REDUCING Range

I think we can all agree that DES is a pretty lame system. It was the

system that the American government was trying to get it?s citizens

to use. Why? Because it?s easy for them to hack and you can therefore

have no secrets from big brother.

Now thanks to advanced in home processing power it?s now easy for

most people to crack. I even have a book at home called ?Cracking

DES?, can?t remember the author. But it a good read.

I know very little about STUs but if they use DES then I would suggest

removing the outer panel to initiate the self destruct. It?s the

right thing to do.

Patt, would it be fair to say you have an unwavering faith in WPA? I

wonder if you had the same opinion on WEP a few years ago, or indeed if

you will have the same faith in WPA a few years from now.

Please, explain the two things which I obviously do not understand; >1) How does she enter my RF network via her RF network.

With a WiFi card connected to a computer. Now interestingly, if you

were out of range and she could not get within range then she would not

even be able to begin hacking your network. What a great idea, IMHO.

2) Even though she can see my packets, how can does extract my credit

number from them.

When you credit card info is sent from one machine to another or when

you make an online purchase etc. Also if you store your card info on

your PC and it?s hacked then your card number can be read.

Think about my argument of lowering the power output of my WiFi

equipment as a form of steganography, an age old and still practiced

method of securing information by hiding it. Can you see the advantage

in that?

OK, now for me desperately trying to get this thread back on track, and

I hope concluding it.

Having now taken delivery of my router I?ve now answered my own

question.

Yes. It is possible ?on some routers? to reduce the power output.

The D-Link router I have (DI-624) does have about 5 settings for power

output ranging from 12.5% to 100%. Unfortunately it still manages to

reach the main road outside my flat but perhaps some of Jeff?s WiFi

wallpaper mentioned earlier can fix this ;)

I feel somewhat compelled to respond after reading everyone's rants here. I wont change anyone's mind but think an uninterested third party's input may be of some use. The basic philosophical foundation for securing any network is to use a "defense-in-depth" or "layered-security" approach. This simply means that an adequately secured system depends upon multiple methods of defense on each of the

7 networking layers. If one line of defense fails, then you have other layers behind it to stop or at least slow the damage before you have the opportunity to take action. Without giving merit to either side of the WPA argument, this would suggest that WPA along with other types of defense should be employed. It is the not widely publicized weakness of a system that we should fear most but rather those that are not known to the general public and held only by black hats who share amongst themselves. To rely solely on one line of defense where multiple lines are available is rather dangerous. As far as we know, a weakness in any particular line of defense (including WPA) could very well be discovered and become public at any time. In order to reduce your exposure to any weakness, you should in fact employ all weapons in your arsenal, lest you find yourself at a gun fight with a knife. In wireless systems, this may compel you to limit your signal propagation as is the intent of the original poster of this thread. Some people may say this is a little paranoid and inevitably I am always asked, "what are the chances that someone is going to be able to break into my system?" - My response - "Why take the chance the at all?"