Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

WPA Encryption Cracked In 60 Seconds

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the nicholas-cage-has-an-alibi dept.

Wireless Networking 322

carusoj writes "Computer scientists in Japan say they've developed a way to break the WPA encryption system used in wireless routers in about one minute. Last November, security researchers first showed how WPA could be broken, but the Japanese researchers have taken the attack to a new level. The earlier attack worked on a smaller range of WPA devices and took between 12 and 15 minutes to work. Both attacks work only on WPA systems that use the Temporal Key Integrity Protocol (TKIP) algorithm. They do not work on newer WPA 2 devices or on WPA systems that use the stronger Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm."

cancel ×

322 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Gayz (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29220471)

Gayz

Cool (2, Funny)

el_tedward (1612093) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220475)

So we'll be able to get more free wireless now?

Re:Cool (5, Insightful)

MooseMuffin (799896) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220513)

You'll be able to provide more free wireless too!

Re:Cool (3, Funny)

godrik (1287354) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220719)

My wireless network is kept open. I prefer to be sure that it is not safe than believe it is :) BTW, I call it ParasiteNet. :)

Re:Cool (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220807)

I do the same but I have a coovaAP set up for the roaming to snag free WiFi near my home.

Keeps people out of my junk, and I can limit what they can do.

Re:Cool (3, Funny)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221433)

I prefer to be sure that it is not safe than believe it is :)

"I'm safe. My secure wireless router is no where near Japan. There's no way they can pick up signals from me."

(This came from a guy who would only buy American electronics, because he really didn't want to watch Japanese game shows and doesn't speak Japanese, Thai. or Korean.)

Re:Cool (0, Offtopic)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221485)

oops.. did i say Thai. I meant Taiwanese. duh to me.

How about free secure wireless? (1, Troll)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220809)

But what if I want to provide free AND secure wireless in a user friendly way? What about the people who want to provide free wifi that doesn't allow users to eavesdrop on each other's traffic?

WiFi security is pretty dismal.

There's nothing at the level of https - where users can have confidential connections without messing about too much - no need even for "username and password".

With WiFi, either users have zero security, or they have to enter a username and password (and possibly jump through other hoops).

I'd love to know if there's an existing way and I'm missing something. Forcing users to use IPSEC does not count as "not jumping through hoops".

Yes I know, https users still have to beware of MITM attacks, but at least fix WiFi to the https level.

Re:How about free secure wireless? (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220993)

Someone explained to me a good way which required 3 wireless routers...

I've long since forgotten what he said... pity that.

Re:How about free secure wireless? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29221279)

you need 2 wireless routers and a wired. The wireless routers plug in to the wired router so the secure and the unsecure wireless networks are basically unaware of each other. I think I heard it from Steve Gibson on the Security Now podcast.

Re:How about free secure wireless? (1)

sukotto (122876) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221543)

You only really need two...

1) Set up router A as an open access point and have it connect to your ISP
2) Set up router B as a private, secure access point
3) Hook up the rest of your network to router B
4) Set up router A to give traffic from B priority over any other traffic
5) Have router B connect to router A.

Secure for you and free for anybody that wants to use it.

Re:How about free secure wireless? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29221849)

Bad idea:

1. Pedobear connects to the open wireless. He gets a low throughput, but enough for a day's fapping.
2. The 4chan party van comes by and asks the wireless network's owner some very hard questions.
3. Jury convicts because the prosecutor manages to equate IP address with person (which has a precedent in court by the RIAA.)
4. Open wireless owner spends 5 to 20 farting mayonnaise and is for the rest of their lives a registered sex offender.

I'd make router "A" locked down just to keep the wandering pervies and people looking to hide their IPs at bay.

Re:How about free secure wireless? (1)

arminw (717974) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221121)

...With WiFi, either users have zero security, or they have to enter a username and password...

As they say, locks are only good for honest people. The crooks will always be able to break in. I have set my AP up to only allow a short list of MAC addresses to connect to my network. I understand that this is not much security to seasoned hacker, but prevents casual war drivers from connecting to my network. When a friend comes over and wish us to connect to a network, I just and his or hers MAC address to the permitted list. It also means that I now have one less password to deal with.

Re:How about free secure wireless? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29221549)

How is manually entering a MAC address into your router's configuration easier than entering a password into your friend's laptop?
IMHO that's *more* work, and does not even quality being called "not much security", it's none at all. MAC access lists don't even qualify as a security mechanism.

WPA2-AES is good. Use it.

Re:How about free secure wireless? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221675)

Fool.
Then people who DON'T EVEN BOTHER TO SPOOF A MAC can just sit and grab signals out of the air.

All unencrypted (at the wireless level - SSL stuff is still SSL obviously).

Re:How about free secure wireless? (3, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221881)

As they say, locks are only good for honest people.

The main reason you want a strong lock is not because they're unbreakable, but because your neighbor should be the easier target.

Re:How about free secure wireless? (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221469)

WiFi AP to a wired router running OpenVPN? It's my preferred method. It still may not count as "not jumping through hoops", but it's about the best I can think of right now.

Re:How about free secure wireless? (1)

lateralus_1024 (583730) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221773)

I've been told by my work's IT department to VPN into work and then do any kind of browsing that I want to do when I'm in a free/insecure wifi spot. Thus having a more secure connection while at a coffee shop or something.

I've yet to do this because I'm not sure they're prepared for 4chan showing up in their logs. The repercussions could negatively impact the paycheck scheme i've got going.

Re:Cool (1)

Sam36 (1065410) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221771)

I lol'd

Slashdot sucks... (1, Troll)

fractalVisionz (989785) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220527)

Slashdot sucks, eat my shorts.

(Haha, we broke into your WPA v1, in less than a minute - Japanese Researchers)

Re:Slashdot sucks... (-1, Offtopic)

fractalVisionz (989785) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220763)

Silly mods, this was a joke stating that the researchers cracked my WPA to write the comments. Read the entire comment please.

Re:Slashdot sucks... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29220795)

Jokes are supposed to be funny.

Re:Slashdot sucks... (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220827)

Your slashdot account is tied to your access point? You might want to look into one of those "password" things.

Re:Slashdot sucks... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29220793)

There's a button you can select labeled Post Anonymously. When you make posts such as yours, it's a good idea to select it so you're not actually known to be a douchebag.

Wardriving? (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220529)

A return to the old wardriving days of yore?

Re:Wardriving? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29221417)

Old?

Wardriving happens more now than it ever did.

How Long? (1)

Rod76 (705840) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220533)

I wonder how long it will take for this to be integrated into Back|Track?

Re:How Long? (4, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220577)

Backtrack really doesn't "do" anything, it's just an awesome integration of separate tools.

aircrack is the base package that would most probably implement this.

Re:How Long? (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221103)

Are there any good tutorials for BackTrack items? Lifehacker has done a few liveCD showings of it but never explain more than that. Would love to use it more but the lack of documentation and user friendliness leaves me wanting. /not a crypto expert

The original submission (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29220555)

was about 9 words and was glaringly lacking information. I posted all of the information in the above summary, and some thoughts on wireless security, which then disappeared and was magically in the summary, damn you slashdot for stealing my thoughts!

Secure protocols for home wifi? (4, Interesting)

tacarat (696339) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220569)

TFA lists AES. I'm curious what else is considered useful. Anybody using hacked routers to run tomato and the like are very welcome to discuss their security thoughts.

Re:Secure protocols for home wifi? (5, Informative)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220617)

This list [dd-wrt.com] is still accurate, if you apply the comment on #4 up to #5 as well.

And run DD-WRT.

Re:Secure protocols for home wifi? (5, Informative)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220677)

It's probably not so much a matter of what base crypto they're using (a la AES, SHA, etc) but how they're implementing the key exchange when negotiating the connection. Implement good crypto wrong and you open the door. Initial negotiations between parties is a tricky, multistep affair for good security, to prevent MITM.

Re:Secure protocols for home wifi? (5, Insightful)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220683)

Wired ethernet. Not only is it vastly more secure, it's also an order of magnitude or two faster than wireless.

Re:Secure protocols for home wifi? (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220773)

Wired ethernet. Not only is it vastly more secure, it's also an order of magnitude or two faster than wireless.

No wireless? Lame.

Re:Secure protocols for home wifi? (0, Redundant)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220951)

And less space than a Nomad.

Re:Secure protocols for home wifi? (0, Redundant)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221237)

1000Mbit ought to be enough for everyone!

Re:Secure protocols for home wifi? (1)

tacarat (696339) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220797)

Very true, but that also defeats the purpose of having a wireless router.

Re:Secure protocols for home wifi? (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220839)

Not only is it vastly more secure, it's also an order of magnitude or two faster than wireless.

Really? Please show me this consumer-available wired ethernet that runs at 10 gigabit.

Re:Secure protocols for home wifi? (4, Insightful)

pantherace (165052) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220883)

I challenge you to show me a consumer available wireless that actually runs at 1 gigabit.

Re:Secure protocols for home wifi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29221169)

10Gbit is two orders of magnitude from 100Mbit. There are 100Mbit wireless solutions out there.

Re:Secure protocols for home wifi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29221567)

You have an unusual definition of "or"

Re:Secure protocols for home wifi? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221729)

Please shoe me this consumer-available wireless router that runs at 1 gigabit.

OR.

It bites both ways.

Re:Secure protocols for home wifi? (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220933)

"Wired ethernet. Not only is it vastly more secure, it's also an order of magnitude or two faster than wireless."

I know! It makes you wonder what reason someone would have for prefering wireless, doesn't it. I mean, I can't think of a single advantage; can you?

For those with Aspergers or other difficulties picking up on these kind of things, I am being completely, 100%, totally, absolutely facetious ;-)

Re:Secure protocols for home wifi? (1)

arminw (717974) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221673)

...Wired ethernet...

Except that crawling underneath the house with all the black widow spiders and other biting and stinging critters under there, is something that many people love very much to avoid. If I have to transfer a few gigabytes between computers, and I am in no hurry for that transfer to take place, our use a simple USB drive.

Re:Secure protocols for home wifi? (1)

SJ2000 (1128057) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220813)

Article:

Both attacks work only on WPA systems that use the Temporal Key Integrity Protocol (TKIP) algorithm. They do not work on newer WPA 2 devices or on WPA systems that use the stronger Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm.

Re:Secure protocols for home wifi? (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221245)

> They do not work on...

Yet.

Re:Secure protocols for home wifi? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221745)

Yet.
We already know AES is under attack. I bet it will fall within 2 years' time.

so, uh, (1)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220601)

where can I procure this to give it a test drive myself?

Re:so, uh, (4, Informative)

rawls (1462507) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220783)

The original paper is here [nsysu.edu.tw]

I'm safe. (5, Funny)

rawls (1462507) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220603)

Lucky for me, I use WEP, so I'm safe.

In Soviet Russia (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29220693)

WEP uses you!

Re:I'm safe. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29221207)

Lucky for me, I use WEP, so I'm safe.

Very amusing considering I just wrote a 25 page report on why WEP should be thoroughly banned as an option in hardware.

Re:I'm safe. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29221419)

The grandparent was clearly joking but your joke about it taking 25 pages to explain why WEP is useless is funnier. Did you just copy and paste the sentence "It can be cracked in less than a minute by the average 13 year old." until it filled 25 pages?

The rat race continues.. (2, Insightful)

simp (25997) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220613)

The question is can anything be secure in the long term if an attacker can monitor the conversation between alice and bob 24/7? Sometimes a bit of obscurity can go a long way. Good luck trying to sniff my shielded network cables. Yes, I've heard the tempest stories but I'm jumping to the conclusion that those techniques are only available to big $$ governements institutions and are not used by the random drive-by hacker (yet..)

Re:The rat race continues.. (0)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220701)

The question is can anything be secure in the long term if an attacker can monitor the conversation between alice and bob 24/7?

And the answer has been shown to be yes for any reasonable definition of long term...but only if you don't fall into one of a huge number of subtle errors that can be made.

Re:The rat race continues.. (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220787)

The question is can anything be secure in the long term if an attacker can monitor the conversation between alice and bob 24/7?

Well, yeah. That's the whole point of protocols like SSL, and tools like GPG. Though they're not magical and you need to pay attention and not blindly click "Ok" to every self-signed cert.

Yes, I've heard the tempest stories but I'm jumping to the conclusion that those techniques are only available to big $$ governements institutions and are not used by the random drive-by hacker (yet..)

From what I heard, TEMPEST is doable on hardware like monitors for very cheap. Your shielded cables aren't going to be much good there, and the keyboard's cable is probably not shielded either. I don't think it's common in wardriving yet, though.

Re:The rat race continues.. (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220851)

You can reduce risk by changing keys regularly, although it's not really necessary for your average wireless user.

Re:The rat race continues.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29220909)

If your access point only exposes a single port which only allows IPSEC or other secure tunnel setup, then you can be reasonably sure that the setup is as secure as the underlying encrypted tunnel.

Re:The rat race continues.. (3, Insightful)

ChrisMounce (1096567) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220971)

I'm not sure if you're calling shielded cables an example of security through obscurity, but if you did, they're not.

Knowing exactly how your cables are shielded doesn't help me snoop on anything passing through those cables.

Re:The rat race continues.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29221181)

Thank you very much kind sir. Now I know exactly what "security by obscurity means. It had previously disembowelled me.

Re:The rat race continues.. (2, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220981)

That's not a very intelligent question. Obviously, OTP can be secure in the long term for any definition of long term. Public key cryptography has always been secure, and probably will be until really really good quantum computers are developed. Symmetric key crypto is as secure as ever, and there's no indication this will change soon. Some cryptographic hash algorithms are less useful today, but most are still more than good enough.

So, yes, crypto can certainly be "secure" in the long term. Protocols with design flaws (like WPA-TKIP) will never be secure. The more "obscure" the protocol, the more likely it is to be insecure, as it won't benefit from peer review.

Re:The rat race continues.. (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221071)

We don't know this at all. The relevant issue is whether P=NP. The question roughly asks whether there are problems whose solutions can be verified quickly but cannot have solutions found quickly. No one knows although most people who have thought about it suspect that P is not NP so fundamentally secure encryption is possible by classical means. But someone might find a really clever way of reducing NP problems tomorrow and it would all break down. Note that having quantum computers doesn't necessarily make all classical public key crypto insecure. It does mean that all public key crypto that relies on factoring being difficult will be insecure (since factoring can be done quickly on a quantum computer using Shore's algorithm).

Re:The rat race continues.. (4, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221251)

Actually, it is a mathematical fact that OTP is perfectly unbreakable. P=NP doesn't enter into it.

Re:The rat race continues.. (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221825)

Actually, it is a mathematical fact that OTP is perfectly unbreakable. P=NP doesn't enter into it.

Only with sufficiently good random number generation.

Re:The rat race continues.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29221239)

I have to disagree. When GSM came out, analog phone cloning was a constant threat. However, it has yet to be cracked on any widespread basis. It is a highly closed protocol, and has yet to be truly cracked.

Same with almost any DRM implementation in the past several years. Blu-Ray has yet to be cracked, StarForce games such as Splinter Cell have yet to be truly cracked (as in not having to physically yank IDE cables), and Windows Media DRM has yet to be cracked after the patch in 2007.

Security through obscurity works and works well. The people who make it just have to know their stuff. If you compare an open cryptosystem to a closed one where the DMCA can be used to smash any and all attempts at breaking it, the closed one (satellite TV is another example) wins every time for long term protection.

Re:The rat race continues.. (2, Informative)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220985)

The question is can anything be secure in the long term if an attacker can monitor the conversation between alice and bob 24/7?

Yes. It's a basic assumption in communication security that your communication medium is insecure and can be monitored or modified at will by an attacker.

You can design an authentication/key exchange protocol so that the only way to access the data is to break the encryption algorithm, or via social engineering.

You can design an encryption algorithm so that it cannot be broken except by a brute force attack in an infeasible amount of time, meaning like 1000 years assuming Moore's Law continues unabated the whole time and major world governments want your data.

It's just a tricky thing to get right. And sometimes (WEP) it seems like they weren't even trying.

Re:The rat race continues.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29221153)

I'm not an EE...but I've got published sources in books on my shelf documenting the CIA doing spikeless taps in the 50's--basically just using inductance. Not far after that, there's mentions of Tempest-like devices, but the book doesn't go into it in the same level of detail.

I'm going out on a limb, and assuming if they had the technology like that back then--with modern breakthroughs in superconducting--it's probably available to any good engineer who can afford to pay for fab capabilities.

There's a few papers out there that describe using an o-scope to read network traffic from the blinking light--and also doing it in any room with fluorescent lights--in addition to people pulling keystrokes from *current changes* in a well insulated network. These were 'just' scientists...

Re:The rat race continues.. (2, Informative)

xianthax (963773) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221325)

"Shielded Network Cables"

have virtually no impact on emissions from the cable, and do have no impact if your equipment doesn't have shielded connectors which is unlikely, a shield that is not properly grounded will create higher emissions and increase external noise pickup. Shielding on Ethernet cables is to limit noise going into the wire, and is only effective at lower frequencies, its mostly for keeping 50/60Hz mains noise off the wires.

You could install ferrites on the cable to limit common mode noise but i don't see a security benefit to that.

The EM field from a network cable is already _extremely_ low do to it being a differential signal carried on a twisted pair i'd be extremely impressed if you could enough of a field to pick up the differential mode signal without physical contact with the bare wires. if you are getting emissions you are better off solving that problem with higher quality cable with lower resistance copper and tighter / more consistent twists in the pairs. If your getting high emissions your probably having trouble getting data through the cable anyway, if the EM fields aren't canceling you aren't getting a clean differential mode signal out the other end.

Time to start working on WPA3? (3, Interesting)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220759)

So, does this mean it's time to start working on whatever the replacement will be for WPA2? WPA is broken. . . but at least we can use WPA2 (for now). I'm guessing WPA2 will someday be broken, so we need to have something to replace it which has not (yet) been broken. Seems like wireless security rests on a never-ending game of move the goal, before the goal is reached (where the 'goal' for crackers is to crack the 'current' security protocol).

Although, thinking about this more, it makes me wonder - does anyone ever 'record' encrypted traffic from targets of interest, in the hopes that, maybe right now they can't crack it, but maybe in 2 or 3 years, they'll be able to crack it, and if they have a 'recording' of the cyphertext, which they can later decrypt, they can get possibly interesting info/data (data could very easily still be useful and interesting 3 or 5 years from now, particularly things like state/corporate secrets, but even more mundane info like people's social security numbers, answers to online password 'reset' security questions, etc).

I suppose that if I could think of it, someone else already has, and already is doing it.

So, from that standpoint, even if the security researchers stay 'ahead' of the blackhats, the blackhats can still get useful info within a relatively useful amount of time. Just because you've upgraded to WPA2 or WPA+AES, doesn't mean you're completely protected, if someone snagged encrypted traffic in the past which was 'secured' by TKIP.

Re:Time to start working on WPA3? (2, Informative)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220861)

That's why if you have really important information going through the wireless. You either A) Use a VPN tunnel or B) Don't use wireless.

How does the VPN help? (2, Interesting)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220915)

Are you *positive* that the VPN connection is uncrackable? If it's going over wireless, then if someone is recording the cyphertext, they will be able to recover the VPN cyphertext out of the WPA cyphertext. If they then know of a way to recover the 'cleartext' from the VPN cyphertext, then you are still leaking your data. If the VPN system is so secure, why aren't we using it for the wireless connection? That is, make the wireless network a VPN using the same algorithms you use for your VPN?

Re:How does the VPN help? (4, Insightful)

NitroWolf (72977) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221041)

Are you *positive* that the VPN connection is uncrackable? If it's going over wireless, then if someone is recording the cyphertext, they will be able to recover the VPN cyphertext out of the WPA cyphertext. If they then know of a way to recover the 'cleartext' from the VPN cyphertext, then you are still leaking your data. If the VPN system is so secure, why aren't we using it for the wireless connection? That is, make the wireless network a VPN using the same algorithms you use for your VPN?

While I am not commenting on the security or lack of security in a VPN connection, I believe I can answer this. The simple fact is, most routers can't handle the encryption load of a full blown VPN, especially one with multiple users. Even dedicated routers that are made to handle this can only handle 5 or 10 at a time until you start plopping down the big bucks for the serious VPN routers.

So using VPN level of encryption on a home router is not going to happen until processing power is increased dramatically on the cheap CPUs they use.

Re:How does the VPN help? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29221385)

I'll second this.

Wireless VPN is not where it needs to be. If you have something THAT secure, just don't communicate wirelessly. Set up a wired VPN connection.

Re:How does the VPN help? (1)

patrickthbold (1351131) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221163)

As far as I know, there is nothing that is reasonable to use that is proven to be secure. Lots of things are very likely to be secure. Often you are trying to balance the convience of a protocol with its security.

Re:How does the VPN help? (3, Informative)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221813)

Are you *positive* that the VPN connection is uncrackable?

No, and nobody ever is. Which is why security protocols are so conservatively deployed. Protocols are proposed and analyzed by lots of people who are (hopefully) much smarter than you or I. Protocols that withstand years of this scrutiny and review are slowly trusted more and more (EG: SSL) over other protocols that get picked apart. (like WEP)

If it's going over wireless, then if someone is recording the cyphertext, they will be able to recover the VPN cyphertext out of the WPA cyphertext. If they then know of a way to recover the 'cleartext' from the VPN cyphertext, then you are still leaking your data.

This whole paragraph makes no sense at all, and makes it clear that you do not understand encryption, especially dual-key cryptography. Please RTFM.

If the VPN system is so secure, why aren't we using it for the wireless connection? That is, make the wireless network a VPN using the same algorithms you use for your VPN?

WEP, WPA, and AES are protocols that logically establish a sort of Virtual Private Network on otherwise public radio waves. The main difference between these protocols and a true VPN is that they aren't layered on top of IP, like a VPN, but are instead layered on the datagram protocol of the radio signal itself. The problem is that WEP was quickly implemented and was never really peer reviewed. Thus, it had numerous flaws that were discovered very quickly.

From a security standpoint, WEP is sort of like locking your ground-floor window. It allows you to announce your intention of privacy, but it's quite easily compromised by somebody with the digital equivalent of the nearest rock.

Re:Time to start working on WPA3? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220887)

I believe TKIP is used for key exchange. Upgrade to WPA/AES or WPA2 /AES and change your keys.

Re:Time to start working on WPA3? (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221731)

Don't forget that both WEP and WPA/TKIP are using proprietary algorithms and stream ciphers. Using proprietary crypto has always been a bad thing, and using it with a stream cipher is worse. WEP/WPA failing so fast does not mean that WPA2 using the much safer AES standard (in a security proven mode) should fail as fast.

If you look at the Wikipedia site you can quickly see that TKIP was implemented for easy upgrades of WEP. Seems they took it a bit too easy.

Re:Time to start working on WPA3? (4, Interesting)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221789)

Although, thinking about this more, it makes me wonder - does anyone ever 'record' encrypted traffic from targets of interest, in the hopes that, maybe right now they can't crack it, but maybe in 2 or 3 years, they'll be able to crack it, and if they have a 'recording' of the cyphertext, which they can later decrypt, they can get possibly interesting info/data (data could very easily still be useful and interesting 3 or 5 years from now, particularly things like state/corporate secrets, but even more mundane info like people's social security numbers, answers to online password 'reset' security questions, etc).

One of the parts of Neal Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon" I enjoyed the most was when one character sent another character a message encoded with, as I recall, 4096-bit security, and the character receiving it, while his computer was decoding it, went through the mental gymnastics of comparing the speed of prime factoring algorithms, taking into account Moore's Law and how many new computers were coming online, to conclude that whatever was in the message, it was meant to stay secret for at least 40 years, as opposed to the sender's usual 10 year threshold, making the recipient particularly nervous about the contents.

We will need swift legislation then... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29220777)

...to make the use of any router which does NOT use WPA2/AES encryption illegal. Please call/write your congressperson today to encourage support for swift legislation to outlaw the use of these insecure routers/protocols. Please, think of the children.

TKIP | AES (1, Interesting)

whoisisis (1225718) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220779)

So, TKIP broken, not AES. Wonder if the WEP AES implementation is broken somehow ?

Re:TKIP | AES (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29221129)

Yep, they are all broken. I've personally broken every other protocol aside from what's posted in this article.

yep.... (2, Funny)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220789)

That's why I don't even bother with passwords on my wireless at ... Hello Friends! Please to hand over your credit and debit card informations at this time, I am thanking you not a lot. My name is Desmund Boutrous-Boutrous Gali Johnson IV and I have some news of the not so happy sort. Your uncle, and my business mentor and/or friend, McGuyver has been known to be passed away at this time going forth.

Please to send me monies by any means as possible soonest.

Wamerst thoughts and heated Regards, BBGIV

(that's about how long it would take to crack it. Damn.)

As usual (5, Informative)

trifish (826353) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220873)

And the most important piece of information comes at the very end of the summary (just not to diminish the sensation or prevent FUD):

They do not work on newer WPA 2 devices or on WPA systems that use the stronger Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm.

It wasn't broken (5, Informative)

mx_mx_mx (1625481) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220919)

They have just found a way to decrypt a packet using the WEP chopchop algorithm. Master key can't still be recovered. Move along, this isn't news

mac address whitelist filters? (0)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220939)

or an even more advanced hardware signature for wifi authentication? something has to be done because wpa/tkip & wpa2/aes are fast becoming insecure

Re:mac address whitelist filters? (3, Informative)

radish (98371) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221029)

MAC filters are worthless, always have been (it's trivial to change the MAC on a device to a whitelisted one). And I don't see any evidence that WPA2/AES is "fast becoming insecure", as this attack specifically doesn't work against that setup.

Re:mac address whitelist filters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29221293)

Correction: MAC filters are worthless if they are your exclusive level of security. Combine it with many other security precautions and its just another layer in your overall security plan which should be very multi-layered.

Re:mac address whitelist filters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29221569)

How do you know what the whitelisted MAC addresses are, though?

Sneakernet key exchange? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221495)

n/t

Re:mac address whitelist filters? (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221585)

There is always WPA2-Enterprise which requires a RADIUS server. The advantage is that there is no need to worry about one "master" key. The disadvantage is that if a username/password combination is guessed, one can get on the network.

Wireless Routers (2, Informative)

Wowlapalooza (1339989) | more than 5 years ago | (#29220997)

Minor nitpick with the article: WPA is a general wireless security protocol[1] which isn't limited to wireless routers. Regular APs (Access Points) use it, as of course do wireless clients.

[1] Actually, to nitpick myself, WPA isn't even technically a protocol, it's a certification program which confirms that particular devices implement the IEEE 802.11i standard

hacked in 60 seconds... (1)

Coraon (1080675) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221137)

I sense a Jerry Bruckheimer movie staring Angelina Jolie. its gone in 60 seconds meets hackers.

Re:hacked in 60 seconds... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29221559)

Ok

Aircrack (1)

dandart (1274360) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221455)

So is this a new way to crack the handshake once you've got it or is it to hack straight in?

Experiences (1)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221563)

After spending some time working with crappy home routers, I've decided encryption isn't worth the hassle. If I want to ensure my communication isn't intercepted by a hostile third party, I'll use a wire instead. If I want to limit access to the internet, I'll use a MAC ACL instead. The routers aren't hefty enough to deal with anything more than light surfing with encryption active.

Re:Experiences (2, Insightful)

krenaud (1058876) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221841)

What? A 7 year old Linksys WRT54G can handle 24-30Mbps with AES encryption, current versions are even faster, and if you choose wisely you can find 80-90Mbps home routers from Dlink/Netgear today.

These routers are more than adequate for more than "light surfing".

I have a better security... (5, Funny)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221737)

I don't know why people insist on using WEP, WPA, WPA2, etc..

I just made my SSID "Logon for only $3.99 per minute"

Haven't ever seen my neighbors log on even once.

_

Not new (4, Informative)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#29221835)

TKIP was fundamentally broken, by design. We knew that. TKIP was invented as an intermediate encryption that could run on the same hardware that WEP ran on. It allowed router manufacturers to use something better than WEP without having to beef-up their hardware. It worked well, and bought several years before it was completely broken. Anyone who has a router using TKIP bought at a bad time, and is stuck with something that's only a little better than WEP. The solution is to buy a router that supports WPA2, which has real AES encryption.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?