Email Delivery

Receive new posts as email.

Email address

Syndicate this site

RSS | Atom

Contact

About This Site
Contact Us
Privacy Policy

Search


November 2010
Sun Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

Stories by Category

Basics :: Basics
Casting :: Casting Listen In Podcasts Videocasts
Culture :: Culture Hacking
Deals :: Deals
FAQ :: FAQ
Future :: Future
Hardware :: Hardware Adapters Appliances Chips Consumer Electronics Gaming Home Entertainment Music Photography Video Gadgets Mesh Monitoring and Testing PDAs Phones Smartphones
Industry :: Industry Conferences Financial Free Health Legal Research Vendor analysis
International :: International
Media :: Media Locally cached Streaming
Metro-Scale Networks :: Metro-Scale Networks Community Networking Municipal
Network Types :: Network Types Broadband Wireless Cellular 2.5G and 3G 4G Power Line Satellite
News :: News Mainstream Media
Politics :: Politics Regulation Sock Puppets
Schedules :: Schedules
Security :: Security 802.1X
Site Specific :: Site Specific Administrative Detail April Fool's Blogging Book review Cluelessness Guest Commentary History Humor Self-Promotion Unique Wee-Fi Who's Hot Today?
Software :: Software Open Source
Spectrum :: Spectrum 60 GHz
Standards :: Standards 802.11a 802.11ac 802.11ad 802.11e 802.11g 802.11n 802.20 Bluetooth MIMO UWB WiGig WiMAX ZigBee
Transportation and Lodging :: Transportation and Lodging Air Travel Aquatic Commuting Hotels Rails
Unclassified :: Unclassified
Vertical Markets :: Vertical Markets Academia Enterprise WLAN Switches Home Hot Spot Aggregators Hot Spot Advertising Road Warrior Roaming Libraries Location Medical Public Safety Residential Rural SOHO Small-Medium Sized Business Universities Utilities wISP
Voice :: Voice

Archives

November 2010 | October 2010 | September 2010 | August 2010 | July 2010 | June 2010 | May 2010 | April 2010 | March 2010 | February 2010 | January 2010 | December 2009 | November 2009 | October 2009 | September 2009 | August 2009 | July 2009 | June 2009 | May 2009 | April 2009 | March 2009 | February 2009 | January 2009 | December 2008 | November 2008 | October 2008 | September 2008 | August 2008 | July 2008 | June 2008 | May 2008 | April 2008 | March 2008 | February 2008 | January 2008 | December 2007 | November 2007 | October 2007 | September 2007 | August 2007 | July 2007 | June 2007 | May 2007 | April 2007 | March 2007 | February 2007 | January 2007 | December 2006 | November 2006 | October 2006 | September 2006 | August 2006 | July 2006 | June 2006 | May 2006 | April 2006 | March 2006 | February 2006 | January 2006 | December 2005 | November 2005 | October 2005 | September 2005 | August 2005 | July 2005 | June 2005 | May 2005 | April 2005 | March 2005 | February 2005 | January 2005 | December 2004 | November 2004 | October 2004 | September 2004 | August 2004 | July 2004 | June 2004 | May 2004 | April 2004 | March 2004 | February 2004 | January 2004 | December 2003 | November 2003 | October 2003 | September 2003 | August 2003 | July 2003 | June 2003 | May 2003 | April 2003 | March 2003 | February 2003 | January 2003 | December 2002 | November 2002 | October 2002 | September 2002 | August 2002 | July 2002 | June 2002 | May 2002 | April 2002 | March 2002 | February 2002 | January 2002 | December 2001 | November 2001 | October 2001 | September 2001 | August 2001 | July 2001 | June 2001 | May 2001 | April 2001 |

Recent Entries

In-Flight Wi-Fi and In-Flight Bombs
Can WPA Protect against Firesheep on Same Network?
Southwest Sets In-Flight Wi-Fi at $5
Eye-Fi Adds a View for Web Access
Firesheep Makes Sidejacking Easy
Wi-Fi Direct Certification Starts
Decaf on the Starbucks Digital Network
Google Did Snag Passwords
WiMax and LTE Not Technically 4G by ITU Standards
AT&T Wi-Fi Connections Keep High Growth with Free Service

Site Philosophy

This site operates as an independent editorial operation. Advertising, sponsorships, and other non-editorial materials represent the opinions and messages of their respective origins, and not of the site operator. Part of the FM Tech advertising network.

Copyright

Entire site and all contents except otherwise noted © Copyright 2001-2010 by Glenn Fleishman. Some images ©2006 Jupiterimages Corporation. All rights reserved. Please contact us for reprint rights. Linking is, of course, free and encouraged.

Powered by
Movable Type

« Wayport Acquisition Puts AT&T at Top; Boingo Still Has Leverage | Main | Airport News: Boingo Buys Opti-Fi; FreeFi Adds Oakland »

November 9, 2008

WPA Not Cracked, But Still Vulnerable

WPA isn't as broken as reported: If you read the coverage early this week on two German researchers' paper on a vulnerability in Temporal Key Integrity Protocol (TKIP), the weaker of two encryption and integrity algorithms in the Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) certified standard (and part of the underlying 802.11i protocol), you'd think that TKIP was broken. It's not.

As I wrote Friday, don't panic, but do pay attention. I'm posting about this again just to be clear.

The flaw that was discovered does not allow a WPA-protected network's key to be recovered. It does allow short packets (network data quanta) used typically for network identification purposes to have their encryption keystream recovered: that's the overlay of per-packet encryption derived from a key that two Wi-Fi components use to protect information sent to one another.

With a recovered keystream, a single packet of the same length can be sent back into the network (using another flaw) to fool a client (but not an access point).

That's not to say that WPA keys (both the weaker TKIP and strong AES-CCMP) cannot be recovered. That's just not part of this weakness.

As was theorized back in 2003, in an article Robert Moskowitz allow me to post on my site, choosing a weak passphrase could lead to a key that can be cracked through brute force. Moskowitz was part of the IEEE 802.11i security task group, and he knew of what he spoke.

His advice? For effective security, choose a passphrase that's at least 20 characters long and contains no words found in dictionaries of any language.

Substituting 3 for e and 0 for o isn't a good choice, by the way: Brute-force attackers build dictionaries with common substitutions. Changing "camel back liposuction" to "!cmale bc@@k lippppo___!!sction" would make much more sense. Anyway, which among us manually enters a passphrase more than once per client?

Within a couple of years, effective brute-force methods appeared that could crack shorts keys that used only words found in dictionaries. There are pre-computed dictionaries that combine the SSID (network name) and billions of short key combinations. (The network name is used as an element in creating the key, but "linksys" and other default network names are often unchanged by users. Apple names its networks by default with part of the base station identifier, making a brute-force crack probably a million, maybe a billion times harder.)

ElcomSoft recently updated their "key recovery software" to use the graphical processing unit (GPU) in modern computers, which the company said in press releases--they haven't gotten back to a request I made for a briefing weeks ago--could improve key cracking by a factor of 100. Their software is also distributed, so you could conceivably put 1,000 computers on the task.

How does Elcomsoft's breakthrough affect the 2003 advice on passphrases? Security experts I've talked to, including Erik Tews, the co-author of the paper on the new WPA flaw, said that 20 characters should still require such a vast amount of time even with all the horsepower that one could throw at it, that there's no risk.

If there were a risk, you could increase a passphrase to 22 characters in length, and suddenly push the time to crack out by another factor of 100 (more or less; dissenting opinions welcome).

Average users can bypass all this by buying Wi-Fi gear that uses Wi-Fi Protection Setup (WPS), which uses for its source material a passphrase longer than the 20-character minimum, and employs excellent methods of securely exchanging key material over the untrusted network.

Of course, as I discovered when reviewing the excellent Linksys WRT610N (concurrent dual-band 802.11n router) for Macworld magazine, there's surprisingly no precise standard for WPS interface implementation. That is, the Wi-Fi Alliance defines the way in which WPS works on a protocol level, but not how the details are presented to a user.

Apple has two methods neither of which match up correctly with Linksys's three or four methods (depending on how you count). It's frustrating. Apple never responded to a comment about the mismatch; Linksys said they're looking in how to improve compatibility in future releases.