Wireless Security Policy

written by: Hazrul Aaron; article published: year 2007, month 05;


In: Categories » Electronics and communication » Network security » Wireless Security Policy

The first thing to start from when deploying and securing a corporate wireless network is a design of a proper wireless security policy. The best source of information on writing a detailed and formal wireless security policy is the Appendix of the Official CWSP Guide. We concentrate on what the wireless security policy must cover and some specific technical aspects it should reflect.

1 Device Acceptability, Registration, Update, and Monitoring

Because of backward compatibility features, a WLAN is only as secure as the least secure client on the network. If you are reliant on Layer 2 802.11 security features such as WEPPlus or (in the future) 802.11i, you have to ensure that all devices on the network support these features.

If some sort of MAC address filtering or RADIUS-based MAC authentication is employed, then the databases of all wireless clients' MAC addresses should be maintained and updated in a timely manner.

When new security features are implemented in new firmware releases, the firmware updates across the network have to be synchronized. Hosts that are not updated should be denied network access.

Finally, perhaps the easiest way to gain access to a WLAN if the authentication is device-based is stealing, or finding a client device. Thus, every device lost or stolen should be reported to the security system administrator and denied network access immediately.

2 User Education and Responsibility

Users should be informed about the contents of the corporate security policy and the basics of using the security features employed (so that they don't turn them off by accident). They should also be encouraged to report any lost or stolen devices immediately. The same applies to any unfamiliar devices the users might find by accident (e.g., a USB wireless client plugged into one of the machines on LAN or a PDA of an unknown origin). An unauthorized installation of any wireless device, including Bluetooth clients by users, must be strictly prohibited. Corporate users should also be told not to lend wireless-enabled hosts to others and avoid leaving them unattended.

The users should know an approximate physical limit of the network coverage zone and avoid connecting to the corporate WLAN from a distance exceeding this limit. This might help reduce "near-far" and "hidden node" RF problems.

As part of a more general corporate security policy, users should be informed about social engineering attacks and not disclosing information about the network to potential attackers. Such information includes 802.1x authentication credentials, secret keys, closed ESSIDs, positioning of access points, and physical network boundaries.

When running a public hotspot, make sure that a disclaimer outlining the security policy-defined rules of user behavior is presented to all connecting parties first. Users should be required to click to agree with the disclaimer before proceeding any further. This simple security measure can save you from a lot of legal trouble if the hotspot is abused by irresponsible users launching attacks or downloading illicit materials.

3 Physical Security

Access points, wireless bridges, antennas, and amplifiers should be positioned and mounted in such a way as to prevent theft or damage. Security guards should be aware of the outdoor equipment position and informed about wireless equipment appearance and the possibility of attacks. They should be able to spot a suspicious car with an antenna in a company parking lot or an attacker with a laptop on the bench next to the corporate offices.

4 Physical Layer Security

The EIRP must be in the legal power output range. A reasonable emission power level should be used to restrict the spread of the network far beyond the useful boundaries. The antenna's position should be chosen to minimize signal spread to the necessary coverage areas. If needed, parabolic reflectors can be used to block wireless signal propagation in undesirable directions. Finally, all sources of interference should be checked and eliminated, if possible.

5 Network Deployment and Positioning

The deployment of several access points on the WLAN increases the network resilience to DoS and man-in-the-middle attacks, besides providing additional fallback bandwidth.

The WLAN should be on a different broadcast domain from the wired LAN. In the case of multiple access points linked to different switches, VLANs should be used and all APs positioned on the same VLAN if possible. A wireless-to-wired gateway should ensure proper network separation, support implemented authentication and data encryption features, and be resilient to possible cracker attacks itself.

6 Security Countermeasures

WLAN ESSIDs should not contain any useful information about the corporation and access points. Baseline security measures such as WEP and closed ESSIDs should be used. MAC address filtering should be used when applicable. This includes restricting clients' association to the corporate access points by the AP address (BSSID). Protocol filtering could be used if available or applicable.

Baseline security measures should not be relied on for WLAN protection. Further security safeguards including 802.1x and VPNs should be implemented. Their choice and implementation procedure should be thoroughly documented and maintenance responsibility assigned. If proprietary security features such as improvements to WEP are relied on, their efficiency must be verified by an external security auditor before the production deployment stage. WEP key rotation time should be verified and documented.

A proper password security policy for wireless access should be ensured, and the baseline for secure password and secret key selection should be enforced. No unnecessary protocols should traverse the WLAN, and use of shared resources (e.g., NFS) across the WLAN should be restricted.

7 Network Monitoring and Incident Response

Network operations must be monitored and baselined. All significant deviations from the baseline must be addressed and documented. A wireless-specific IDS should be deployed and be interoperable with the centralized logging system. If the network size is significant and multiple access points are deployed, remote IDS sensors should be used to ensure complete network monitoring. The responsibility for monitoring both logs and IDS alarms should be assigned and maintained. Secure log storage should be provided in accordance with the general corporate security policy. Any cases of intrusion should be identified, verified, confirmed, and documented. An incident response team consisting of preassigned specialists should be assembled and must take immediate action. The action must involve a report to the appropriate legal authorities. All evidence discovered (including logs, penetrated hosts, rogue wireless devices, or other devices left by attackers or confiscated from them) should be handled with extreme care so the chain of custody is not broken. Ensure that your incident response team is familiar with the local rules and regulations for evidence handling.

8 Network Security and Stability Audits

Corporate wireless security audits should be performed on a regular basis by external professionals with an established reputation in the field and appropriate specialization and industrial accreditations. Network security and stability audits should include the following:

  • Wireless site surveying

  • Overall network operations and stability assessment

  • Wireless security policy assessment

  • Rogue wireless device detection and identification

  • Proper systematic wireless penetration testing similar to that outlined in the Wireless Network Security and Stability Audit Checklist Template

  • Detailed audit report submission

  • Cooperative work with the wireless network management and administration to resolve the issues discovered

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

Translate this article to...    Send this article to you or to a friend

Link to this article from your page   
If you like this article (tutorial), please link to it from your web page using the information above. Linking to this page, this is the only way to help us improve our service, the same time providing your visitors with a way to improve their online experience.

related articles

1. PDAs Versus Laptops
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...