WPS Router Flaw
 

If you're using WPS to secure your wi-fi you're very vulnerable, I've seen several articles on this:

Rest of the article with a list of routers: https://www.flashrouters.com/blog/20...tch-to-dd-wrt/

Edited to add: there's a more comprehensive list here

Old news gg... very old news ! Was covered in depth (amongst other things) in the book WiFoo (worth a read if you wish to be enlightened in the fundamentals of WiFi security, although there have been new topics since its publication so technically its a little out of date).

Everyone should be using WPA2-PSK AES with a strong key. Still not ideal, but better than nothing.

The technically minded should be running certificate-based authentication using WPA2-Enterprise and a RADIUS server. :E

For step by step instructions on the latter, try here (or any of the other places Mr Google may choose to deposit you)...... but as I said its for the technically minded (very low maintenance once its setup though), for anyone else, WPA2-PSK with a strong key.

P.S. When I say strong key on WPA2-PSK AES, I mean it. WPA2-PSK with a low strength password is pretty much the same as running an unencrypted network. And no, running your wifi network as "hidden" is NOT a security measure. :cool:

Mixture I posted that on here as It has, as far as I'm aware, not been covered on here before. (yes I did do a search) and there may well be people here on PPRuNe that use the system thinking it's safe. Your condescendingly patronising style of reply was unnecessary.

I never did like the idea of WPS and always turned it off on all routers which fell into my hands. I always found it a PITA anyway as adding "new" machines to a network using it, seemed to reset the existing network members
I tend to use WPA2 with at least 28 characters in the password
Mixture - is that enough?

I was talking about old news in general, not old news in PPRuNe.

Even the most modest of Google searches or the most modest perusal of how-to articles outside of PPRuNe yields advice that anything other than WPA2 is not worth contemplating.

The tone of my reply was not specifically pointed at you.

Depends what the 28 characters are.

antidisestablishmentarianism, hepaticocholangiogastrostomy or spectrophotofluorometrically for example, would probably not be. :E

(Methionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenyla lanyla
lanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycyl alanylph
enylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylas partylpr
olylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleuc ylasparty
lthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylal anylleuc
ylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspart ylproly
lleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminyl aspfragi
nylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanyl glycylv
alylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylgluta mylmet
hionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhisti dylproly
lthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyl tyrosyla
lanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycy lisoleuc
ylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcystein ylgluta
myllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanyla spartyl
valylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylala nylarg
inylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylva lylal
anylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylproly lasp
artylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucylleucylarginylglutam i
nylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthre onylt
yrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycy lalany
lglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasp a
raginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyro sylaspar
aginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylal anylg
lycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysyla lanylal
anylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanyliso leucylse
rylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglu tamylglu
taminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllys ylmeth
ionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglut aminylpr
olylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylserine would probably be a bit risky too ! )

I always did hate polypeptides

Never seemed like real chemistry - 'twas all done by machine sequencers, not real hands on stuff. I used to make a lot of money out of the blocking agents though.....t-BOC n-CBZ f-MOC and so on
just watch out for the phosgene

All* joking aside, WPA2 is strong enough to require supercomputers running parallel-computing over many days in order to break it (and they still haven't). I would suggest the hum of a few Crays sat on your drive wardriving your wifi might be a little bit of a giveaway. The danger of a long password is more likely that you write it down rather than remember it, which is far more of a concern (especially if you are only protecting a home broadband connection anyway).

(* most)

If you use a strong key.... otherwise WPA2 is as useless as the rest of them and can be broken in a few minutes. :cool:

You are also reliant on correct bug-free implementations by WiFi vendors.

But overall, I agree, you average home user who probably hasn't yet mastered how to correctly update or backup their computer, probably doesn't need to concern themselves too much with the nitty gritty of WiFi security because they've got better computing things to worry about.

Why you shouldn't use WPS on your Wi-Fi network | Enterprise | Real World Computing | PC Pro

I'm just a mutt user who has to believe what they're told but I feel like Buridan's ass here. Doesn't green granite have a point?