Connection to a wireless networking and restricting access from ot

Greetings,

When connecting to a wireless network, McAfee my Anti Virus and Firewall
Software prompts me to allow a trusted IP address to continue with the
connection, and from what I have seen in home and small office networks,
it always something like 192.168.1.212.

However, after the connection has been established and I check McAfee to
find out exactly what IP addresses are trusted on the machine, I find out
that a range of them, such as 192.168.1.0 through 192.168.1.255 have been
allowed.

I would think that these are the IP addresses managed by the
Router/Modem/Gateway. However, if this is the case, then all of those IPs
woud be in my network, and anyone with a black belt in Networking and a
malicious mind could hack into my machine.

Hence, the question. How can I limit access to the machine only to and
from the Router/Gateway/Modem. Sure that would still be a single point of
failure, but still better that 255 potential other connections.

Paranoid? Well, the amount of problems I have had over the years with the
PCs I use are making me look into all the possibilities for issues to
occur, and this seems ilke one to me.

Thank you for your help.

Jean-Pierre

P.S. I think I have been clear. If not please reply and I will clarify. Oh,
and yes,
the network is secured with WEP encryption. Not the best, but better
than
none.

dareys <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> When connecting to a wireless network, McAfee my Anti Virus and
> Firewall Software prompts me to allow a trusted IP address to
> continue with the connection, and from what I have seen in home and
> small office networks, it always something like 192.168.1.212.
>
> However, after the connection has been established and I check McAfee
> to find out exactly what IP addresses are trusted on the machine, I
> find out that a range of them, such as 192.168.1.0 through
> 192.168.1.255 have been allowed.
>
> I would think that these are the IP addresses managed by the
> Router/Modem/Gateway. However, if this is the case, then all of those
> IPs woud be in my network, and anyone with a black belt in Networking
> and a malicious mind could hack into my machine.

Doesn't McAfee simply mean your PC has outbound access to the entire
192.168.1.0 subnet - not that they have access inbound to *you* ?
>
> Hence, the question. How can I limit access to the machine only to and
> from the Router/Gateway/Modem. Sure that would still be a single
> point of failure, but still better that 255 potential other
> connections.

Well, 253, technically - but I'd say this is something to take up with
McAfee.
>
> Paranoid? Well, the amount of problems I have had over the years with
> the PCs I use are making me look into all the possibilities for
> issues to occur, and this seems ilke one to me.
>
> Thank you for your help.
>
> Jean-Pierre
>
> P.S. I think I have been clear. If not please reply and I will
> clarify. Oh, and yes,
> the network is secured with WEP encryption. Not the best, but
> better than
> none.

If I were you 'd be much more worried about the fact that you're not using
WPA. WEP was cracked long ago.

Hi
Option 1. Switch Off the DHCP Server in the Router and give all your
Computer a Static IP.

Option 2. Work with DHCP On but restrict its IP range to the number of
computer that you have.
Example, if you have 3 computers, set in the Router the DHCP range to
192.168.1.10 to 192.168.1.12
As for Wireless security.
From the weakest to the strongest, Wireless security capacity is.
No Security
Switching Off SSID (same has No Security. SSID can be easily sniffed even if
it is Off)
MAC Filtering______(Band Aid if nothing else is available, MAC number can be
easily Spoofed).
WEP64____(Easy, to "Break" by knowledgeable people).
WEP128___(A little Harder, but "Hackable" too).
-------------------
The three above are Not considered safe.
Safe Starts here at WPA.
-------------------
WPA-PSK__(Very Hard to Break).
WPA-AES__(Not functionally Breakable)
WPA2____ (Not functionally Breakable).
Note 1: WPA-AES the the current entry level rendition of WPA2.
Note 2: If you use WinXP bellow SP3 and did not updated it, you would have
to download the WPA2 patch from Microsoft.
<http://support.microsoft.com/kb/893357>
The documentation of your Wireless devices (Wireless Router, and Wireless
Computer's Card) should state the type of security that is available with
your Wireless hardware.
All devices MUST be set to the same security level using the same pass
phrase.
Therefore the security must be set according what ever is the best possible
of one of the Wireless devices.
I.e. even if most of your system might be capable to be configured to the
max. with WPA2, but one device is only capable to be configured to max . of
WEP, to whole system must be configured to WEP.
If you need more good security and one device (like a Wireless card that can
do WEP only) is holding better security for the whole Network, replace the
device with a better one.
Setting Wireless Security - <http://www.ezlan.net/Wireless_Security.html>
The Core differences between WEP, WPA, and WPA2 -
<http://www.ezlan.net/wpa_wep.html>
Jack (MVP-Networking).


"dareys" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4EB88637-8370-4EFD-B57F-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Greetings,
>
> When connecting to a wireless network, McAfee my Anti Virus and Firewall
> Software prompts me to allow a trusted IP address to continue with the
> connection, and from what I have seen in home and small office networks,
> it always something like 192.168.1.212.
>
> However, after the connection has been established and I check McAfee to
> find out exactly what IP addresses are trusted on the machine, I find out
> that a range of them, such as 192.168.1.0 through 192.168.1.255 have been
> allowed.
>
> I would think that these are the IP addresses managed by the
> Router/Modem/Gateway. However, if this is the case, then all of those IPs
> woud be in my network, and anyone with a black belt in Networking and a
> malicious mind could hack into my machine.
>
> Hence, the question. How can I limit access to the machine only to and
> from the Router/Gateway/Modem. Sure that would still be a single point of
> failure, but still better that 255 potential other connections.
>
> Paranoid? Well, the amount of problems I have had over the years with the
> PCs I use are making me look into all the possibilities for issues to
> occur, and this seems ilke one to me.
>
> Thank you for your help.
>
> Jean-Pierre
>
> P.S. I think I have been clear. If not please reply and I will clarify.
> Oh,
> and yes,
> the network is secured with WEP encryption. Not the best, but better
> than
> none.
>
>

Lanwench,

Thank you for the response.

Frankly, if the software documented or indicated anything like that, I would
not be asking the question. As it is, it doesn´t specify. Hence the question.
I am not a network expert.

Actually, I thought it was 254, but again you might know better than me.
Care to explain?

As far as WEP, yes, I read an articule about how it has been cracked a while
back. It does not help that this is only 64 bit and not 128 or 256 ... Yes,
they should go to WPA or WPA2?

Thank you.

Jean-Pierre


"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:

> dareys <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > When connecting to a wireless network, McAfee my Anti Virus and
> > Firewall Software prompts me to allow a trusted IP address to
> > continue with the connection, and from what I have seen in home and
> > small office networks, it always something like 192.168.1.212.
> >
> > However, after the connection has been established and I check McAfee
> > to find out exactly what IP addresses are trusted on the machine, I
> > find out that a range of them, such as 192.168.1.0 through
> > 192.168.1.255 have been allowed.
> >
> > I would think that these are the IP addresses managed by the
> > Router/Modem/Gateway. However, if this is the case, then all of those
> > IPs woud be in my network, and anyone with a black belt in Networking
> > and a malicious mind could hack into my machine.
>
> Doesn't McAfee simply mean your PC has outbound access to the entire
> 192.168.1.0 subnet - not that they have access inbound to *you* ?
> >
> > Hence, the question. How can I limit access to the machine only to and
> > from the Router/Gateway/Modem. Sure that would still be a single
> > point of failure, but still better that 255 potential other
> > connections.
>
> Well, 253, technically - but I'd say this is something to take up with
> McAfee.
> >
> > Paranoid? Well, the amount of problems I have had over the years with
> > the PCs I use are making me look into all the possibilities for
> > issues to occur, and this seems ilke one to me.
> >
> > Thank you for your help.
> >
> > Jean-Pierre
> >
> > P.S. I think I have been clear. If not please reply and I will
> > clarify. Oh, and yes,
> > the network is secured with WEP encryption. Not the best, but
> > better than
> > none.
>
> If I were you 'd be much more worried about the fact that you're not using
> WPA. WEP was cracked long ago.
>
>
>
>

Jack,

I am in a hotel like environment, and can´t readily try this. However, I
will pass along the recommendations. I have configured a limited number of
IPs from a router before using LinkedIn gateway/modem/routers but this might
be another brand. If I get access and it is feasible, I will try. And yes, I
am aware that WEP, in this case 64 bit, is really vulnerable. Why do you
think I am writting? Many thanks for your help.

Jean-Pierre




"Jack-MVP" wrote:

> Hi
> Option 1. Switch Off the DHCP Server in the Router and give all your
> Computer a Static IP.
>
> Option 2. Work with DHCP On but restrict its IP range to the number of
> computer that you have.
> Example, if you have 3 computers, set in the Router the DHCP range to
> 192.168.1.10 to 192.168.1.12
> As for Wireless security.
> From the weakest to the strongest, Wireless security capacity is.
> No Security
> Switching Off SSID (same has No Security. SSID can be easily sniffed even if
> it is Off)
> MAC Filtering______(Band Aid if nothing else is available, MAC number can be
> easily Spoofed).
> WEP64____(Easy, to "Break" by knowledgeable people).
> WEP128___(A little Harder, but "Hackable" too).
> -------------------
> The three above are Not considered safe.
> Safe Starts here at WPA.
> -------------------
> WPA-PSK__(Very Hard to Break).
> WPA-AES__(Not functionally Breakable)
> WPA2____ (Not functionally Breakable).
> Note 1: WPA-AES the the current entry level rendition of WPA2.
> Note 2: If you use WinXP bellow SP3 and did not updated it, you would have
> to download the WPA2 patch from Microsoft.
> <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/893357>
> The documentation of your Wireless devices (Wireless Router, and Wireless
> Computer's Card) should state the type of security that is available with
> your Wireless hardware.
> All devices MUST be set to the same security level using the same pass
> phrase.
> Therefore the security must be set according what ever is the best possible
> of one of the Wireless devices.
> I.e. even if most of your system might be capable to be configured to the
> max. with WPA2, but one device is only capable to be configured to max . of
> WEP, to whole system must be configured to WEP.
> If you need more good security and one device (like a Wireless card that can
> do WEP only) is holding better security for the whole Network, replace the
> device with a better one.
> Setting Wireless Security - <http://www.ezlan.net/Wireless_Security.html>
> The Core differences between WEP, WPA, and WPA2 -
> <http://www.ezlan.net/wpa_wep.html>
> Jack (MVP-Networking).
>
>
> "dareys" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4EB88637-8370-4EFD-B57F-(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Greetings,
> >
> > When connecting to a wireless network, McAfee my Anti Virus and Firewall
> > Software prompts me to allow a trusted IP address to continue with the
> > connection, and from what I have seen in home and small office networks,
> > it always something like 192.168.1.212.
> >
> > However, after the connection has been established and I check McAfee to
> > find out exactly what IP addresses are trusted on the machine, I find out
> > that a range of them, such as 192.168.1.0 through 192.168.1.255 have been
> > allowed.
> >
> > I would think that these are the IP addresses managed by the
> > Router/Modem/Gateway. However, if this is the case, then all of those IPs
> > woud be in my network, and anyone with a black belt in Networking and a
> > malicious mind could hack into my machine.
> >
> > Hence, the question. How can I limit access to the machine only to and
> > from the Router/Gateway/Modem. Sure that would still be a single point of
> > failure, but still better that 255 potential other connections.
> >
> > Paranoid? Well, the amount of problems I have had over the years with the
> > PCs I use are making me look into all the possibilities for issues to
> > occur, and this seems ilke one to me.
> >
> > Thank you for your help.
> >
> > Jean-Pierre
> >
> > P.S. I think I have been clear. If not please reply and I will clarify.
> > Oh,
> > and yes,
> > the network is secured with WEP encryption. Not the best, but better
> > than
> > none.
> >
> >
>
>

"dareys" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:E4BBDABD-1190-4523-9561-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Lanwench,
>
> Thank you for the response.
>
> Frankly, if the software documented or indicated anything like that, I
> would
> not be asking the question. As it is, it doesn´t specify. Hence the
> question.
> I am not a network expert.
>
> Actually, I thought it was 254, but again you might know better than me.
> Care to explain?

That's correct.

256 - 1 (network address) - 1 (broadcast address) = 254 usable addresses
(assuming /24 network).

> As far as WEP, yes, I read an articule about how it has been cracked a
> while
> back. It does not help that this is only 64 bit and not 128 or 256 ...
> Yes,
> they should go to WPA or WPA2?

Is that a question? If so, yes, you ought to stop using WEP.

John,

Thank you for confirming that 254 was the right answer. I was pretty sure of
that.

As far as WEP, God, I know I have not chosen it for any of the Networks that
I have configured, for obvious reasons. The least that I have configured for
a router/modem/gateways, and that I can remember, is:

- Changed the default router IP address and subnet mask.
- Changed the default number and address of available IP addresses
- Configured the wireless network to WPA with 128 bit encryption and that´s
cause it would not let me do WPA2 with 126 or 256.... But hey I read
ahead...

Anyway, thank you for your help.

Regards,

Jean-Pierre


In any case, things are not within my control. I am in a hotel room type
situation and will offer suggestions and feedback. I hope they take it,
because the safety of my machine, and that of others in the building is
really at stake.

Thank you for your feedback.

Jean-Pierre



"John" wrote:

>
> "dareys" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:E4BBDABD-1190-4523-9561-(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Lanwench,
> >
> > Thank you for the response.
> >
> > Frankly, if the software documented or indicated anything like that, I
> > would
> > not be asking the question. As it is, it doesn´t specify. Hence the
> > question.
> > I am not a network expert.
> >
> > Actually, I thought it was 254, but again you might know better than me.
> > Care to explain?
>
> That's correct.
>
> 256 - 1 (network address) - 1 (broadcast address) = 254 usable addresses
> (assuming /24 network).
>
> > As far as WEP, yes, I read an articule about how it has been cracked a
> > while
> > back. It does not help that this is only 64 bit and not 128 or 256 ...
> > Yes,
> > they should go to WPA or WPA2?
>
> Is that a question? If so, yes, you ought to stop using WEP.
>
>
>

Hi
If your computer is set to Share Drives/Folders, disable it when you are on
the road.
By doing so if some one ended up on the same subnet as yours you would have
more protection since without sharing it would be hard to get to your info
on the hard drive.
Jack (MS, MVP-Networking)

"dareys" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1103A0A4-E3FF-4E4D-B8FC-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Jack,
>
> I am in a hotel like environment, and can´t readily try this. However, I
> will pass along the recommendations. I have configured a limited number of
> IPs from a router before using LinkedIn gateway/modem/routers but this
> might
> be another brand. If I get access and it is feasible, I will try. And yes,
> I
> am aware that WEP, in this case 64 bit, is really vulnerable. Why do you
> think I am writting? Many thanks for your help.
>
> Jean-Pierre
>
>
>
>
> "Jack-MVP" wrote:
>
>> Hi
>> Option 1. Switch Off the DHCP Server in the Router and give all your
>> Computer a Static IP.
>>
>> Option 2. Work with DHCP On but restrict its IP range to the number of
>> computer that you have.
>> Example, if you have 3 computers, set in the Router the DHCP range to
>> 192.168.1.10 to 192.168.1.12
>> As for Wireless security.
>> From the weakest to the strongest, Wireless security capacity is.
>> No Security
>> Switching Off SSID (same has No Security. SSID can be easily sniffed even
>> if
>> it is Off)
>> MAC Filtering______(Band Aid if nothing else is available, MAC number can
>> be
>> easily Spoofed).
>> WEP64____(Easy, to "Break" by knowledgeable people).
>> WEP128___(A little Harder, but "Hackable" too).
>> -------------------
>> The three above are Not considered safe.
>> Safe Starts here at WPA.
>> -------------------
>> WPA-PSK__(Very Hard to Break).
>> WPA-AES__(Not functionally Breakable)
>> WPA2____ (Not functionally Breakable).
>> Note 1: WPA-AES the the current entry level rendition of WPA2.
>> Note 2: If you use WinXP bellow SP3 and did not updated it, you would
>> have
>> to download the WPA2 patch from Microsoft.
>> <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/893357>
>> The documentation of your Wireless devices (Wireless Router, and Wireless
>> Computer's Card) should state the type of security that is available with
>> your Wireless hardware.
>> All devices MUST be set to the same security level using the same pass
>> phrase.
>> Therefore the security must be set according what ever is the best
>> possible
>> of one of the Wireless devices.
>> I.e. even if most of your system might be capable to be configured to the
>> max. with WPA2, but one device is only capable to be configured to max .
>> of
>> WEP, to whole system must be configured to WEP.
>> If you need more good security and one device (like a Wireless card that
>> can
>> do WEP only) is holding better security for the whole Network, replace
>> the
>> device with a better one.
>> Setting Wireless Security - <http://www.ezlan.net/Wireless_Security.html>
>> The Core differences between WEP, WPA, and WPA2 -
>> <http://www.ezlan.net/wpa_wep.html>
>> Jack (MVP-Networking).
>>
>>
>> "dareys" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:4EB88637-8370-4EFD-B57F-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Greetings,
>> >
>> > When connecting to a wireless network, McAfee my Anti Virus and
>> > Firewall
>> > Software prompts me to allow a trusted IP address to continue with the
>> > connection, and from what I have seen in home and small office
>> > networks,
>> > it always something like 192.168.1.212.
>> >
>> > However, after the connection has been established and I check McAfee
>> > to
>> > find out exactly what IP addresses are trusted on the machine, I find
>> > out
>> > that a range of them, such as 192.168.1.0 through 192.168.1.255 have
>> > been
>> > allowed.
>> >
>> > I would think that these are the IP addresses managed by the
>> > Router/Modem/Gateway. However, if this is the case, then all of those
>> > IPs
>> > woud be in my network, and anyone with a black belt in Networking and a
>> > malicious mind could hack into my machine.
>> >
>> > Hence, the question. How can I limit access to the machine only to and
>> > from the Router/Gateway/Modem. Sure that would still be a single point
>> > of
>> > failure, but still better that 255 potential other connections.
>> >
>> > Paranoid? Well, the amount of problems I have had over the years with
>> > the
>> > PCs I use are making me look into all the possibilities for issues to
>> > occur, and this seems ilke one to me.
>> >
>> > Thank you for your help.
>> >
>> > Jean-Pierre
>> >
>> > P.S. I think I have been clear. If not please reply and I will clarify.
>> > Oh,
>> > and yes,
>> > the network is secured with WEP encryption. Not the best, but
>> > better
>> > than
>> > none.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>

Jack-MVP,

It is not, but thank you for the warning.

Regards,

Jean-Pierre


"Jack-MVP" wrote:

> Hi
> If your computer is set to Share Drives/Folders, disable it when you are on
> the road.
> By doing so if some one ended up on the same subnet as yours you would have
> more protection since without sharing it would be hard to get to your info
> on the hard drive.
> Jack (MS, MVP-Networking)
>
> "dareys" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:1103A0A4-E3FF-4E4D-B8FC-(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Jack,
> >
> > I am in a hotel like environment, and can´t readily try this. However, I
> > will pass along the recommendations. I have configured a limited number of
> > IPs from a router before using LinkedIn gateway/modem/routers but this
> > might
> > be another brand. If I get access and it is feasible, I will try. And yes,
> > I
> > am aware that WEP, in this case 64 bit, is really vulnerable. Why do you
> > think I am writting? Many thanks for your help.
> >
> > Jean-Pierre
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Jack-MVP" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >> Option 1. Switch Off the DHCP Server in the Router and give all your
> >> Computer a Static IP.
> >>
> >> Option 2. Work with DHCP On but restrict its IP range to the number of
> >> computer that you have.
> >> Example, if you have 3 computers, set in the Router the DHCP range to
> >> 192.168.1.10 to 192.168.1.12
> >> As for Wireless security.
> >> From the weakest to the strongest, Wireless security capacity is.
> >> No Security
> >> Switching Off SSID (same has No Security. SSID can be easily sniffed even
> >> if
> >> it is Off)
> >> MAC Filtering______(Band Aid if nothing else is available, MAC number can
> >> be
> >> easily Spoofed).
> >> WEP64____(Easy, to "Break" by knowledgeable people).
> >> WEP128___(A little Harder, but "Hackable" too).
> >> -------------------
> >> The three above are Not considered safe.
> >> Safe Starts here at WPA.
> >> -------------------
> >> WPA-PSK__(Very Hard to Break).
> >> WPA-AES__(Not functionally Breakable)
> >> WPA2____ (Not functionally Breakable).
> >> Note 1: WPA-AES the the current entry level rendition of WPA2.
> >> Note 2: If you use WinXP bellow SP3 and did not updated it, you would
> >> have
> >> to download the WPA2 patch from Microsoft.
> >> <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/893357>
> >> The documentation of your Wireless devices (Wireless Router, and Wireless
> >> Computer's Card) should state the type of security that is available with
> >> your Wireless hardware.
> >> All devices MUST be set to the same security level using the same pass
> >> phrase.
> >> Therefore the security must be set according what ever is the best
> >> possible
> >> of one of the Wireless devices.
> >> I.e. even if most of your system might be capable to be configured to the
> >> max. with WPA2, but one device is only capable to be configured to max .
> >> of
> >> WEP, to whole system must be configured to WEP.
> >> If you need more good security and one device (like a Wireless card that
> >> can
> >> do WEP only) is holding better security for the whole Network, replace
> >> the
> >> device with a better one.
> >> Setting Wireless Security - <http://www.ezlan.net/Wireless_Security.html>
> >> The Core differences between WEP, WPA, and WPA2 -
> >> <http://www.ezlan.net/wpa_wep.html>
> >> Jack (MVP-Networking).
> >>
> >>
> >> "dareys" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:4EB88637-8370-4EFD-B57F-(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> > Greetings,
> >> >
> >> > When connecting to a wireless network, McAfee my Anti Virus and
> >> > Firewall
> >> > Software prompts me to allow a trusted IP address to continue with the
> >> > connection, and from what I have seen in home and small office
> >> > networks,
> >> > it always something like 192.168.1.212.
> >> >
> >> > However, after the connection has been established and I check McAfee
> >> > to
> >> > find out exactly what IP addresses are trusted on the machine, I find
> >> > out
> >> > that a range of them, such as 192.168.1.0 through 192.168.1.255 have
> >> > been
> >> > allowed.
> >> >
> >> > I would think that these are the IP addresses managed by the
> >> > Router/Modem/Gateway. However, if this is the case, then all of those
> >> > IPs
> >> > woud be in my network, and anyone with a black belt in Networking and a
> >> > malicious mind could hack into my machine.
> >> >
> >> > Hence, the question. How can I limit access to the machine only to and
> >> > from the Router/Gateway/Modem. Sure that would still be a single point
> >> > of
> >> > failure, but still better that 255 potential other connections.
> >> >
> >> > Paranoid? Well, the amount of problems I have had over the years with
> >> > the
> >> > PCs I use are making me look into all the possibilities for issues to
> >> > occur, and this seems ilke one to me.
> >> >
> >> > Thank you for your help.
> >> >
> >> > Jean-Pierre
> >> >
> >> > P.S. I think I have been clear. If not please reply and I will clarify.
> >> > Oh,
> >> > and yes,
> >> > the network is secured with WEP encryption. Not the best, but
> >> > better
> >> > than
> >> > none.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>

John <a> wrote:
> "dareys" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:E4BBDABD-1190-4523-9561-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Lanwench,
>>
>> Thank you for the response.
>>
>> Frankly, if the software documented or indicated anything like that,
>> I would
>> not be asking the question. As it is, it doesn´t specify. Hence the
>> question.
>> I am not a network expert.
>>
>> Actually, I thought it was 254, but again you might know better than
>> me. Care to explain?
>
> That's correct.
>
> 256 - 1 (network address) - 1 (broadcast address) = 254 usable
> addresses (assuming /24 network).

Yes...minus the address he himself is using. He was talking about all the
other potential IPs in use on the network:-)

>
>> As far as WEP, yes, I read an articule about how it has been cracked
>> a while
>> back. It does not help that this is only 64 bit and not 128 or 256
>> ... Yes,
>> they should go to WPA or WPA2?
>
> Is that a question? If so, yes, you ought to stop using WEP.