How secure is just using MAC address access?

I'm using 3 D-Link DWL-900AP+ AP's connected to a Netgear 8-port router
(connected to a cable modem). I'm not using WEP because I didn't want to
slow down access and I hear it's not that good anyway. But I am limiting
access to only the MAC addresses of my systems. How secure am I?


--
Bait for spammers:
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
admin@localhost
abuse@localhost
postmaster@127.0.0.1

Stoic <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> I'm using 3 D-Link DWL-900AP+ AP's connected to a Netgear 8-port router
> (connected to a cable modem). I'm not using WEP because I didn't want to
> slow down access and I hear it's not that good anyway. But I am limiting
> access to only the MAC addresses of my systems. How secure am I?

Not terribly...at all. But it does beat nothing. Passive snooping
will expose your MAC access and there's freely available software
where anyone could spoof your MAC addy and jump on board. WEP will
slow people down more than just a MAC addy restriction. How many
easier targets are in your neighborhood?

Get thee to WiFi Protected Access (WPA) if the needed firmware is
available for your access point, and the necessary driver and
supplicant client is available for your wireless card. WPA addresses
all known security flaws in WEP.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Todd H. wrote:
<snip>
> Get thee to WiFi Protected Access (WPA) if the needed firmware is
> available for your access point, and the necessary driver and
> supplicant client is available for your wireless card. WPA addresses
> all known security flaws in WEP.


Or not:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,113340,00.asp

Stoic wrote:
> I'm using 3 D-Link DWL-900AP+ AP's connected to a Netgear 8-port
> router (connected to a cable modem). I'm not using WEP because I
> didn't want to slow down access and I hear it's not that good anyway.
> But I am limiting access to only the MAC addresses of my systems. How
> secure am I?

Are the wireless systems always-on? The MAC Address of any of your wireless
clients can be sniffed, but if they are in use, then they are in use.
Having duplicate MAC Addresses shouldn't be allowed at the gateway. So, if
you are always on with the wireless clients, their MACs are in use. - When
one is off, though, that MAC Address can be used to gain access.

"i'm_tired" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Todd H. wrote:
> <snip>
> > Get thee to WiFi Protected Access (WPA) if the needed firmware is
> > available for your access point, and the necessary driver and
> > supplicant client is available for your wireless card. WPA addresses
> > all known security flaws in WEP.
>
>
> Or not:
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,113340,00.asp

No shit. Thanks for the link. I obviously didn't get the memo.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

"i'm_tired" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Todd H. wrote:
> <snip>
> > Get thee to WiFi Protected Access (WPA) if the needed firmware is
> > available for your access point, and the necessary driver and
> > supplicant client is available for your wireless card. WPA addresses
> > all known security flaws in WEP.
>
>
> Or not:
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,113340,00.asp

Actually, after reading this, it isn't terribly newsworthy. Obviously
in a preshared key implementation of WPA, the security's only as good
as the password one selects.

This is well summarized, in this quote:

"WPA is doing what it's supposed to do, providing you do what you're
supposed to do and enforce secure passwords," he said.

"Both Disabato and Moskowitz agreed that WPA was far more secure than
the earlier WEP standard, even considering the issues raised by
Moskowitz's paper. However, Moskowitz did take issue with wireless
networking equipment makers' implementation of WPA."

And I don't think anyone will disagree with teh notion that any
network intrusion means that requires physical access is potentially
more secure than one which does not. Basically, don't implement a
wireless network unless you're willing to accept the inherent
incremental risk of going wireless as a tradeoff to the convenience of
not having to plug into the network.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Todd H. wrote:
> "i'm_tired" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> Todd H. wrote:
<snip>
>> Or not:
>>
>> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,113340,00.asp
>
> No shit. Thanks for the link. I obviously didn't get the memo.

I found a blurb on the Wi-Fi Alliance website saying that they are
addressing the problems outlined in Moskowitz' paper. But, I also read in a
couple of mailing lists that they knew about the problems and were just
under the gun to get it released. Haste makes waste, I guesse.

It's better than nothing, but it's not in any sense secure. It's like
closing your front door but forgetting to lock it. Any bad guy out there can
discover what MAC addresses your inside hosts have, and configure his own
adapter to use one of them. Your router will not be able to distinguish your
adapter from his. If the intruder waits until you aren't using the network,
he has free access.

WEP is far from perfect, but at least it puts a lock on your door. The
intruder has to be determined enough to sit around for anywhere up to a few
hours (sometimes much less), gathering enough data to crack your key. He'd
prefer to go for an easier mark - there are lots of unsecured networks
around.

Some 802.11b equipment supports WEP in the chipset. In this case, there's no
performance impact at all. Do some research to find out if your APs and
router support WEP in silicon. Even if they don't, WEP may have less impact
than you think. You should at least try it.

"Stoic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ews.com...
> I'm using 3 D-Link DWL-900AP+ AP's connected to a Netgear 8-port router
> (connected to a cable modem). I'm not using WEP because I didn't want to
> slow down access and I hear it's not that good anyway. But I am limiting
> access to only the MAC addresses of my systems. How secure am I?
>
>
> --
> Bait for spammers:
> root@localhost
> postmaster@localhost
> admin@localhost
> abuse@localhost
> postmaster@127.0.0.1

There's also such a thing as session hijacking, where an intruder who has
cracked a key sends a dissociate message to a client, as if the router had
dropped the session, and then takes over the still-active association to the
router.

"i'm_tired" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ejOwb.301670$HS4.2702832@attbi_s01...
> Stoic wrote:
> > I'm using 3 D-Link DWL-900AP+ AP's connected to a Netgear 8-port
> > router (connected to a cable modem). I'm not using WEP because I
> > didn't want to slow down access and I hear it's not that good anyway.
> > But I am limiting access to only the MAC addresses of my systems. How
> > secure am I?
>
> Are the wireless systems always-on? The MAC Address of any of your
wireless
> clients can be sniffed, but if they are in use, then they are in use.
> Having duplicate MAC Addresses shouldn't be allowed at the gateway. So,
if
> you are always on with the wireless clients, their MACs are in use. -
When
> one is off, though, that MAC Address can be used to gain access.
>
>

How many times has anyone in this News Group had a visitor on their network
because "The Hacker" managed to get in???

and did:

1 Damage
2 Stole info (any info) - and would you know about it?-
3 Printed profanity to you!
4 e-mailed their frail gandmother ? awwwww
5 hacked NASA..
6 caused a war.. duh!
7 downloaded porn (when half naked) [probably]
8 sent a video of what they were doing to an on-line mate in messenger <G>
LMAO!!!
9 dissed your router...
10 sent an e-mail to YOU (through your routers settings because you didnt
change the default settings) tut tut
11 planted a virus on your system?
12 REMOVED a virus from your system?!!!?
13 scanned your network ...hehehehe
14 knocked on your door and asked if you had a wireless network that he/she
could test for vunrabilites?
15 checked their lottery results!
16 ordered some video nasties with stolen credit cards....
17 posted a message like this to a news group, from one of its established
members own networks!

Just wonderin.... <G>
AND... How would you know if they had or had not???





"Stoic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ews.com...
> I'm using 3 D-Link DWL-900AP+ AP's connected to a Netgear 8-port router
> (connected to a cable modem). I'm not using WEP because I didn't want to
> slow down access and I hear it's not that good anyway. But I am limiting
> access to only the MAC addresses of my systems. How secure am I?
>
>
> --
> Bait for spammers:
> root@localhost
> postmaster@localhost
> admin@localhost
> abuse@localhost
> postmaster@127.0.0.1