Wpa? Pandora Compatible?

[Tozarian]

Just got a new wireless N router. Will the pandora recognize the WPA encryption? What kind of wifi is onboard the Pandora? What kind of range can we expect?

 

[Tom`]

WPA should be fine, but it's ridiculously insecure - more so than WEP. You should be using WPA2...

wpa_supplicant should work, if the hardware supports it (it probably does, but I don't know for sure).

 

[Niros]

WPA should be fine, but it's ridiculously insecure - more so than WEP. You should be using WPA2...

wpa_supplicant should work, if the hardware supports it (it probably does, but I don't know for sure).

Not entirely true, WPA2 is just as unsecure as WPA, the only addition is AES encryption. WEP is still much less secure since its crackable regardless of password (assuming packet injection) where WPA and WPA2 both require the initial handshake packet to be captured. After that its a brute force/dictionary attack on that packet. So the security of WPA/WPA2 depends entirely on password.

Related to the original post however, it should be simple enough to port over what is required. WPA is much more widespread than it used to be, so the incentive to have it working is very high.

 

[mraellis]

I want to know if it would support AOSS.

 

[realyst]

I can haz 2048 cubit trinary quantum wireless encryption
kthxbai

 

[PSyMastR]

I can haz 2048 cubit trinary quantum wireless encryption
kthxbai

Translation: You can haz really slow data transfer with that super encryption.

 

[Tom`]

WPA should be fine, but it's ridiculously insecure - more so than WEP. You should be using WPA2...

wpa_supplicant should work, if the hardware supports it (it probably does, but I don't know for sure).

Not entirely true, WPA2 is just as unsecure as WPA, the only addition is AES encryption. WEP is still much less secure since its crackable regardless of password (assuming packet injection) where WPA and WPA2 both require the initial handshake packet to be captured. After that its a brute force/dictionary attack on that packet. So the security of WPA/WPA2 depends entirely on password.

Well, that's true - but how many people actually use a strong password? WEP is still less secure theoretically, but in most cases it's faster and easier to crack WPA. I don't know about WPA2, but I had thought that it fixed the vulnerabilities in WPA.

Anyway I don't know anything about cryptography, so... :unsure:

 

[realyst]

I can haz 2048 cubit trinary quantum wireless encryption
kthxbai

Translation: You can haz really slow data transfer with that super encryption.



Bah, how can you be so certain? it's Quantum!

(badoom-ching)

 

[Niros]

QUOTE

Well, that's true - but how many people actually use a strong password? WEP is still less secure theoretically, but in most cases it's faster and easier to crack WPA. I don't know about WPA2, but I had thought that it fixed the vulnerabilities in WPA.

Anyway I don't know anything about cryptography, so... :unsure:



The vulnerability of WPA is the way the key is exchanged (its just the ESSID and the key hashed a few times) this hasn't changed with WPA2. What they have fixed was the ability for the traffic to be sniffed. From TKIP encryption to AES. TKIP could be bruted after capture. I dont think AES is currently hackable. Though there is still time.

The best security currently available would have to be RJ45