pardon me, but wep does not work "as designed", unless you are claiming its design goal was to not provide any real security over non-wep.
wep is a better example of "the failure of the standards process" than of "works as designed". wep's inexcusable flaw is that 40 bit wep provides the same level of security as 128 bit wep due to the reuse of the rapid reuse of the keystream of a stream cipher. i entirely expect that manufacturers who made claims that 128 bit wep provided enhanced or additional security will be the subject of class actions in the next few years. (at first they were wrong, but at some point, they were just lying to consumers.) On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 10:42:24AM -1000, Paul C. Lawler wrote: > I know that at least 4 of them offer additional security (read, more than > WEP) on top of wireless. > > As you probably know, WEP (wired equivalency protocol) was only designed > to make 802.11 "as" secure as a wired connection, which is of course, not > very secure. > > WEP works "as designed," but most wireless providers understand the need > for "real" security in addition to WEP. > > At 12:48 PM 6/26/02 -0700, you wrote: > >* plawler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >>Boingo, WiFiMetro, Wayport, iPass, T-Mobile (just to name the big ones). > > > >they may do wireless, but those aren't security companies > > > >-- > >NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > >Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > >Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
