Thanks all for the replies. I've done the RTM thing and have one question. If the network.opts file doesn't identify the ray_cs module as having a key, then how do I find out what it is supposed to be? Or, more to the point, how can I validate the claim that it does have 56 or 128 encryption. And if it doesn't, is it any good at all?
Adam Shand wrote: > > > Suggestion: don't trust WEP. It's another layer of obscurity, but > > it's designed wrong and not at all secure. Some past articles on /. > > have links to papers by people who've broken WEP. I wouldn't trust it > > to keep my spare change secure. > > sorry i have to speak up, i'm no huge lover of wep but that's due to > limitations in it's shared key architecture which makes it useless for > community networking [1] (what i do in my spare time :-). two things: > > * wep is effective at doing what it was designed to provide, "wired > equivelent privacy". this means that all it was supposed to do was > provide the same level of privacy as normal cat5 did. > > * at this point of the exploits are theoretical and none of them are > trivial (requiring significant amounts of time, disk space and techincal > sophistication). i have never heard of the wep exploits actually > appearing "in the wild" and heard contradictory stories of them every > being fully and sucessfully demonstrated in the lab. > > i'm not saying wep is great, but so long as you're careful about keeping > your key secret, choose a non-obvious essid and you're not a likely target > (eg. you're not the pentagon or amazon.com) i'd feel fairly comfortable > relying on wep to keep intruders away from my wireless network. > > adam. > > [1] http://www.personaltelco.net/ > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
