Access list vs WEP

smee

smee

smee

Associate
Joined
25 Nov 2004
Posts
166
Location
london
Hi all
I have WNR854T Netgear router and was considering Channing the present setup of WEP to just have Assess list of connectible devices. Any thought on the positives vs negatives of doing this.

I'm not a security worrier so thinking that just the access list would be enough. For if someones going to hack you even 128bit WEP can still be done. And maybe removing the encryption would lessen the work of the router.

Any thougths.

Many thanks.
 
Neither are any good. Rubbish:

- WEP
- MAC filtering
- Hiding the SSID

Does the device support WPA/2? That is the only security measures worth using

- Pea0n
 
I'm not trying to stop the top hacker, and think there's lot bigger fish in the sea than me. but just stoping the average user.
 
smee said:
I'm not trying to stop the top hacker, and think there's lot bigger fish in the sea than me. but just stoping the average user.
Click to expand...

It's not so much the hacker after your details, as the paedophile/terrorist down the street who downloaded an app that can crack WEP within 5 seconds at the push of a button. Guess who'll be getting their door put off its hinges next week? (Hint: It's not the paedo/terrorist/whatever). :p
 
I'd recommend WPA2 + MAC filter + hidden SSID + Shortening the re-authentication interval.
Still won't stop a determined hacker but it'll hopefully provide enough sequential annoyances that they'll get ****ed off and give up before they make it through them all.
 
Skidilliplop said:
I'd recommend WPA2 + MAC filter + hidden SSID + Shortening the re-authentication interval.
Still won't stop a determined hacker but it'll hopefully provide enough sequential annoyances that they'll get ****ed off and give up before they make it through them all.
Click to expand...

Waste of time - Just use WPA2. Nothing more is needed. If they can crack your WPA2 passcode then having the SSID hidden in the first place is pointless as they have found it, MAC filtering is a waste because they will have sniffed some packets and gained a valid MAC address anyway.

Shortening the key lifetime could help but realistically still not worth it

- Pea0n
 
Pea0n said:
Waste of time - Just use WPA2. Nothing more is needed. If they can crack your WPA2 passcode then having the SSID hidden in the first place is pointless as they have found it, MAC filtering is a waste because they will have sniffed some packets and gained a valid MAC address anyway.

Shortening the key lifetime could help but realistically still not worth it

- Pea0n
Click to expand...

Maybe, never hurts to have more security than less.
Plus Access control and encryption arn't the same thing. WPA doesn't stop people you've given the WPA key to and subsequently don't want to re-connect, or wish to apply time of day restrictions to from connecting. This is something you can only do from an ACL


On some routers you can also adjust the output power to reduce the range of the router to give coverage just where you want it and not much further. whether THAT router supports it I have no idea.
 
Skidilliplop said:
Maybe, never hurts to have more security than less.
Plus Access control and encryption arn't the same thing. WPA doesn't stop people you've given the WPA key to and subsequently don't want to re-connect, or wish to apply time of day restrictions to from connecting. This is something you can only do from an ACL
Click to expand...

Which they can easily spoof - just change the key

Skidilliplop said:
On some routers you can also adjust the output power to reduce the range of the router to give coverage just where you want it and not much further. whether THAT router supports it I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Could do but again if therers WPA2 on it, waste of time - even if they could see it they cant get in :)

- Pea0n
 
Really shouldn't be arguments over this point :p

What possible disadvantage is there to adding high security to your network at the expense of ticking a couple of boxes, assuming your devices support it and most do.
 
Inconvenience and lack of necessity ;) I wouldn't want to have to log into the router to start adding MAC addresses when a mate brings his new phone over etc. It isnt that extra security is bad, its just thats its 100% pointless in this instance. Anybody who could crack WPA/WPA2 isnt going to in any way flumoxed by a MAC filter or hidden SSID.

etc. etc. etc.

Anyway as PJ/bop says - just use a cable :p

- Pea0n
 
Pea0n said:
Inconvenience and lack of necessity ;) I wouldn't want to have to log into the router to start adding MAC addresses when a mate brings his new phone over etc. It isnt that extra security is bad, its just thats its 100% pointless in this instance. Anybody who could crack WPA/WPA2 isnt going to in any way flumoxed by a MAC filter or hidden SSID.

etc. etc. etc.

Anyway as PJ/bop says - just use a cable :p

- Pea0n
Click to expand...

MAC address filtering isn't what I meant by high security, I purely meant WPA2 and agree filtering/ssid hiding are somewhat of an inconvenience and waste of time :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom