Shortcuts: Mobile | Active Topics | Newest Posts | Latest Freeware | Private Messaging | Contribute News | Archive 
  NEWS
  Search News
Browse by Category
News History
1SRC News RSS Feed
1SRC Podcast RSS Feed
Contribute News
  FORUMS
  Search Forums
Topic Specific
News
General
Applications
  Games
  Video
Deals & Promos
Developers
E-books
Mac / Linux
Medical
Podcast
Skins & Backgrounds
Wireless
Off-Topic
  Audio/Video
  Cellphones
  Digital Cameras
  Gaming
  Gadgets & Gizmos
  Non-Palm OS PDAs
  PCs/Laptops
  Tech Web
palm
pre
Foleo
T|X-Series
Z-Series
LifeDrive
Zire
Treo
Tungsten
Older Palms
Sony
VZ-Series
TH-Series
UX-Series
TJ-Series
NX-Series
TG-Series
NZ-Series
Older Clies
Tapwave
Zodiac
Garmin
iQue
Other Licensees
AlphaSmart
Fossil
Group Sense
Kyocera
LG
Samsung
Site Specific
Arcade
Comment/Suggest
  FREEWARE
  Search Freeware
Applications
Ebooks
Skins
Backgrounds
  ABOUT US
  Contact Us
Contribute News
About Us
Privacy Statement
  LOW PRICE SEARCH

Search for the lowest prices: 




  LINKS
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Go Back   1src Forums > Sony > Clie UX-series
User Name
Password
FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Arcade Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-20-2005, 09:47 PM   #1
Tyme
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5 Tyme is on a distinguished road
UX-50 Wireless WEP

How do you set the WEP so it can log into your own network?
I can't seem to set the WEP.
Tyme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2005, 02:33 AM   #2
gahenton
Registered User
 
gahenton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: East Kelowna, B.C. Canada
Posts: 24 gahenton is on a distinguished road
go into preferences, Network,
services set to your Wireless LAN
select details
select your SSID
use the dropdown menu to select edit
the second line is for WEP Key

Gerry
gahenton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2005, 07:27 AM   #3
shender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 190 shender is on a distinguished road
I understand that using WEP does take up a bit of processor overhead on the encription side. Another option is to set your router to accept certain MAC addresses only (of which your UX50 will be one). No overhead, and reasonably secure.
__________________
TG50 -> Now UX50 & TH55 , 1GB MS Pro, BT-GPS, EB40.
shender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2005, 11:54 AM   #4
arth1
Guest
 
arth1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 41°47'N 72°31'W
Posts: 623 arth1 is on a distinguished road
Exclamation

No, that is not reasonably secure at all.

MAC filtering is saying "only allow packets that say they are from XXXX or YYYY". Note the "say they are" part. It's unverified authentication, which has nothing to do with encryption.
On a MAC-filtered WLAN, everything passes in plain text, including the MAC addresses. One of the first things a wardriver learns is to collect the MAC addresses that are being used, and setting his network card to match one that's been used recently, but not within the last few minutes.

Even if you only want to block really stupid people or those who don't have a NIC where the MAC can be set, you still send everything in clear text. People can listen in, and capture all traffic to/from all your wireless devices, including emails, web page login information, and much much more. That might be acceptable to you, but don't assume that it is for others.

As for overhead, WEP has very little overhead, as it's basically an XOR mechanism. It's hardly noticable on anything except the most brain dead implementations. Even the UX50 with its dead slow hardware isn't noticably affected by it. The access point checking the MAC against a list for every packet is probably taking up more power than WEP.
Do yourself a favour, and implement WEP and MAC filtering, and make sure you rotate the keys every so often.

Best would be to use WPA, but unfortunately, Sony designed the UX devices before WPA had become finalized or commonplace. (And yes, WPA needs extra processing power, which is most often accomplished by placing a seperate processing unit on the devices that only does the WPA part.)
arth1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2005, 04:35 PM   #5
gweilo8888
Registered User
 
gweilo8888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 85 gweilo8888 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by arth1
No, that is not reasonably secure at all.

MAC filtering is saying "only allow packets that say they are from XXXX or YYYY". Note the "say they are" part. It's unverified authentication, which has nothing to do with encryption.
On a MAC-filtered WLAN, everything passes in plain text, including the MAC addresses. One of the first things a wardriver learns is to collect the MAC addresses that are being used, and setting his network card to match one that's been used recently, but not within the last few minutes.

Even if you only want to block really stupid people or those who don't have a NIC where the MAC can be set, you still send everything in clear text. People can listen in, and capture all traffic to/from all your wireless devices, including emails, web page login information, and much much more. That might be acceptable to you, but don't assume that it is for others.

As for overhead, WEP has very little overhead, as it's basically an XOR mechanism. It's hardly noticable on anything except the most brain dead implementations. Even the UX50 with its dead slow hardware isn't noticably affected by it. The access point checking the MAC against a list for every packet is probably taking up more power than WEP.
Do yourself a favour, and implement WEP and MAC filtering, and make sure you rotate the keys every so often.

Best would be to use WPA, but unfortunately, Sony designed the UX devices before WPA had become finalized or commonplace. (And yes, WPA needs extra processing power, which is most often accomplished by placing a seperate processing unit on the devices that only does the WPA part.)


WEP is not exactly trivial - numerous hardware routers take anywhere from a 30 to 50% performance hit with 128-bit WEP enabled. You might not notice a slowdown in the UX50 as it'll just bump the processor up to account for the extra work, but I'd put money on it having noticeably less battery life when WEP is enabled.

WEP is also fairly trivial to circumvent, the same as the MAC address thing. Any feeling of security you're getting from WEP is a false sense of security.
gweilo8888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2005, 12:39 PM   #6
shender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 190 shender is on a distinguished road
Yikes, now I am concerned. MAC or WEP, both appear to have exposures. If someone is sophisticated enought to hack into my network, I guess they would be able to get in regardless. Hmmm....

Any suggestions on a wireless lan, used by my thinkpad and my UX50 ?
__________________
TG50 -> Now UX50 & TH55 , 1GB MS Pro, BT-GPS, EB40.
shender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2005, 01:53 PM   #7
arth1
Guest
 
arth1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 41°47'N 72°31'W
Posts: 623 arth1 is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by gweilo8888
WEP is not exactly trivial - numerous hardware routers take anywhere from a 30 to 50% performance hit with 128-bit WEP enabled. You might not notice a slowdown in the UX50 as it'll just bump the processor up to account for the extra work, but I'd put money on it having noticeably less battery life when WEP is enabled.

WEP is also fairly trivial to circumvent, the same as the MAC address thing. Any feeling of security you're getting from WEP is a false sense of security.


No, WEP is not as trivial to circumvent as the MAC address. The MAC address is sent in plain text in every single packet. No cracking is needed at all.
To crack a WEP key, you have to listen for quite a while, until you have a large enough set of similar packets with the same 24-bit initialization vectors (which are ideally random for each packet, but at least pseudo-random). Once that's been captured, you can, due to the XOR method being used, determine the values that are shared in those packets, which among other packet data gives you the RC4 keystream. After that, it's relatively simple (with the right tools) to crack the password. It still takes at least hours, and more likely days of listening and data capturing to get enough data. By using 128-bit WEP (instead of 40-bit or 64-bit) and changing keys regularly, you're relatively safe.
That's completely different from MAC filtering, which as said before happens in plain text, and is immediately visible in all packets, and also does nothing to prevent anyone from listening to all your plain-text traffic (or joining in simply by setting their MAC to one that's allowed).

As for CPU use, you almost certainly confuse WEP with WPA or 802.11i. WEP is a simple XOR algorithm, and you'd have to be the most clueless coder in the world to incur a 30-50% performance hit due to WEP. Please show me one example of this.

WPA and 802.11i, on the other hand, most often use dual-key encryption that requires some massive maths, and is thus often handled by coprocessors -- when not, it often slows down the connection a fair bit.

--
*Art

Last edited by arth1 : 01-23-2005 at 01:57 PM.
arth1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2005, 04:31 PM   #8
gweilo8888
Registered User
 
gweilo8888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 85 gweilo8888 is on a distinguished road
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by arth1
No, WEP is not as trivial to circumvent as the MAC address. The MAC address is sent in plain text in every single packet. No cracking is needed at all.
To crack a WEP key, you have to listen for quite a while, until you have a large enough set of similar packets with the same 24-bit initialization vectors (which are ideally random for each packet, but at least pseudo-random). Once that's been captured, you can, due to the XOR method being used, determine the values that are shared in those packets, which among other packet data gives you the RC4 keystream. After that, it's relatively simple (with the right tools) to crack the password. It still takes at least hours, and more likely days of listening and data capturing to get enough data. By using 128-bit WEP (instead of 40-bit or 64-bit) and changing keys regularly, you're relatively safe.
That's completely different from MAC filtering, which as said before happens in plain text, and is immediately visible in all packets, and also does nothing to prevent anyone from listening to all your plain-text traffic (or joining in simply by setting their MAC to one that's allowed).

As for CPU use, you almost certainly confuse WEP with WPA or 802.11i. WEP is a simple XOR algorithm, and you'd have to be the most clueless coder in the world to incur a 30-50% performance hit due to WEP. Please show me one example of this.

WPA and 802.11i, on the other hand, most often use dual-key encryption that requires some massive maths, and is thus often handled by coprocessors -- when not, it often slows down the connection a fair bit.

--
*Art



a) I didn't say it was *as* trivial, I said it was *fairly* trivial.

b) I am not talking about WPA or 802.11i - I am talking about WEP. I'll agree that *some* implementations have little or no performance hit - but many implementations (particularly on older products) have HUGE performance hits, even in name-brand products.

I could give you dozens of examples, but here's just a few:

* D-Link DI-713P (http://www.practicallynetworked.com/review.asp?pid=388)
"45% throughput decrease with WEP enabled"

* ZyXEL Prestige 316 (http://www.practicallynetworked.com/review.asp?pid=342)
"50% throughput decrease with WEP enabled"

* Asante FriendlyNet FR3200AL-1PCM (http://www.practicallynetworked.com/review.asp?pid=397)
"50% WEP-enabled throughput decrease"

* Multi-Tech RoutFinder RF802EW
(http://www.practicallynetworked.com/review.asp?pid=405)
"60% WEP-enabled throughput decrease"

* Netgear MR314 (http://www.practicallynetworked.com/review.asp?pid=390)
"50% throughput decrease with WEP enabled"

* Linksys FEFW11P1 (http://www.practicallynetworked.com/review.asp?pid=363)
"50-60% throughput decrease with WEP enabled"

* Linksys BEFW11S4
(http://www.practicallynetworked.com/review.asp?pid=301)
"Enabling WEP cuts throughput in half"

* SMC 7004AWBR (http://www.practicallynetworked.com/review.asp?pid=377)
"45% throughput decrease with WEP enabled"

Is that enough references for you? (and in some cases the throughput decrease was as much as 60%!) That list includes several well-known name brands such as D-Link, Linksys, SMC and ZyXEL (a well-known brand in Europe and Asia, less so here).
gweilo8888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Love UX-50, but cannot get WEP to work with my access points gshin Clie UX-series 6 08-24-2004 06:24 PM
wireless connection with Netgear MR814 ratgirlny Clie TJ-series 4 06-13-2004 02:23 AM
Wireless connection: could someone please lend a hand? fragglerock Clie TH-series 4 05-06-2004 11:32 PM
Got a New TJ-37? Need a Wireless Router 802.11b? AR for $20 Only! Master-Q Clie TJ-series 0 05-06-2004 07:07 PM
Bluetooth Hot Sync Stirling Clie UX-series 38 02-22-2004 04:35 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:01 PM.

  AD HOSTS ?
  GOOGLE ADS ?
  AMAZON ADS ?

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2001 Entity City, LLC. All rights reserved.