PDA

View Full Version : Squeezebox and 802.11g



Charles Stanton
2004-05-01, 08:40
Regarding the security issue:



1. The squeezebox should absolutely support 128-bit Open Authentication
for static WEP. It does not. I have brought this to the attention of
slimdevices, and have not received any response (Kevin?). Industry leader
Cisco says Shared Key Authentication is the worst in terms of WEP. So what
gives here?? May I say it seems stupid to me not to take heed of this
obvious suggestion. I pointed out for example that legacy devices like
Cisco' s 340 Base Station have hard coded Open WEP only, Did not get a
response. The Cisco 1100 series allows Open Key WEP with WPA Migration
mode: but does not allow any Shared Key. I also raised this ---no
response. So I have no idea what slimdevices is thinking, or maybe not
thinking. Patrick is not responsive, that is for sure.



2. I also made the suggestion that the squeezebox should plan on making
WPA Pre-shared Key available soon. Also no response.



The key issue is: will the squeezebox wireless device keep up with Wi-Fi
standards, or must we assume that the home network use the least secure
option provided by squeezebox?



Charles















-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Parboo [mailto:dave.parboo (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com]
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:43 PM
To: 'Slim Devices Discussion'
Subject: [slim] Squeezebox and 802.11g



Hi There,



Having just installed a 108Mb 802.11g wireless network, I took a look
through the FAQ to see if the Squeezebox would be detrimental to the speed
of the network in any way (since it is a 802.11b device?)



Lo and behold, there is indeed a statement to the effect that the
performance of the network will be adversely affected by adding a
Squeezebox. Is this a hardware issue or firmware/software? If so, is there
any intention to address this issue?



Also, how long before we see WPA security implemented on the Squeezebox?



Many thanks for your time





Dave

Peter Bowyer
2004-05-01, 08:55
Dean has stated that WPA support is being worked on:

http://lists.slimdevices.com/archives/discuss/2004-February/025308.html

Peter

---- Original Message ----
From: Charles Stanton
To: 'Slim Devices Discussion'
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 4:40 PM
Subject: [slim] Squeezebox and 802.11g

> Regarding the security issue:
>
> The squeezebox should absolutely support 128-bit Open Authentication
> for static WEP. It does not. I have brought this to the attention
> of slimdevices, and have not received any response (Kevin?).
> Industry leader Cisco says Shared Key Authentication is the worst in
> terms of WEP. So what gives here?? May I say it seems stupid to me
> not to take heed of this obvious suggestion. I pointed out for
> example that legacy devices like Cisco' s 340 Base Station have hard
> coded Open WEP only, Did not get a response. The Cisco 1100 series
> allows Open Key WEP with WPA Migration mode: but does not allow any
> Shared Key. I also raised this ---no response. So I have no idea
> what slimdevices is thinking, or maybe not thinking. Patrick is not
> responsive, that is for sure.
>
> I also made the suggestion that the squeezebox should plan on making
> WPA Pre-shared Key available soon. Also no response.
>
> The key issue is: will the squeezebox wireless device keep up with
> Wi-Fi standards, or must we assume that the home network use the
> least secure option provided by squeezebox?
>
> Charles
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Parboo [mailto:dave.parboo (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:43 PM
> To: 'Slim Devices Discussion'
> Subject: [slim] Squeezebox and 802.11g
>
> Hi There,
>
> Having just installed a 108Mb 802.11g wireless network, I took a look
> through the FAQ to see if the Squeezebox would be detrimental to the
> speed of the network in any way (since it is a 802.11b device?)
>
> Lo and behold, there is indeed a statement to the effect that the
> performance of the network will be adversely affected by adding a
> Squeezebox. Is this a hardware issue or firmware/software? If so, is
> there any intention to address this issue?
>
> Also, how long before we see WPA security implemented on the
> Squeezebox?
>
> Many thanks for your time
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>

dean
2004-05-01, 11:09
Hi Charles,

On May 1, 2004, at 8:40 AM, Charles Stanton wrote:
> 1. The squeezebox should absolutely support 128-bit Open
> Authentication for static WEP. It does not. I have brought this to
> the attention of slimdevices, and have not received any response
> (Kevin?). Industry leader Cisco says Shared Key Authentication is
> the worst in terms of WEP. So what gives here?? May I say it seems
> stupid to me not to take heed of this obvious suggestion. I pointed
> out for example that legacy devices like Cisco’ s 340 Base Station
> have hard coded Open WEP only, Did not get a response. The Cisco
> 1100 series allows Open Key WEP with WPA Migration mode: but does not
> allow any Shared Key. I also raised this ---no response. So I
> have no idea what slimdevices is thinking, or maybe not thinking.
> Patrick is not responsive, that is for sure.
Sorry you didn't get a response from Patrick. I'll try to summarize
here.

Originally, Squeezebox shipped with Open Key Authentication, then Apple
switched to Shared Key with no option to switch it back on their base
stations. Since such a large fraction of our customers use Apple
Airport base stations, we switched as well, knowing that most other
access points provided it as an option. Now the industry tide is
moving away from Open Key, so we'll be providing support for that soon.
(My new home access point is Open only, so you can be assured it's an
issue for me too!)

> 2. I also made the suggestion that the squeezebox should plan on
> making WPA Pre-shared Key available soon. Also no response.
It just wasn't possible until we moved to the new version of the
firmware OS that's in the 20+ version firmware, currently in
pre-release. Now that we've moved to that new version we can add that
option. It's in our plans, stay tuned.

> The key issue is: will the squeezebox wireless device keep up with
> Wi-Fi standards, or must we assume that the home network use the least
> secure option provided by squeezebox?
We're trying to keep up. Sorry it's taking longer than we all would
like.

-dean