In: Categories » Electronics and communication » Network security » Layer 1 Wireless Security Basics
| Let's build on the more technical aspects of the discussed policy considerations. We'll start from physical layer security. The physical layer security of wireless networks encompasses avoiding a signal leaking beyond the defined network boundaries and eliminating all intentional and unintentional sources of interference. Here we concentrate on coverage zone spread containment. Limiting the wireless network spread is a rare example of security through obscurity that works (to some extent). There are two ways of preventing the signal spread beyond the area you want to be accessible for the legitimate users. The first way is limiting the signal strength. In the UNIX world, less is more. The same principle applies to physical layer wireless security. The EIRP should be sufficient to provide a decent quality link to users in the planned coverage zone and not a Decibel more. Pushing the EIRP up to the legal FCC limit is often unnecessary and makes your WLAN a beacon for all war-drivers in the area and a discussion topic for a local 2600 group meeting. There are several points at which you can regulate the emission power:
In extreme cases you might have to deploy an attenuator device. The second way is shaping the coverage zone via appropriate antenna selection and positioning. There are several tips we can provide:
Do not expect that positioning your antennas correctly will bring a perfect, desirable network coverage zone shape. First of all, there is always a small backward coverage area created by the majority of semidirectional and even directional antennas. Yagis have side and back lobes that can stretch quite far when the EIRP is significant. Thus, a wardriver can discover the network by accidentally passing behind the emitting antenna, and a cracker does not have to position himself or herself right in front of the antenna where the security personnel would expect a cracker to be. Besides, short of building a proper TEMPEST (well, EMSEC) bunker, radio emission containment is a hard task. Due to the signal reflection, refraction, and scattering, the wireless network can be detected by chance from positions one would never imagine it reaching. This underlines the importance of removing all interesting data from the beacon frames. If a wardriver catches a single beacon showing enabled WEP and closed ESSID, he or she is likely to give such a network a miss when there are so many unprotected networks around. Whereas, if the beacon shows the absence of WEP and the ESSID is "Microsoft_Headquarters_ WLAN," the reaction could be entirely different.
![]() |
legal disclaimer
1) Our website is not responsible for the information contained by this article as well for any and all copyright infringements by authors and writers. E-articles is a free information resource. If you suspect this article for any copyright infringements, please read the Terms of service and contact us to investigate the problem.
2) The E-articles directory team is not responsible for inaccuracies, falsehoods, or any other types of misinformation this tutorial may contain and will not be liable for any loss or damage suffered by a user through the user's reliance on the information gained here. Please read the Terms of service
Useful tools and features
related articles
The first question that beginners ask before assembling their kit is whether a laptop or a PDA should be used for wireless penetration testing of any kind. Our answer is to use both if you can. The main advantage of PDAs (apart from size) is decreased power consumption, letting you cover a significant territory while surveying the site. The main disadvantage is the limited resources, primarily nonvolatile memory. The CPU horsepower is not that important here as we are not cracking AES. Other disadvantages are the limited amount...
2. Cryptographic Hash Functions
Can symmetric cryptography meet the requirements of the Biba model, based on the data integrity checks and proper authentication? The answer is "yes," but in a very inefficient way. Recall the practical authentication example with the UNIX (well, Linux in our case) password encryption flaw when DES in ECB is used. Of course, any of the feedback modes or 128-bit block ciphers can be used instead of DES, with the obvious performance penalties. However, in our example, MD5 scales very well. A cryptographic hash function i...
3. 802.11i Wireless Security Standard and WPA
Thus, the main hope of the international 802.11 community and network administrators lies with the 802.11i standard development. Sometimes 802.11i is referred to as the Robust Security Network (RSN) as compared to traditional security network (TSN). The "i" IEEE task group was supposed to produce a new wireless security standard that should have completely replaced legacy WEP by the end of 2003. In the meantime, some bits and pieces of the incoming 802.11i standard have been implemented by wireless equipment and software vendor...
4. Proprietary Improvements to WEP and WEP Usage
The article devoted to the proprietary and standards-based improvements for currently vulnerable 802.11 safeguards. The most publicized 802.11 vulnerability is the insecurity of WEP. We have already reviewed the cryptographic weaknesses of WEP linked to the key IV space reuse and insecure key-from-string generation algorithm. There are also well-known WEP key management issues: All symmetric cipher implementations suffer secure key distribution problems. WEP is no exception. In the original design,...
5. Penetration Testing as Your First Line of Defense
It is hard to overemphasize the importance of penetration testing in the overall information security structure and the value of viewing your network through the cracker's eyes prior to further hardening procedures. There are a variety of issues specific to penetration testing on wireless networks. First of all, the penetration tester should be very familiar with RF theory and specific RF security problems (i.e., signal leak and detectability, legal regulations pertaining to the transmitter power output, and characteris...
6. Asymmetric Cryptography
Message authentication using HMACs works just fine, but how do we distribute symmetric cipher keys among the users? We can pass them around on floppies or fancy USB pen-drives with encrypted partitions on them, but what if many users live all over the world? What if the physical key distribution method takes time and the keys must be frequently changed? This is the case with the traditional WEP, which should be rotated every few minutes. Key-encrypting keys (KEKs) were offered as symmetric cipher keys used only to encrypt...
7. Examples and Analysis of Common Wireless Attack Signatures
The best way of knowing these signatures is trying out the tools in question and sniffing out their output: "Attack through defending, defend through attacking" (Dr. Mudge). The best source on wireless network intrusion tool detection and attack signatures we are aware of is Joshua Wright's "Layer 2 Analysis of WLAN Discovery Applications for Intrusion Detection" and "Detecting Wireless LAN MAC Address Spoofing" papers. A large part of this tutorial is inspired by these brilliant articles and our experience of analyzing WLAN tr...
8. Deploying a Wireless IDS Solution for Your WLAN
How many IDS solutions that implement the recommendations and follow the guidelines we have already discussed are present on the modern wireless market? The answer is none. There are many wireless IDS solutions that look for illicit MAC addresses and ESSIDs on the monitored WLAN. Some of these solutions are even implemented as specialized hardware devices. Although something is better than nothing, in our opinion such "solutions" are a waste of both money and time. They might also give you a false sense of security. Let's...











