WiFi Stumbler

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:55:58 +0000, Bob wrote in :

Nice.

It's "Wi-Fi", not "WiFi".

nitpick "Meraki WiFi Stumbler"

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:49:11 +0000, Bob wrote in :

So what? It's misuse of a term of art.

Twaddle In no way does it engage my senses or emotions.

Wi-Fi is a trademark of the Wi-Fi Alliance.

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:23:00 +0000, Bob wrote in :

Your problem, not mine.

Bob wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@bt.com:

WiFi

basic

Internet?

Firefox),

enabled.

connected to

storage.

whenever

browser

software to

reload

message

getting

Seems to me using this would risk privacy invasion on the part of those "sniffing" your data. Certainly could not use with anything that might contain a transmitted password or other personal data. Guess I really do not understand just what the usefulness of this would be other than trying to hack unauthorized connections. Maybe to troubleshoot local networks.

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:33:38 +0000 (UTC), fufu wrote in :

There's no privacy issue. It's a Site Survey tool. See

Sniffing is much like looking in a phone directory for someones address. Just because you know where they live, doesn't magically give you access to what's inside their house. It's the same with wireless. The MAC addresses are all send in the clear and not encrypted. That's like your address and is generally considered public information. What's not available are the constents of the encrypted data packets, which contain all kinds of interesting information that might result in a privacy leak. As long as the encryption is functional and unbroken, there's no privacy invasion possible.

Actually, I've found two wireless lans that also used the SSID as their WPA password. I found one and explained to the semi-intoxicated owner what was happening. He claimed he understood, but it's still unchanged about 6 months later. Oh well.

1. Check of interference on specific channels. There are only 3 non-overlapping channels (1, 8, 11). The trick is to find a channel that's NOT being used for your LAN. If not, start thinking about

5.7Ghz. 802.11a.

1. Track down the source of Wi-Fi interference.
2. Identify users of junk wireless routers and try to sell them something better. I've tried this a few times with mixed results.
3. Collect traffic statistics (error rate, retransmissions, etc).
4. Find the dingbat with the new MIMO router that's hogging the entire 2.4GHz band with a 40Mhz wide HD video feed so that he doesn't have to run an HDMI or ethernet cable 10 ft across his living room. I've already given away one ethernet cable to get one of these off the air.
5. Identify potential municipal Wi-Fi or mesh network nodes for internet access.
6. Find the idiot with the 1 watt power amplifier trying to drill through 5 brick walls to his router.
7. Whatever else I forgot.

This java script really only displays the same information as the wifi adapter does when set to scan - it's a bit of a con really - and certainly no more of a privacy issue than the basic adapter software.

Not much to get excited about.

Yes and no. It's using my Airport Extreme for scanning, obviously, and it displays my wireless info, and my next door neighbour's. But Airport by itself only shows _my_ network _unless_ the Meraki applet is running. Next door is weak -- maybe Airport has a threshold of some kind.

Hmm. The guy's still on WEP. I should hack it. Although his password is probably his wife's name ...

Jeff Liebermann wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Since I am connecting from am unencrypted public AP, I won't be using their sniffer ;-). I used TOR when I need to keep my data transfers private, so I guess I might try it with TOR.

Where are they? I need a few more APs, hahahah

Use one of the usual attacks to break into private APs and assume their ID? ;-) Find out information on the Cox employee who pretends to come by your residence to sell you net access when he is really trying to find out who it is that is using their AP at what location?

Did he _really_ pick something so secret and unusual? Wow - most users choose one of the 86 passwords the 'deloader' worm (CERT Advisory CA-2003-08) was looking for in March 2003:

[NULL] 0 000000 00000000 007 1 110 111 111111 11111111 12 121212 123 123123 1234 12345 123456 1234567 12345678 123456789 1234qwer 123abc 123asd 123qwe 2002 2003 2600 54321 654321 88888888 Admin Internet Login Password a aaa abc abc123 abcd admin admin123 administrator alpha asdf computer database enable foobar god godblessyou home ihavenopass login love mypass mypass123 mypc mypc123 oracle owner pass passwd password pat patrick pc pw pw123 pwd qwer root secret server sex super sybase temp temp123 test test123 win xp xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx yxcv zxcv

That first one ( [NULL] ) really means none (hit the enter key). I wonder how many idiots have chosen one of these because they think that no one could _possibly_ guess such a secret/complex set of letters and/or numbers. Of course, that assumes the password was changed from the factory default.

Old guy

Most of those listed will not work with WEP. Assuming an ASCII key (not a Hex key), it has to be exactly either 5 or 10 characters long, which corresponds to 64 or 128bit WEP encryption.

My favorite throw away WEP/WPA password is "changethis". Note that it's exactly 10 characters so that it will work with both WEP and WPA.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:34:15 +0000 (UTC), p wrote in :

What makes you think Tor is actually real protection? Faith?

And those are just the _known_ weaknesses. I'm reminded of WEP. And TKIP. And on and on.

[CERT Advisory CA-2003-08 ``passwords'']

[selene ~]$ sed -n '247,264'p worms/deloder | tr -s ' ' | tr ' ' '\n' | grep ^.....$ | column login admin super alpha owner 54321 Admin 12345 Login pw123 [selene ~]$

Well, there's ten of the 86 ;-)

and will never be changed. We work under a different concept - the default is going to be something like

[selene ~]$ head -2 /dev/random | mimencode | cut -c20-29 | tail -1 tqF+eE204n [selene ~]$

"tqF+eE204n" is given to them on a piece of paper - along with the output of 'whatis passwd' as a hint. The password is changed (probably to one of those listed in CA-2003-08) when they discover how hard it is to type that mess consistently - certainly not later than when they loose the paper the second time.

Old guy

John Navas wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@navasgroup.com:

Subject: Re: WiFi Stumbler From: John Navas Newsgroups: alt.internet.wireless

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:34:15 +0000 (UTC), p wrote in :

using their

private, so I

What makes you think Tor is actually real protection? Faith?

And those are just the _known_ weaknesses. I'm reminded of WEP. And TKIP. And on and on.

I was under the impression that TOR was an anonymizer, not an end to end encryption tunnel as in a VPN. The data sent between the TOR exit proxy server and the destination is not encrypted.

Tor cannot and does not attempt to protect against monitoring of traffic at the boundaries of the Tor network, i.e., the traffic entering and exiting the network.

TOR is great security if you don't want anyone to know where your packets are coming from, but not very useful if you're worried about someone sniffing your "sensitive data".

I don't have an answer to what harm you might do using TOR. Inflamatory political messages, stalking ex-spouses, spam, hate mail, impersonating someone, online hacking, disagreeing with me, and other internet activities where hiding your identity would be required, seems like a good start.

John Navas wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@navasgroup.com:

transfers

(Don't know what happened to my newserver, but hiccups occur occasionally.)

There is nothing that you can get when using TOR if the connection is SSL because it is encrypted end to end. The only people who possible can read data (other than garbage encryption) is people like the NSA and since I am not a terrorist, I have little to fear from them.

Jeff Liebermann wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

exchange?

about

It's end to end if you use SSL--->torentrynode----onionrouted--->

torexitnode--->host (ssl decrypted by host)

unless some gov agency breaks the ecryption algorithm for tor and for ssl, your data is safe, in so far as it is possible to ever be safe on the net.