing the relative
>merits of how the key is generated is much like discussing whether
>single cut or double cut car door keys are more secure, when the car
>windows are left wide open.
That's like saying, "Driving is dangerous even with seatbelts, so
discussing the merits of wearing seatbelts is pointless".
>For what it's worth, I use a compromise between obscurity and ease of
>typing. I take a common phrase and concatenate it (join strings)
>without spaces. Brute force and keyword attacks tend to rely on
>knowing the word spacing. Jamming them all together makes key word
>extraction far more difficult.
Sorry, but you've fallen into yet security common sense trap -- your
method is definitely _not_ secure.
>Incidentally, I once tested this method various password crackers.
>Most could easily crack phrases with spaces, but rarely were able to
>deal with 3 or more concatenated words.
><http://sectools.org/crackers.html>
That doesn't mean it can't or won't be done, and thus leads to a false
sense of security.
>Yes, it can be made more secure with additional obfuscatory
>characters. No, I don't think it's worth the effort.
Just like wearing a seatbelt?
No offense intended, but you're wrong on this one and (worse) handing
out bad advice.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
In article <jkbpc5dm5e6tnvp47aja2cv1s445vqn4bh@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:29:38 -0700, Steve Fenwick
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in
> <nospam-F0FEC0.20293806102009@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
> >In article <g42oc5t0ar68cuk3vgjr1gf2b4qbkqt48t@4ax.com>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:37:40 -0700, Steve Fenwick
> >> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in
> >> <nospam-858FC1.18374006102009@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
> >> > Why do you even recommend a phrase made of dictionary words? Just insert
> >> > a few random non-alphabetic characters in a word and one is way better
> >> > off anyway.
> >> >
> >> > BETTER: Jul4iet&Hora!tio
> >> >
> >> > BEST: SiuOvcsdf2394DFSKJFH (and let Keychain, or your local equivalent,
> >> > remember it).
> >>
> >> Because it's much easier to enter than random characters.
>
> >[SNIP childish discourtesy]
Really, John, you of the "snip to suit my point" fame?
> >I disagree.
>
> >One of my recommendations was for characters inserted in and around
> >dictionary words or proper names. Quite easy; been doing it for years.
> >And good practice for good password usage for other uses (e.g., web
> >sites that need a password) where long passphrases can't be used.
>
> Your BEST is too painful to be practical for most users.
> Your BETTER is no better than diceware words.
> Read up on "password entropy" and diceware (and grow up).
There, now you're into ad hominems. Loss of game, set, and match.
Letting a trusted source store the key is fine. How often do you really
give it out to guests?
"Better" is still better than diceware (really? Can't find that in M-W)
words, per Mr. Lieberman's comments.
Steve
--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:11:41 -0700, Steve Fenwick
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in
<nospam-43DBF0.17114007102009@news.eternal-september.org>:
>Letting a trusted source store the key is fine. How often do you really
>give it out to guests?
Never, because my wireless router has a guest service that's completely
isolated, not only from my own LAN, but with guests isolated from each
other. But that's me -- I know of quite a few friends and clients that
routinely give out their wireless passwords.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:28:40 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>I promised not to get involved in any more security discussions, but
>>this is too much of a temptation. Methinks you're both wrong.
>
>What a shock. :)
I lied. However, that's ok because nobody listens to me anyway.
>The user needs to deal with it for each and every wireless device;
>whenever wireless devices are changed; when giving access to guests; and
>when changing passphrases, which should be done regularly.
Good point. Do you know anyone that changes their wireless WPA/WPA2
phrase regularly? There's one person in ba.internet that claims he
does it for his coffee shop customers. Every time I tried to do it
with business customers, I immediately run into "support issues" and
other euphemisms for "total hell". The worst is Wireless Zero Config,
which fails to connect, announces that it has "limited connectivity"
but doesn't offer a dialog box to change the WPA pass phrase. The
only way I can make it work for WZC is to also change the SSID, so
that the user will be forced to create a new saved profile. Other
connection managers are more friendly, but just barely.
>>As long as it can't be easily cracked by brute
>>force, any key will work. Short keys are easier to crack by brute
>>force, so a minimum length (20 characters) is a good idea.
>
>What matters is password entropy.
>20 non-random keys aren't secure!
Ok, I'll bite. What's the dividing line between secure and
not-secure? Obviously, it varies by the type of customer. HIPPA
security is far more demanding than the local coffee shop. The
average home user is probably somewhere in between and closer to the
coffee shop. What metric shall I used to determine if I'm secure, or
not secure?
Note: This is a rhetorical question and somewhat of a trap. As I'm
going to hard to find for a few daze, I'll answer my own question. The
dividing line is where a casual hacker, with limited resources,
generally not in possession of a degree in computer science, and with
no pecuniary motives involved, can break in. In other words, if it's
safe from the script kiddies, it's good enough for me. Nothing is
going to stop the NSA or a determined hacker from gaining access (one
way or other).
>>As for the degree of security, pre-shared keys suck. They can be
>>extracted from the Windoze registry. All the users of the system need
>>to know the key, so leaks are almost inevitable. Most users write
>>them down somewhere, which can be found.
>
>All true.
I just looked at my own LCD monitor. There are 4 post-it notes
plastered around the edge, all with various users passwords in plain
sight. I should clean up my act.
>>Discussing the relative
>>merits of how the key is generated is much like discussing whether
>>single cut or double cut car door keys are more secure, when the car
>>windows are left wide open.
>
>That's like saying, "Driving is dangerous even with seatbelts, so
>discussing the merits of wearing seatbelts is pointless".
All analogies eventually fall apart, especially analogies of
analogies. My point is that most wireless systems are insecure in
many ways and that a more secure WPA pass phrase selection is not
going to improve overall system security very much. If want access or
sniff traffic, I don't bother cracking the WPA-PSK key. I just wire
tap the ethernet connection, which is usually exposed and unencrypted.
How many routers have a secure WPA pass phrase, but use the default
password for configuration access? For those, I just "backup" the
settings, and in about half the routers I've looked at, the WPA key is
available in plain text in the saved config file. The ones that are
compressed, usually use a common compression algorithm (usually
Huffman). Think of this as only being as secure as the weakest link.
Drivel: There was a bank near my house when I was a delinquent in
Smog Angeles. The vault door was truly impressive and formidable.
However, I noticed that one inside wall of the bank vault nothing more
than a stud wall covered with drywall and plaster. I pointed this out
to one of the bank employees, who suggested I mind my own business.
Several months later, someone rammed a stolen pickup through the back
wall, grabbed everything handy, and drove away in another car. I was
telling the story to all my friends until the police investigators
arrived asking questions about how I knew so much about the bank
construction. Oops.
>>For what it's worth, I use a compromise between obscurity and ease of
>>typing. I take a common phrase and concatenate it (join strings)
>>without spaces. Brute force and keyword attacks tend to rely on
>>knowing the word spacing. Jamming them all together makes key word
>>extraction far more difficult.
>
>Sorry, but you've fallen into yet security common sense trap -- your
>method is definitely _not_ secure.
Here we go again. Where's the border line between secure and not
secure? My method is certainly not secure enough for some
applications (i.e. HIPAA wireless), but for the average home user,
it's good enough. Where I've used it, and nailed down the other barn
doors, I haven't had any security problems beyond idiots posting the
WPA key on the office bulletin board.
>>Incidentally, I once tested this method various password crackers.
>>Most could easily crack phrases with spaces, but rarely were able to
>>deal with 3 or more concatenated words.
>><http://sectools.org/crackers.html>
>
>That doesn't mean it can't or won't be done, and thus leads to a false
>sense of security.
I think the common phrase is "It's not the odds, it's the risks". That
was the catch phrase for Y2K bugs, which were never a real problem.
Certainly, a qualified hacker, mathemagician, or aspiring criminal
gang, can crack just about anything. There's always a risk of code
and cipher cracking. However, in my humble opinion, it's a far
smaller risk than social engineering, scripted exploits, bad password
management, and simple leaks. Optimizing the password generation
algorithm will have no effect on either the odds or the risks, as the
other security problems are far greater.
>>Yes, it can be made more secure with additional obfuscatory
>>characters. No, I don't think it's worth the effort.
>
>Just like wearing a seatbelt?
Instead of wearing a seat belt, I'm wearing a bungi cord. While not
effective for a small number of high risk collisions, it's totally
effective for just about anything under about 15 mph, where something
like 90% of the accidents occur.
>No offense intended, but you're wrong on this one and (worse) handing
>out bad advice.
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:13:12 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote in <38rqc55mu56ihdajq24hj1qemki4sqdpph@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:28:40 -0700, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>The user needs to deal with it for each and every wireless device;
>>whenever wireless devices are changed; when giving access to guests; and
>>when changing passphrases, which should be done regularly.
>
>Good point. Do you know anyone that changes their wireless WPA/WPA2
>phrase regularly?
I'm the only one I know! You? ;)
>There's one person in ba.internet that claims he
>does it for his coffee shop customers. Every time I tried to do it
>with business customers, I immediately run into "support issues" and
>other euphemisms for "total hell". The worst is Wireless Zero Config,
>which fails to connect, announces that it has "limited connectivity"
>but doesn't offer a dialog box to change the WPA pass phrase. The
>only way I can make it work for WZC is to also change the SSID, so
>that the user will be forced to create a new saved profile. Other
>connection managers are more friendly, but just barely.
Yep, it's ugly, part of why I push WPA2 Enterprise, which minimizes the
damage of a compromised password (but is too much hassle for most -- I'd
really like to see a PEAP server in DD-WRT).
>>What matters is password entropy.
>>20 non-random keys aren't secure!
>
>Ok, I'll bite. What's the dividing line between secure and
>not-secure? Obviously, it varies by the type of customer. HIPPA
>security is far more demanding than the local coffee shop. The
>average home user is probably somewhere in between and closer to the
>coffee shop. What metric shall I used to determine if I'm secure, or
>not secure?
<http://world.std.com/~reinhold/dicewarefaq.html#howlong>
I personally use seven (7) diceware words, although
I agree with the five (5) word recommendation for most users.
>Note: This is a rhetorical question and somewhat of a trap. As I'm
>going to hard to find for a few daze, I'll answer my own question. The
>dividing line is where a casual hacker, with limited resources,
>generally not in possession of a degree in computer science, and with
>no pecuniary motives involved, can break in. In other words, if it's
>safe from the script kiddies, it's good enough for me. Nothing is
>going to stop the NSA or a determined hacker from gaining access (one
>way or other).
The problem is that cracking tools are widely available, and it's
dangerous to assume your "script kiddies" don't have access to serious
cracking tools. It's also so easy to have more robust security (e.g.,
my 7 diceware words) that I don't think it makes sense (cost/benefit) to
compromise.
>I just looked at my own LCD monitor. There are 4 post-it notes
>plastered around the edge, all with various users passwords in plain
>sight. I should clean up my act.
I use Password Safe, created by noted cryptographer Bruce Schneier,
free, open source, and highly recommended.
>>That's like saying, "Driving is dangerous even with seatbelts, so
>>discussing the merits of wearing seatbelts is pointless".
>
>All analogies eventually fall apart, especially analogies of
>analogies. My point is that most wireless systems are insecure in
>many ways and that a more secure WPA pass phrase selection is not
>going to improve overall system security very much. If want access or
>sniff traffic, I don't bother cracking the WPA-PSK key. I just wire
>tap the ethernet connection, which is usually exposed and unencrypted.
>How many routers have a secure WPA pass phrase, but use the default
>password for configuration access? For those, I just "backup" the
>settings, and in about half the routers I've looked at, the WPA key is
>available in plain text in the saved config file. The ones that are
>compressed, usually use a common compression algorithm (usually
>Huffman). Think of this as only being as secure as the weakest link.
"Security is a process." -Bruce Schneier
>... My method is certainly not secure enough for some
>applications (i.e. HIPAA wireless), but for the average home user,
>it's good enough. Where I've used it, and nailed down the other barn
>doors, I haven't had any security problems beyond idiots posting the
>WPA key on the office bulletin board.
That you know of!
And "past performance is not indicative of future results"!
>I think the common phrase is "It's not the odds, it's the risks". That
>was the catch phrase for Y2K bugs, which were never a real problem.
>Certainly, a qualified hacker, mathemagician, or aspiring criminal
>gang, can crack just about anything. There's always a risk of code
>and cipher cracking. However, in my humble opinion, it's a far
>smaller risk than social engineering, scripted exploits, bad password
>management, and simple leaks. Optimizing the password generation
>algorithm will have no effect on either the odds or the risks, as the
>other security problems are far greater.
With all due respect, that's not valid -- risk is the _product_ of all
the risk factors, not a limit, so improving any one factor _does_ have a
material effect on security. So by all means pay attention to the
biggest risk factors, but don't use that as an excuse to ignore cheap
and easy improvements to other risk factors.
>>No offense intended, but you're wrong on this one and (worse) handing
>>out bad advice.
>
>I'll stand on my (bad) advice.
Even though you lack security expertise? ;)
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:22:41 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>Do you know anyone that changes their wireless WPA/WPA2
>>phrase regularly?
>
>I'm the only one I know! You? ;)
Not me. Worse, I tend to use the same WPA pass phrase on multiple
systems. Recycling passwords is generally a lousy idea. However, the
systems I've seen that really do require good wireless security seem
to favor VPN's and S-key dongles. Employees have a credit card size
key generator. They login with the usual user name and intentionally
trivial password. It then asks for the number displayed on the credit
card one time key generator. Wireless access is literally wide open
as the real security is through the VPN tunnel. Also works well at
home, in a coffee shop, and at the office.
>Yep, it's ugly, part of why I push WPA2 Enterprise, which minimizes the
>damage of a compromised password (but is too much hassle for most -- I'd
>really like to see a PEAP server in DD-WRT).
Right. However, I don't think you'll see it in the RAM limited WRT54G
implementations. It's also the type of feature that Brainslayer will
probably add to the commercial version of DD-WRT. I'm still tempted
to do it myself, as we previously discussed, but lack the time and
inspiration. (I also lack the talent, but we won't go there).
>>What metric shall I used to determine if I'm secure, or
>>not secure?
>
><http://world.std.com/~reinhold/dicewarefaq.html#howlong>
>I personally use seven (7) diceware words, although
>I agree with the five (5) word recommendation for most users.
Wrong answer. That's a good measure of how secure is the password.
That's important but is only a component of how secure I am, or how
secure is my system? It doesn't matter how many deadbolts I install
on my front door. If I leave the back door or windows wide open, I'm
not secure, and neither is my system.
>The problem is that cracking tools are widely available, and it's
>dangerous to assume your "script kiddies" don't have access to serious
>cracking tools.
Sure, but if my password key management system is the typical
pre-shared key mess, where everyone in the company knows the password,
the availability of cracking tools doesn't do much. A cracker would
do as well just borrowing a laptop, extracting the hashed WPA key out
of the registry, and using the hash code to connect and decrypt
sniffed traffic. For typed in passwords, a video camera or binoculars
works well for finger hacking.
>It's also so easy to have more robust security (e.g.,
>my 7 diceware words) that I don't think it makes sense (cost/benefit) to
>compromise.
Again, you're only securing the password. I'm talking about securing
the entire password system, including distribution. A better password
doesn't do much when the distribution system leaks badly.
>>I just looked at my own LCD monitor. There are 4 post-it notes
>>plastered around the edge, all with various users passwords in plain
>>sight. I should clean up my act.
>
>I use Password Safe, created by noted cryptographer Bruce Schneier,
>free, open source, and highly recommended.
I use an Excel spreadsheet and a USB dongle. The dongle is encrypted.
Perhaps if I added an explosive device, I might further enhance the
security.
>"Security is a process." -Bruce Schneier
Yep. Exactly my point. Think of it this way.... If you were to break
into a typical office or home wireless system, would you attack the
strongest point, which is the encryption? I wouldn't. I would look
for the weakest point, which is (IMHO) the password key management.
That can usually be compromised with social engineering or post-it
notes.
>>I haven't had any security problems beyond idiots posting the
>>WPA key on the office bulletin board.
>
>That you know of!
>And "past performance is not indicative of future results"!
True. Detection intrusions is difficult. I've gone so far as to
leave messages on people Windoze desktops announcing that I've broken
into their machines (usually via open shares) and they don't notice.
Like most companies, when a breaking does occur, they patch the
problem, and blunder onward in the same manner as before. When my
crystal ball is able to predict future results, I'll stop relying on
my past performance as an indicator. Meanwhile, it's all I have to
work with.
>With all due respect, that's not valid -- risk is the _product_ of all
>the risk factors, not a limit, so improving any one factor _does_ have a
>material effect on security.
Play it by the numbers. There's little difference in overall security
between a 1 part per million and a 1 part per billion chance in
cracking a password, when the same system has a one chance in 100 of
being cracked by social engineering, shared password management, and
just plain sloppiness. Once the password security component has
become sufficiently small, additional efforts to make it even smaller
have a negligible effect on overall probability of cracking the
system.
>So by all means pay attention to the
>biggest risk factors, but don't use that as an excuse to ignore cheap
>and easy improvements to other risk factors.
I wouldn't call it an excuse. I would suggest it's a logical
calculation based upon probability of having the system compromised by
various means. Despite the availability of cracker tools and
monitoring hardware, the few real wi-fi breakins that I've seen were
perpetrated by means other than sniffing and cracking. Most common
are well known WPA-PSK keys. For the home user, it's the post it note
on the router with the WPA key included.
>>>No offense intended, but you're wrong on this one and (worse) handing
>>>out bad advice.
>>
>>I'll stand on my (bad) advice.
>
>Even though you lack security expertise? ;)
Please note that I'm not directly offering advice. I charge for that.
I simply expounded on what *I* do for security and explained why *I*
do it that way. I won't claim expertise, but I do claim some useful
experience. After all, I've never attended a security convention, am
not on any of the security related mailing lists, and don't read the
security proceedings.
Next time we get into a security discussion, remind me to stay out of
it.
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:45:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote in <4i3sc5d62e459o62no9gj2pmnppklkofp9@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:22:41 -0700, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>Do you know anyone that changes their wireless WPA/WPA2
>>>phrase regularly?
>>
>>I'm the only one I know! You? ;)
>
>Not me. Worse, I tend to use the same WPA pass phrase on multiple
>systems. Recycling passwords is generally a lousy idea. However, the
>systems I've seen that really do require good wireless security seem
>to favor VPN's and S-key dongles. Employees have a credit card size
>key generator. They login with the usual user name and intentionally
>trivial password. It then asks for the number displayed on the credit
>card one time key generator. Wireless access is literally wide open
>as the real security is through the VPN tunnel. Also works well at
>home, in a coffee shop, and at the office.
It's a great system, but of course impractical for average folks, SOHO,
and most small businesses.
>>Yep, it's ugly, part of why I push WPA2 Enterprise, which minimizes the
>>damage of a compromised password (but is too much hassle for most -- I'd
>>really like to see a PEAP server in DD-WRT).
>
>Right. However, I don't think you'll see it in the RAM limited WRT54G
>implementations. It's also the type of feature that Brainslayer will
>probably add to the commercial version of DD-WRT. I'm still tempted
>to do it myself, as we previously discussed, but lack the time and
>inspiration. (I also lack the talent, but we won't go there).
I'm tempted to do it myself -- doubt it would be all that hard, and
WRT54GL with that firmware would be a great product IMHO -- but don't
want to end up competing with Brainslayer.
>><http://world.std.com/~reinhold/dicewarefaq.html#howlong>
>>I personally use seven (7) diceware words, although
>>I agree with the five (5) word recommendation for most users.
>
>Wrong answer. That's a good measure of how secure is the password.
>That's important but is only a component of how secure I am, or how
>secure is my system? It doesn't matter how many deadbolts I install
>on my front door. If I leave the back door or windows wide open, I'm
>not secure, and neither is my system.
To repeat what I wrote earlier...
With all due respect, that's not valid -- risk is the _product_ of all
risk factors, not a limit, so improving any one factor _does_ have a
material effect on security. So by all means pay attention to the
biggest risk factors, but don't use that as an excuse to ignore cheap
and easy improvements to other risk factors.
>>>I just looked at my own LCD monitor. There are 4 post-it notes
>>>plastered around the edge, all with various users passwords in plain
>>>sight. I should clean up my act.
>>
>>I use Password Safe, created by noted cryptographer Bruce Schneier,
>>free, open source, and highly recommended.
>
>I use an Excel spreadsheet and a USB dongle. The dongle is encrypted.
>Perhaps if I added an explosive device, I might further enhance the
>security.
How good is the encryption? Is it really secure? How do you know it's
not just another WEP? I personally don't trust security that hasn't
been vetted by peer review or at least a genuine expert.
>>With all due respect, that's not valid -- risk is the _product_ of all
>>the risk factors, not a limit, so improving any one factor _does_ have a
>>material effect on security.
>
>Play it by the numbers. There's little difference in overall security
>between a 1 part per million and a 1 part per billion chance in
>cracking a password, when the same system has a one chance in 100 of
>being cracked by social engineering, shared password management, and
>just plain sloppiness. Once the password security component has
>become sufficiently small, additional efforts to make it even smaller
>have a negligible effect on overall probability of cracking the
>system.
I respectfully disagree. You're assuming a perfect attack, something
that rarely happens in practice. A burglar may well be turned away by a
securely bolted front door even when the back door is standing ajar, or
even by a fake security system sign. Again, you're applying "common
sense" and making critical assumptions without any real foundation, the
kind of thinking that lead to WEP.
>>So by all means pay attention to the
>>biggest risk factors, but don't use that as an excuse to ignore cheap
>>and easy improvements to other risk factors.
>
>I wouldn't call it an excuse. ...
Would you prefer "rationalization"? ;)
>... I won't claim expertise, but I do claim some useful
>experience. ...
With all due respect, anecdotal experience isn't a good foundation.
I know lots of smokers that haven't died (yet).
That doesn't make it a good idea.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:28:40 -0700, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> As for the degree of security, pre-shared keys suck. They can be
>>> extracted from the Windoze registry. All the users of the system need
>>> to know the key, so leaks are almost inevitable. Most users write
>>> them down somewhere, which can be found.
>> All true.
Not at all.
Windows registry - not on my linux network.
Users need to know - er, no - I set up all the clients.
write them down - users don't know the key so...
>>> Discussing the relative
>>> merits of how the key is generated is much like discussing whether
>>> single cut or double cut car door keys are more secure, when the car
>>> windows are left wide open.
>> That's like saying, "Driving is dangerous even with seatbelts, so
>> discussing the merits of wearing seatbelts is pointless".
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:45:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
> wrote in <4i3sc5d62e459o62no9gj2pmnppklkofp9@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:22:41 -0700, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Do you know anyone that changes their wireless WPA/WPA2
>>>> phrase regularly?
>>> I'm the only one I know! You? ;)
>> Not me. Worse, I tend to use the same WPA pass phrase on multiple
>> systems. Recycling passwords is generally a lousy idea. However, the
>> systems I've seen that really do require good wireless security seem
>> to favor VPN's and S-key dongles. Employees have a credit card size
>> key generator. They login with the usual user name and intentionally
>> trivial password. It then asks for the number displayed on the credit
>> card one time key generator. Wireless access is literally wide open
>> as the real security is through the VPN tunnel. Also works well at
>> home, in a coffee shop, and at the office.
>
> It's a great system, but of course impractical for average folks, SOHO,
> and most small businesses.
Here we go again; I remember getting reamed last year in this exact same
discussion for suggesting the wide-open WAP with VPN as a cheap and easy
solution (I've been doing it for years and it ain't rocket science) and
for promoting it in the newsgroups. Thanks Jeff for making your point.
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
In article <wcQzm.12807$Ca6.11589@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>,
Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote:
> Not at all.
> Windows registry - not on my linux network.
> Users need to know - er, no - I set up all the clients.
> write them down - users don't know the key so...
That's an interesting micro-managed approach; what happens if you get
the swine flu, or get run over by a bus? Or your user loses his
connection and has to log in at 3 am, what? He wakes you up?
Nice long obscure alpha-numeric passwords written down on stickies _is_
in fact good IT security. Physical security is someone else's problem,
as is social security.
--
Suddenly he realized that he was alone
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
-- Chester Himes
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 08:44:57 -0400, Warren Oates
<warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <wcQzm.12807$Ca6.11589@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>,
> Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> Not at all.
>> Windows registry - not on my linux network.
>> Users need to know - er, no - I set up all the clients.
>> write them down - users don't know the key so...
>
>That's an interesting micro-managed approach; what happens if you get
>the swine flu, or get run over by a bus? Or your user loses his
>connection and has to log in at 3 am, what? He wakes you up?
Press the reset button and set up a new key of keys to give to the
users.
When I did that sort of thing for a living on mainframes, I made sure
that the DP manager had a copy of the necessary password(s) locked in
his filing cabinet. You have to trust somebody. If I got run over by
the bus, my replacement always had access to what was needed, if he
could do his job - whether it was a VM sysgen or an directory update.
The worst thing is to force users to change passwords regularly.
At one place I worked the security manager knew all about it in theory
but not in practice.
Because the company business including field systems, sales and
marketing were all on MVS he enforced new passwords every month that
hadn't been used previously. End result: everybody wrote their
password down somewhere, usually on their white boards.
He tried to extend this to the internal email system (also on MVS).
After three failed attempts to log on the ID would get suspended and
you had to phone corporate security to get it reset.
It took the workforce logging onto the CEO's ID with invalid passwords
before they got their act together.
>Nice long obscure alpha-numeric passwords written down on stickies _is_
>in fact good IT security. Physical security is someone else's problem,
>as is social security.
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:45:39 -0500, msg <msg@_cybertheque.org_> wrote in
<lJWdnZvHvpESRVLXnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@posted.cpinterne t>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:45:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>> wrote in <4i3sc5d62e459o62no9gj2pmnppklkofp9@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:22:41 -0700, John Navas
>>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Do you know anyone that changes their wireless WPA/WPA2
>>>>> phrase regularly?
>>>> I'm the only one I know! You? ;)
>>> Not me. Worse, I tend to use the same WPA pass phrase on multiple
>>> systems. Recycling passwords is generally a lousy idea. However, the
>>> systems I've seen that really do require good wireless security seem
>>> to favor VPN's and S-key dongles. Employees have a credit card size
>>> key generator. They login with the usual user name and intentionally
>>> trivial password. It then asks for the number displayed on the credit
>>> card one time key generator. Wireless access is literally wide open
>>> as the real security is through the VPN tunnel. Also works well at
>>> home, in a coffee shop, and at the office.
>>
>> It's a great system, but of course impractical for average folks, SOHO,
>> and most small businesses.
>
>Here we go again; I remember getting reamed last year in this exact same
>discussion for suggesting the wide-open WAP with VPN as a cheap and easy
>solution (I've been doing it for years and it ain't rocket science) and
>for promoting it in the newsgroups. Thanks Jeff for making your point.
That only works if non-VPN is blocked.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:04:43 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in
<wcQzm.12807$Ca6.11589@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:28:40 -0700, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> As for the degree of security, pre-shared keys suck. They can be
>>>> extracted from the Windoze registry. All the users of the system need
>>>> to know the key, so leaks are almost inevitable. Most users write
>>>> them down somewhere, which can be found.
>
>>> All true.
>
>Not at all.
>Windows registry - not on my linux network.
>Users need to know - er, no - I set up all the clients.
>write them down - users don't know the key so...
So the keys are still there on all client systems, and thus insecure.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 08:44:57 -0400, Warren Oates
<warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote in
<0117907d$0$30010$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>:
>Nice long obscure alpha-numeric passwords written down on stickies _is_
>in fact good IT security. ...
Most (all?) security experts would strongly disagree.
It's one of the most common methods of compromise.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:41:00 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote in
<3t21d5h91fsf69s11vg1vl9ec0u2lcn7ck@4ax.com>:
>The worst thing is to force users to change passwords regularly.
I respectfully disagree. If passwords aren't changed regularly, then
compromise is much more likely. Better to get rid of passwords
altogether, and use some better means of authentication. That's
assuming security is at all important. ;)
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:41:00 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
> <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
> <3t21d5h91fsf69s11vg1vl9ec0u2lcn7ck@4ax.com>:
>
>>The worst thing is to force users to change passwords regularly.
>
> I respectfully disagree. If passwords aren't changed regularly, then
> compromise is much more likely. Better to get rid of passwords
> altogether, and use some better means of authentication. That's
> assuming security is at all important. ;)
Why exactly, and "because everyone does it" is not an answer, nor is
"recommended by security experts". I need a logical explanation for
why "compromise is much more likely".
Now I can understand one time passwords increase security, but if
someone really wants to crack my password, changing it on a monthly
basis will not really make it that much more difficult, they have a
*month* to crack it.
I choose different random character passwords for each site and store
them in an encrypted file. One of my pet peeves is that most sites
don't tell you what the valid characters are for passwords.
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:13:19 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Peters
<jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
>One of my pet peeves is that most sites
>don't tell you what the valid characters are for passwords.
For WPA, it's in IEEE Std. 802.11i-2004, Annex H.4.1
- A pass-phrase is a sequence of between 8 and 63 ASCII-encoded
characters. The limit of 63 comes from the desire to distinguish
between a pass-phrase and a PSK displayed as 64 hexadecimal
characters.
- Each character in the pass-phrase must have an encoding in
the range of 32 to 126 (decimal), inclusive.
See an ASCII table at:
<http://www.asciitable.com>
for what ASCII 32 to 126 allows. One catch. There are a few WPA
clients that can't seem to deal with some symbols. I've blundered
into problems with $ @ & and \ on various routers, but not at the same
time. It also seems to change with firmware version. My guess is
that it seems to have something to do with HTML encoding.
Incidentally, it also offers:
A pass-phrase typically has about 2.5 bits of security per
character, so the pass-phrase mapping converts an n octet
password into a key with about 2.5n + 12 bits of security.
Hence, it provides a relatively low level of security,
with keys generated from short passwords subject to
dictionary attack. Use of the key hash is recommended
only where it is impractical to make use of a stronger
form of user authentication. A key generated from a
pass-phrase of less than about 20 characters is unlikely
to deter attacks.
Methinks that's where the 20 character min WPA key came from.
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:13:19 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Peters
<jerry@example.invalid> wrote in
<hathpf$iff$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:41:00 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>> <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
>> <3t21d5h91fsf69s11vg1vl9ec0u2lcn7ck@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>The worst thing is to force users to change passwords regularly.
>>
>> I respectfully disagree. If passwords aren't changed regularly, then
>> compromise is much more likely. Better to get rid of passwords
>> altogether, and use some better means of authentication. That's
>> assuming security is at all important. ;)
>
>Why exactly, and "because everyone does it" is not an answer, nor is
>"recommended by security experts". I need a logical explanation for
>why "compromise is much more likely".
People tend to use the same password for more than one thing, and when
one gets compromised, all are compromised, and the longer that
compromised password is in use, the more likely the compromise. The
better systems for regular changing prevent people from reusing
passwords.
>Now I can understand one time passwords increase security, but if
>someone really wants to crack my password, changing it on a monthly
>basis will not really make it that much more difficult, they have a
>*month* to crack it.
Actually a variable amount of time, 1/2 month on average. But the real
issue is that they may well have much longer than that -- I've got a
friend that's been using the same password for pretty much everything
for several years.
>I choose different random character passwords for each site and store
If you choose them, then they aren't random.
To ensure randomness, use a good generator.
>them in an encrypted file.
How good is the encryption? There are many encryption systems with
serious failings, WEP being a classic case in point.
I personally use Password Safe, free open source software created by
noted cryptographer Bruce Schneier, where the encryption has been
subjected to serious peer review.
>One of my pet peeves is that most sites
>don't tell you what the valid characters are for passwords.
I don't see that as a serious issue. I have the generator in Password
Safe configured to generate easy to use passwords that are usable in any
system. To (over)compensate for the somewhat lower character entropy of
not using all possible characters (just dissimilar upper and lower
letters and numeric digits), I use longer (12 random characters)
passwords.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:13:19 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Peters
> <jerry@example.invalid> wrote in
> <hathpf$iff$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:41:00 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>>> <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
>>> <3t21d5h91fsf69s11vg1vl9ec0u2lcn7ck@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>>The worst thing is to force users to change passwords regularly.
>>>
>>> I respectfully disagree. If passwords aren't changed regularly, then
>>> compromise is much more likely. Better to get rid of passwords
>>> altogether, and use some better means of authentication. That's
>>> assuming security is at all important. ;)
>>
>>Why exactly, and "because everyone does it" is not an answer, nor is
>>"recommended by security experts". I need a logical explanation for
>>why "compromise is much more likely".
>
> People tend to use the same password for more than one thing, and when
> one gets compromised, all are compromised, and the longer that
> compromised password is in use, the more likely the compromise. The
> better systems for regular changing prevent people from reusing
> passwords.
>
At one company I worked at we had 3 or 4 different logins; most people
very carefully synchronized password expirations so that all
passwords were the same. Especially true when some of the passwords
are not used everyday, BTW.
That's why I use different passwords for each site, and also why I
need to store them.
>>Now I can understand one time passwords increase security, but if
>>someone really wants to crack my password, changing it on a monthly
>>basis will not really make it that much more difficult, they have a
>>*month* to crack it.
>
> Actually a variable amount of time, 1/2 month on average. But the real
> issue is that they may well have much longer than that -- I've got a
> friend that's been using the same password for pretty much everything
> for several years.
>
Yep, haven't changed the password on *my* machines in more than a
decade, why would I?
>>I choose different random character passwords for each site and store
>
> If you choose them, then they aren't random.
> To ensure randomness, use a good generator.
>
The point is that they aren't words in a dictionary, they aren't
anything related to me like birthday, phone number, licence plate
number, pet names, etc.
>>them in an encrypted file.
>
> How good is the encryption? There are many encryption systems with
> serious failings, WEP being a classic case in point.
>
Program called keepass. Should be good enough for my purposes.
> I personally use Password Safe, free open source software created by
> noted cryptographer Bruce Schneier, where the encryption has been
> subjected to serious peer review.
>
>>One of my pet peeves is that most sites
>>don't tell you what the valid characters are for passwords.
>
> I don't see that as a serious issue. I have the generator in Password
> Safe configured to generate easy to use passwords that are usable in any
> system. To (over)compensate for the somewhat lower character entropy of
> not using all possible characters (just dissimilar upper and lower
> letters and numeric digits), I use longer (12 random characters)
> passwords.
But what happens if you randomizer generates all alpha characters and
the site requires at least 2 numerics? It gets especially frustrating
with poorly coded web-sites that lose all or part of the already
entered info.
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:13:19 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Peters
> <jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>>One of my pet peeves is that most sites
>>don't tell you what the valid characters are for passwords.
>
> For WPA, it's in IEEE Std. 802.11i-2004, Annex H.4.1
> - A pass-phrase is a sequence of between 8 and 63 ASCII-encoded
> characters. The limit of 63 comes from the desire to distinguish
> between a pass-phrase and a PSK displayed as 64 hexadecimal
> characters.
> - Each character in the pass-phrase must have an encoding in
> the range of 32 to 126 (decimal), inclusive.
>
> See an ASCII table at:
> <http://www.asciitable.com>
> for what ASCII 32 to 126 allows. One catch. There are a few WPA
> clients that can't seem to deal with some symbols. I've blundered
> into problems with $ @ & and \ on various routers, but not at the same
> time. It also seems to change with firmware version. My guess is
> that it seems to have something to do with HTML encoding.
>
> Incidentally, it also offers:
> A pass-phrase typically has about 2.5 bits of security per
> character, so the pass-phrase mapping converts an n octet
> password into a key with about 2.5n + 12 bits of security.
> Hence, it provides a relatively low level of security,
> with keys generated from short passwords subject to
> dictionary attack. Use of the key hash is recommended
> only where it is impractical to make use of a stronger
> form of user authentication. A key generated from a
> pass-phrase of less than about 20 characters is unlikely
> to deter attacks.
>
> Methinks that's where the 20 character min WPA key came from.
>
I was thinking more about various and sundry web sites for which I
need a password. Unless the username is your email address they also
rarely tell you the requirements for it, until you try to use a
character like an underscore and get an error message. A really bad
web site clears all of your entered data when it produces an error
message too.
My WPA key is somewhere around 60 characters long, produced by random
typing on the keyboard, then editting the result by changing some
character to upper case & replacing others by special characters.
If I need it, it's in a file & I can copy & paste it as needed.
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
Jerry Peters wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:41:00 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>> <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
>> <3t21d5h91fsf69s11vg1vl9ec0u2lcn7ck@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> The worst thing is to force users to change passwords regularly.
>> I respectfully disagree. If passwords aren't changed regularly, then
>> compromise is much more likely.
>
> Why exactly, and "because everyone does it" is not an answer, nor is
> "recommended by security experts". I need a logical explanation for
> why "compromise is much more likely".
Mainly, IMHO, because the longer a password remains unchanged, the more
chance there is of more than one person knowing it (think shared
accounts, people going on holiday and telling a workmate, support staff
getting told to help solve a problem), not to mention someone observing
it being typed.
> I choose different random character passwords for each site and store
> them in an encrypted file. One of my pet peeves is that most sites
> don't tell you what the valid characters are for passwords.
I came across a site recently that _required_ /two/ non-alphanumeric
characters. I ask you. These morons have clearly never heard of non-US
keyboards.
Re: ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead
Security and convenience are at opposite ends of a sliding scale. The
more secure a system is the less convenient it is to use and vice versa.
For most people the goal is to strike a balance somewhere in the middle.
Of course, good algorithms and good design are needed for predictable
results.
- Nate >>
--
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds,
the pessimist fears this is true."
ALERT: WPA-TKIP isn't secure - use WPA2 instead 
Linear Mode
