[coastie65]

waldojim, on 24 January 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 24 January 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

Hmm... t-monitor said it was running at 1.4GHz idle (9x160). Odd, but whatever... What settings are you using? I'm not looking to get 4.5GHz here (besides, my motherboard isn't the highest end, and probably wouldn't be stable with it, and my CPU cooler isn't the best one for overclocking). I'm thinking I may up it to 21x160 (3.36GHz) at some point.

I honestly don't remember right now, and that machine is currently in a storage unit. We are in the process of moving out of our apartment, and that takes time.

FUN,FUN,FUN. Last time I did any moveing is when i helped my brother move. Ended up blowing out my back ( they had a piano ) and it hasn't been right since ( it had been injured twice before ).

[LiveBrianD]

The thing is, why would someone want to get into your network so badly anyway? Chances are that there's another guy who only uses WEP (or no security at all), and thus the attacker would go there.

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 26 January 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

The thing is, why would someone want to get into your network so badly anyway? Chances are that there's another guy who only uses WEP (or no security at all), and thus the attacker would go there.

Let me ask you a question that may answer yours.

If YOU were interested in doing something illegal, say buying drugs, over the internet, what would be the BEST target to use to AVOID suspicion? Use the network that has security too weak to be considered secure, or something borderline that "takes more time and effort" to break into? Would you use a network that FORCED MAC cloning to hide yourself, or the wide open network? I am going to use the one that makes the TARGET look guilty, not me. I want someone that thinks their network is completely secure.

We have seen cases on PCWORLD already, where WEP crackers have been picked up for their illegal deeds. This would be MUCH harder to prove in the situations I have mentioned above. How would you like the police to prove that MY device with a MAC address printed right on it DIFFERING from the one you see committing these crimes is the one that performed the illegal activities? Then, with the use of TPM, you can take the ONLY FUNCTIONING KEY to the system and destroy it BEFORE your computer is taken as evidence, and they would never be able to prove you changed your own MAC address.

Now this is just me, and what I would do to avoid suspicion. Use the networks that people THINK are totally secure. More often than not, they are also more LAX about watching it. At the same time, use CHEAP machines that you can afford to loose to do the heavy lifting. Also use LIVE CD's for the OS, and SAVE NOTHING. Then when the time comes, what is anyone going to say?

[LiveBrianD]

Honestly though, how likely is it that someone would want to do that in the first place? And also, would someone really bother brute-force attacking a WPA2-AES network? For all they know, you could have a long password and they'll never hack it in their lifetime. Even if you had a short password that's not in the dictionary, it would likely still take quite a while, and wouldn't be worth their time.

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 26 January 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

Honestly though, how likely is it that someone would want to do that in the first place? And also, would someone really bother brute-force attacking a WPA2-AES network? For all they know, you could have a long password and they'll never hack it in their lifetime. Even if you had a short password that's not in the dictionary, it would likely still take quite a while, and wouldn't be worth their time.

Again, it doesn't matter WHO or WHY. Not directly anyhow. Second, it takes FIVE minutes to check for the average password 8 characters are less. A week if they check up to 12 characters. That is using BRUTE FORCE against an Nvidia graphics card. You don't understand just how EASY this is. The question is not that of WHY chose one over another, but HOW SECURE is your network in real life? If your network cannot stand a simple set of tests, then it is completely inadequate.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 27 January 2012 - 01:22 AM