At 2/27/2014 07:50 PM, Chuck wrote:
>You're making me sparinoid too. Did you understand how it's possible to
>know if failure occurs on the lower four digits vs the upper three +
>checksum digit? I didn't understand that at all except for
>understanding why it dramatically reduces the number of combinations to
>be tried to brute force the PIN.
>
>Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>On 2/26/2014 2:44 PM, WayneS wrote:
>> Many wifi routers have have a pin for easy wpa configuration that can be
>> cracked. Password cracking is also on the rise. I put the wifi on a separate
>> subnet zone.
>>
>> http://sviehb.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/wi-fi-protected-setup-pin-brute-force-vulnerability/
Only in that it appears that sending M4 "proves possession of 1sthalf
of PIN" and sending M6 proves for 2nd half - because of the response NACk.
Seems like a silly protocol, whoever made that up? Why not just require
the whole pin to be correct?
I believe my asus nt-r66u requires a button push to activate WPS
- I'll just have to keep an eye on my cat.
WayneS-panoid
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|