SSID in MN500

While reviewing the basestation log, I saw someone trying to associate
a wireless client but couldn't since I have MAC client filtering. Does
that mean that the person broke the WEP key and was able to attempt to
get in?
Is it worth to downgrade from the lastest firmware down to 1.09 so I
can disable SSID broadcast?

Thanks
Jay

on whether they broke you key or not I'm not sure. Just a piece of
advise security by obscurity (which is not a valid form of security) is
all that disabling the SSID broadcast will do. This is because all
wireless transmissions include the SSID in a non encrypted form. This
makes disabling the SSID a moot point. I strongly recommend continuing
to use MAC filtering as it is more secure the WEP.

Capitan Rum wrote:
> While reviewing the basestation log, I saw someone trying to associate
> a wireless client but couldn't since I have MAC client filtering. Does
> that mean that the person broke the WEP key and was able to attempt to
> get in?
> Is it worth to downgrade from the lastest firmware down to 1.09 so I
> can disable SSID broadcast?
>
> Thanks
> Jay

Change the WEP key frequently and they won't be able to
break into. The SSID can be seen even if broadcasts are
disabled (look at NetStumbler.com for instance).

>-----Original Message-----
>While reviewing the basestation log, I saw someone trying
to associate
>a wireless client but couldn't since I have MAC client
filtering. Does
>that mean that the person broke the WEP key and was able
to attempt to
>get in?
>Is it worth to downgrade from the lastest firmware down to
1.09 so I
>can disable SSID broadcast?
>
>Thanks
>Jay
>.
>

mac addresses can be easily sniffed. it's best to use both WEP and MAC
filtering.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:30:48 -0600, joker <no-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I strongly recommend continuing
>to use MAC filtering as it is more secure the WEP.

--
Barb Bowman
Expert Zone Columnist
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
MS-MVP (Windows)

I thought that it was a security flaw in WEP that allowed it to be
sniffed. I hadn't heard anything about MAC filtering.

Barb Bowman [MVP-Windows] wrote:

> mac addresses can be easily sniffed. it's best to use both WEP and MAC
> filtering.
>
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:30:48 -0600, joker <no-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>I strongly recommend continuing
>>to use MAC filtering as it is more secure the WEP.
>
>
> --
> Barb Bowman
> Expert Zone Columnist
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
> MS-MVP (Windows)

Mac addresses can be sniffed and spoofed. It's best to use as many
kinds of security as you have available.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:19:47 -0600, joker <no-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I thought that it was a security flaw in WEP that allowed it to be
>sniffed. I hadn't heard anything about MAC filtering.
>
>Barb Bowman [MVP-Windows] wrote:
>
>> mac addresses can be easily sniffed. it's best to use both WEP and MAC
>> filtering.
>>
>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:30:48 -0600, joker <no-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I strongly recommend continuing
>>>to use MAC filtering as it is more secure the WEP.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Barb Bowman
>> Expert Zone Columnist
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>> MS-MVP (Windows)

--
Barb Bowman
Expert Zone Columnist
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
MS-MVP (Windows)