Among APs I detect, the secured:unsecured ratio is:
Displaying poll results.18609 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8343 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 2402 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 9 comments
15+:0 (Score:5, Informative)
How about all of them are secured?
Now that everyone's wifi router is provided free with their DSL/Cable/UVerse connection in my neighborhood, they're all secured by default.
And I don't think Netgear/DLink/Linksys have sold routers in default unsecured states for a while now.
Re:15+:0 (Score:2)
Re:15+:0 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:15+:0 (Score:2)
Nope. Anyone can sit and listen to that persons traffic or sniff their password. That's not security, it's just annoying to their customers.
Re:15+:0 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:15+:0 (Score:3)
I don't bother with the guest service security. I have my network WPA'd, the guest is wide open. it's SSID says "SHAREDINTERNETONLY" and is set to be slooow, but works for e-mail and light web browsing. I block torrents and FTP on it. I figure there is my reasonable doubt if I ever need it :)
As to Radius, yes I set it up, and no it's not worth it. WPA2 will keep people out well enough. If you are in an attack heavy apartment complex, then maybe...
-nB
Re:15+:0 (Score:5, Interesting)
Plenty of ISPs set the password to your customer number.
This is, of course, printed in the envelope containing the bill every month.
Hence, it's secure as long as noone pays atention to the envelope.
Re:15+:0 (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and the first thing I do when they send me a new router (which they do periodically) is change the SSID from ISPname-randomletters&numbers to something sensible & set a new key
Re:15+:0 (Score:2)
Hmmm, haven't had a printed bill from my ISP since 2004.
In some countries, it still hasn't come to that, regrettably.
Oh, and the first thing I do when they send me a new router (which they do periodically) is change the SSID from ISPname-randomletters&numbers to something sensible & set a new key
Average Joe won't know how to do this, won't do this, and will leave it as it is.
Re:15+:0 (Score:2)
Re:15+:0 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:15+:0 (Score:2)
You're moving the goal posts by adding the qualifier "WPA2 protected".
Re:15+:0 (Score:5, Funny)
Well if I get that far, I'll just transfer the funds myself to save you the trouble.
Re:15+:0 (Score:2)
My AT&T DSL modem used a number printed on the modem as the password.
Re:15+:0 (Score:2)
All the major UK ISPs have been using random keys printed on a sticker on the base for years now. For a while Sky was using keys generated from the MAC address, but it didn't take long for them to stop doing that.
Still, I see unsecure APs. People have wifi problems and end up turning it off, or they want to use an older device like a Nintendo DS that only supports WEP (which is as good as unsecure).
Re:15+:0 (Score:2)
Whoops. I voted 1:1 thinking it was the secured:total ratio. The 2:1, 4:1, and 10:1 choices make a lot more sense now.
Re:15+:0 (Score:2)
Re:15+:0 (Score:2)
Both unsecured connections I can see here in France are from ISP-provided routers - one of them is mine. This is how French ISPs provide roaming wifi for their clients - leach a bit of bandwidth of domestic connections and make it available via a locked-down open wifi connection.
Re:15+:0 (Score:2)
exactly, I see a lot of wep still.
9:0 here (Score:2)
Which is far better than 10:1...
Re:9:0 here (Score:5, Funny)
Which is far better than 10:1...
Infinitely better.
Re:9:0 here (Score:5, Funny)
Undefinidely better.
Re:9:0 here (Score:3)
Re:9:0 here (Score:2)
word, n., 1. A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.
Seems to qualify as a word to me, even if it's a unique one. I would, however, suggest that it's better spelled as "undefinedly".
Re:9:0 here (Score:4, Funny)
Hey! Dice brought a new word into existence - he created something where once there was nothing. If the act of creation isn't worth a +3 (+5 now), I don't know what is.
Re:9:0 here (Score:2)
Re:9:0 here (Score:2)
NaNly better. ;)
But it's not "closest" to any option. NaN is equadistant from all numbers. So really, I could choose any of the ratios, and be technically correct, <voice style="Prof. Farnsworth">which is the best kind of correct</voice>. ;).
I know I'm not supposed to complain about a lack of options, but when I end up having to choose what number is closest to NaN, I can't help thinking the poll needs some debugging! :)
1:1 here... (Score:2)
But they are all the same APs. :)
Our campus network has two different SSIDs on each on AP, one unsecured for public use that has some limits, one secured with WPA2 Enterprise for student and employee use that is unrestricted. So in our building, I see about 200 of each.
Re:1:1 here... (Score:2)
My university is similar but 2:1
I don't detect any (Score:2)
Detecting APs seems like something my phone would do.
10:1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:10:1 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:10:1 (Score:3)
Re:10:1 (Score:2)
Good to know.
When I received a replacement router from Verizon earlier this month*, they told me that they had two models, but I was only eligible to receive one of those two models, and not the other. (Presumably, you have the other model.) After I received it and started tinkering, I quickly discovered that WEP was all it had on board; so if I hadn't already implemented a solution exactly as I've described in my previous post above, upon reading your comment I might well have considered harassing them over this incredible failing in the hardware they provided to me, to see if I could convince them to give me... well, whatever you have, I guess. (Commence exasperated eye rolling...)
* Regarding that replacement router: The reason for that is a long story -- and not worth your time; trust me. (It certainly wasn't worth my time.)
Re:10:1 (Score:2)
Re:10:1 (Score:5, Informative)
I wouldn't count WEP as secured. A false sense of security is worse than no security.
MAC filtering is even worse.
Re:10:1 (Score:2)
Re:10:1 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:10:1 (Score:2)
Monitor the network long enough to collect a bunch of the allowed MACs, then use one that doesn't seem to be on at the moment.
If anyone is willing to go to those lengths, chances are they are willing to penetrate any security measures one has in place.
Willing != being able to, though.
Re:10:1 (Score:2)
I've heard this one before.
In this case, it's WPA2 that's securing the network, MAC filtering add no value.
Re:10:1 (Score:3)
The origian and destination MAC is transmited in every single packet that's trasmitted over the air. :)
That's plenty of times per second.
Re:10:1 (Score:2)
And it's an annoyance if I go to a friends house that uses MAC filtering.
I often change my mac, and have several laptops, so he needs to reconfigure his router every time.
WEP counts as unsecured. (Score:2)
Otherwise the ratio would be far worse/better.
Re:WEP counts as unsecured. (Score:2)
WEP may not thwart hacking, but there are ways to hack around ANY security system. The strength of security is far less important than the basic question: Is security in place! Your bank ATM card, after all, is likely still secured only by a 4 digit numeric PIN, encrypted only by DES!
Re:WEP counts as unsecured. (Score:3)
Counting WEP as secure, is like considering using superglue to secure my house's door.
It is a security measure, but the security is provides is almost zero.
Re:WEP counts as unsecured. (Score:2)
Re:WEP counts as unsecured. (Score:3)
Collecting the data is what takes long; from under an hour, to a couple of days, depends largely on traffic and key size.
Re:WEP counts as unsecured. (Score:2)
Re:WEP counts as unsecured. (Score:2)
"A false sense of security is worse than no security".
Re:WEP counts as unsecured. (Score:2)
Depends. When trying to steal wifi with a smartphone, you can't really crack WEP.
Re:WEP counts as unsecured. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:WEP counts as unsecured. (Score:2)
Interesting, although even if you can install it that doesn't mean that the hardware is strong enough to crack it in a reasonable time.
Re:WEP counts as unsecured. (Score:2)
I don't know about a smartphone. A 1 Gig atom netbook can crack WEP in about 10 minutes.
0 unsecured (Score:2)
The only non-WPA/WEP router on the list has MAC filtering, so I'd still count that firmly in the secured column
Re:0 unsecured (Score:5, Interesting)
MAC filtering provides no security. It's like a security guard asking "are you on the list", and letting you in if you say you are.
Re:0 unsecured (Score:3)
Re:0 unsecured (Score:3)
Sniffing a MAC can take a few seconds.
Spoofing the MAC is generally as easy as copy-paste.
Way easier than WPA2 or 802.1X, which, AFAIK, cannot be broken.
Re:0 unsecured (Score:3)
That is security, in as much as you have to know the names on the list to get in.
MAC filtering is at least as effective as WEP
Re:0 unsecured (Score:2)
Nope. In order to beat MAC filtering you have to capture 1 packet, in order to beat WEP you have to capture and analyze ~200k packets
On low usage AP the time difference to beat the security can be in days
Re:0 unsecured (Score:2)
No, MAC filtering can be bypased in seconds, WEP can take hours, even a day or two.
Re:0 unsecured (Score:2)
Agreed, "at least as effective" is not actually accurate.
What I was trying to say was if WEP counts, MAC filtering counts. They're both fundamentally insecure.
Re:0 unsecured (Score:2)
Except that everyone already inside has a handy name badge you can just read, and the bouncer is so thick he can't tell the difference between you and the person whose name you are spoofing.
As you say though it is still about as good as WEP, which is more a statement about how badly broken WEP is.
Re:0 unsecured (Score:2)
What kind of actual security do you get from the MAC filtering in that scenario?
You do realize script kiddie level of knowledge (i.e. none) is all you need to get a MAC address from an AP, right? All the other tools/measures you refer demand a serious effort to circumvent (and the first one you give us, WPA2 would take anyone (or almost, who knows what's out there) way too long to crack.
Re:0 unsecured (Score:2)
It's the guard asking "what's your name?" and then letting you in if the name is on the list.
The trick is that you have to know a name that is on the list. For that you have to monitor the network for a certain period - so it'll work fine against casual visitors but maybe not so good for a determined attacker. Unless there are unsecured networks around which obviously are even easier to connect to.
Re:0 unsecured (Score:2)
Actually, my analogy was wrong.
"It's like a guard that asks for your name, and writing on a chalkboard next to him, which anyone can see, the name of the people inside."
Your analogy (Score:2)
But after he asks your name and your quest, then he asks for your favorite colour to pick what chalk to write it with. Is your answer consistent?
Re:0 unsecured (Score:2)
And the guard will happily allow you to try as many random names per second without question, then let you in as soon as it is one on the list.
Missing poll option (Score:2)
82:0 (Score:2)
Not including networks that allow guest access. Yes its alot of APs, however i have 3 huge residential towers around me.
I assume the poll is asking about misconfigured open routers, not routers which they have a explicit guest access with captive portal or whatever. There are 3 or 4 of those guest networks, with varying levels of access and or injected penis pictures.
WarDrive Statistics (Score:5, Interesting)
I run WarDrive regularly on my Android phone and I have traveled around quite a bit with it. Of the around 34,000 APs in my database, the Statistics currently stand at about 26,000 Secured to 8,000 Unsecured.
Re:WarDrive Statistics (Score:3)
Battery life must be pretty bad on your phone, eh?
Re:WarDrive Statistics (Score:2)
i don't think he runs his phone off battery, he must be using a portable fuel cell he carries around, or maybe keeps it connected to his car. you just can't do that kinda shit with android.
There are a lot of meanings for AP (Score:5, Funny)
Associated Press is the first that comes to mind. Armor Piercing bullets are unwelcome if you are in a Humvrr in Afghanistan.
Speaking of Animal Planet, did anyone see that 'Documentary' about Mermaids?
At the momont the Atmospheric Pressure here is 29.91 inches of mercury
If you have studied Applied Physics you could convert that into proper pressure units.
On the Wikipedia page you have to scroll down quite a way to find (WiFi) Access Point
And I can't pick up any other than our router here in the In-Laws basement.
Re:There are a lot of meanings for AP (Score:2, Insightful)
Among Armor Pierces I detect, the secured:unsecured ratio is:
Among Animal Planets I detect, the secured:unsecured ratio is:
Among Atmospheric Pressures I detect, the secured:unsecured ratio is:
Among Applied Physics I detect, the secured:unsecured ratio is:
All those obviously wrong abbreviations... The poll is on Slashdot, AKA "News for Nerds..." and Access Point never came to mind?
You're kidding me, right? Please tell me your kidding...
Re:There are a lot of meanings for AP (Score:2)
Re:There are a lot of meanings for AP (Score:2)
Among Associated Presses I detect, the secured:unsecured ratio is:
Among Armor Pierces I detect, the secured:unsecured ratio is:
Among Animal Planets I detect, the secured:unsecured ratio is:
Among Atmospheric Pressures I detect, the secured:unsecured ratio is:
Among Applied Physics I detect, the secured:unsecured ratio is:
All those obviously wrong abbreviations... The poll is on Slashdot, AKA "News for Nerds..." and Access Point never came to mind?
You're kidding me, right? Please tell me your kidding...
Yeah we're kidding you. This is an inverted Cowboy Neal poll, with a 5:1 ratio of non-nerd poll options.
Too many secured networks. :( (Score:2)
At home, I have a secured wifi network and an unsecured internet-only network. Been this way since we moved in a year ago.
Wasn't a big deal, and just described it to my tech-naive wife. She was quite upset, worried that people would (1) hack into our local network or (2)steal our internet.
It took me a little convincing (and her agreeing to trust me in the matter) that it's a good thing to have an open wifi access point so we never have to tell visitors our password. Also, due to the several layers of security, anyone able to break into our LAN would not be stopped by any security I could reasonably put up. (Our closest neighbor is a couple acres away, there are no MS Windows clients on my LAN, all software is quite up to date, and the only ports open on the computers are for ssh and apache2.)
Layer security. And don't worry about the black hats unless you are either a company or make serious enemies.
Not too many secured; just heanthy paranoia (Score:2)
Alternative: I wired the house with CAT 6 network drops in most rooms. If a guest needs Intenet access, I tell them that there is a patch cable in the desk in the guest bedroom. They don't get the wireless password.
Pretty much the same mix of clients (all Linux except an occaisional AIX or Solaris system for work) on our network unless my wife has to fire up her work laptop that runs Windoze so not too much worry about a "Typhoid Mary" guest.
Cheers,
Dave
Re:Too many secured networks. :( (Score:2)
At home, I have a secured wifi network and an unsecured internet-only network.
Why not configure your router to have two secured networks, one that connects to the LAN+internet and is only available to members of your household and a second, internet-only network that has a "guest password"?
Yes, I realize you're in what appears from your description to be a rural area but there's no harm in running a more protected network.
Re:Too many secured networks. :( (Score:2)
I use WPA2 but I allow access to visitors by saying "It is a pretty complicated password, let me type it in for you." That works every time.
Count me as surprised (Score:2)
My networks are both secured with WPA2.
My neighbor, who's not a tech guy, has his network set to use WPA2.
Another neighbor used to have a wide-open AP, but they moved a couple months ago. So we're 100% WPA2 here!
5 WPA2, 5 WEP (Score:2)
So, I chose 1:1.
missing option 7:1 (Score:2)
7:1 is exactly in-between 4:1 and 10:1 and is what I see right now - 7 secured, 1 unsecured. I decided to be an optimist and voted 10:1, but the margin of error will be off a bit in the poll. I'm actually glad for the one unsecured - when my provider was having network problems I leeched off of them.
Re:missing option 7:1 (Score:2)
Should have security by default (Score:2)
The AP setup for the non-technical person on a consumer level router should ask:
1) What do you want to call your wireless network?
2) What do you want your password to be (must be at least 8 characters, and contain a lower case, upper case, number, special character, and cannot contain the name of your network).
3) Done.
It also should not give you the option to turn off security during the setup wizard. That should be a well-guarded setting that takes work to find, but once again, shouldn't be impossible to do if the user chose.
Leaving an AP open is too dangerous. Non-technial people don't know any better, and technical people are able to make informed decisions.
Re:Should have security by default (Score:2)
Consumer level routers don't need RADIUS or 802.1x.
So if you are a tech geek, and want to learn how to configure and manage certificate-based access, or centralised RADIUS, you need to spend 10x the average on a Cisco/Juniper type solution? Nah, leave it in. It hurts no-one to have other secure options there as long as the default state of the router (hold reset and power on) is WPA2+AES with a random password engraved or stamped on the bottom of the router.
Depends what is meant by "secured" (Score:2)
Open WiFis seem to be really few and far between. Maybe 1 in 30 or less. And they are always terribly slow of course.
But then there are still a few WEP APs (around 1 in 20), most of which are very quickly cracked if not too far away.
Finally, there are the WPA APs which may have excellent passwords, but which support WPS without the need to press a button on the AP. Back in January, I could crack around 2 in 10 APs using reaver. In one neighborhood, it was even half the APs which were vulnerable. And not only did they support WPS, but most had the same PIN ("00000000" or "01235678"). Since then, most have had their firmware flashed by their ISP and are now secure. But there are still around 1 in 15 APs which can be cracked with reaver in a day or a few hours.
In short, for someone like me who is staying in many different places, it is getting much harder to get access, but in the places where I stay a while or return regularly, it is still possible to get a connection...
What is secured? (Score:3)
My wireless network is WPA2 protected but the key is in the SSID. That was anybody can use it, but wireless clients can't sniff each other's traffic. Is that secured or not?
I detect exactly 1:3 (Score:2)
So, where the heck is my option?
Cowboy Neal (Score:2)
duh
Re:The value of securing your AP? (Score:2)
Not everyone has respectful neighbors. When their SSID is "WHITEPOWER", and a couple weeks later it is "KILLNIGGERS", that is not someone I'm going to allow to stroll through my connection. Period. No matter how locked down the rest of the network is, any investigation into their weirdness would start with me.
Re:The value of securing your AP? (Score:5, Funny)
Tell me again what the value is of securing my AP? It gives me another legal defense against ridiculous *IAA assaults, I am under no legal obligation to secure an AP, and my neighbors use it, respectfully of course.
Not everyone has respectful neighbors. When their SSID is "WHITEPOWER", and a couple weeks later it is "KILLNIGGERS", that is not someone I'm going to allow to stroll through my connection. Period. No matter how locked down the rest of the network is, any investigation into their weirdness would start with me.
So sniff all their passwords and use their Facebook account to post "Obama 2012" messages.
Re:The value of securing your AP? (Score:2)
Tell me again what the value is of securing my AP?
To quote myself, the last time some tweeker wanted me to open my wifi so he could leech off it:
I ain't fucking starbucks; pay for your own data, clown.
my neighbors use it, respectfully of course.
How do you know, without deep packet inspection (which, FYI, may be illegal w/o consent, depending on your locale)? You assume they do, probably because you have a good relationship with them, and they probably are respectful in their use.
At least, the neighbors who admit to you that they are using your wifi are. Anyone else (the pedo down the block, wardrivers cruising your neighborhood, etc.)... not so much. I recommend either securing your AP and giving the passphrase to the neighbors you want to share with, or just get a Fonera [fon.com] and maybe make a couple of bucks off the leeches instead of subsidizing their data use.
Re:Ah the good ol' days (Score:2)
Two reasons why this hasn't happened:
1: The belief that IP == person. So, if Bob uses Alice's AP for IP violations, a typical jury would find Alice culpable because she "contributed" to the infringement by not locking the barn door. Even worse would be if someone was using an open Wi-Fi for criminal activity, which means Alice has a good chance of being charged, if not convicted for it. So, because of this, people tend to lock down their APs so they don't have to worry about criminal/civil action caused by a freeloader.
2: Bandwidth quotas. A couple years ago, I'd be able to transfer 1-2 TB of data via rsync over ssh without issue. Now, with the fee structures that are going into place, just sending that over the wire can cost me up to $250. If I sent it through my 4G phone, AT&T will be handing me a $20,000 phone bill for the month. So, because people have to pay through the nose for each bit over the wire, this essentially has shut off chances of mesh networks appearing.
Hear, hear! Guest access! (Score:4, Insightful)
What really ended it was all the FUD from the cable modem companies about "Terrorists and Child Pr0n0graphers are going to Steal Your Access and you'll get blamed and Go To Jailz!", which was really about "Don't share service with your neighbor - that would mean some of you wouldn't be paying US!" It was before most of them had adopted the annoying Australian meme about putting usage quotas on service, but they still hadn't totally relaxed from the "one cable/DSL modem, one computer" model that got abandoned when everybody had routers that did NAT and anybody with kids had multiple computers active (typically new one for the parents, old one for the kids, before gaming reversed that order.)
It's also changes in customer router equipment. In my apartment complex, I can typically see 6-10 Wifi signals, and back when we had 802.11b, they were almost all open, with 802.11g half of them were closed, and now that everybody's got 802.11n, they're all closed. (And 802.11n was loud enough that once a couple of people got it, everybody else needed to use it to get a consistent signal :-) I used to keep mine open as a guest account (even after the one time that my neighbor's work laptop got virused and used my wifi to send half a million spams, which my ISP blocked and gave me a phone call about. I closed it for a couple of days until she got her virus fixed.)
I also used my neighbors' access every year or two if my DSL was down, and when I was travelling, I used the free mobile Wifi access provider "Linksys". :-)
Unfortunately, the Wifi security model doesn't give you a way to do encryption without also blocking access, which may make sense in a corporate environment but typically doesn't for home users.
Re:Ah the good ol' days (Score:2)
Ah, so AP is access point. I really had no idea.
That's it -
Your nerd card. Hand it over.
Re:Ah the good ol' days (Score:2)
AP used to mean associated press, you didn't need to think about it at all. 'wireless access point' or WAP is where the psudo-knowledge of some slashdotters failed this poll. a cable modem is not an 'access point' it is a modem. dsl isn't an access point if they offer wireless they are WAPs if they only support ethernet they are either a bridge or a router (which opens another can of worms, as to what is a bridge and what is a router).
if we are mincing words here an 'access point' can be anything. from a thin client, to any kind of computer that pushes data, including offline devices, since they offer offline 'access' to a point. eg: my mp3 player offers an 'access point' to my mp3 library.
Re:8 out 8, and all WPA (Score:2)
... the funniest thing here is that in our block of flats all apartments have complimentary 100M/100M connection with no data quotas,
I hate you so much right now...
I hope your rent is astronomical.
Re:8 out 8, and all WPA (Score:2)
They're on hundred megabit Ethernet, yes. But that ethernet connection is probably not HME all the way to an Internet backbone.
Most likely the building is hooked up to a much slower connection.
Consider, for example, that your typical office network is gigabit Ethernet. That doesn't mean you have gigabit to a backbone; more likely the office will have have a 12Mbit, 25Mbit or even 50Mbit connection to the outside world.
Hooray for open access! (Score:3)