Crazy future client WEP attack idea

[lupin]

Well I would code it myself, but I haven't got the skills to do so. I would code my second WEP/WPA client attack idea IN A SECOND, 'cause I'm 100% sure it would be a nice upgrade, We've got all these tools, but I believe the time has come to turn them into one, and make stuff go more on auto-pilot.

Like I edited here on the top, this first idea is a long shot, and even if airbase would be recoded, it would only work for WEP clients. please read through my second idea, tell me what you think.

You want us to comment on a couple of untested and unverified theories that you admit you dont have the ability to implement in a usable form? Is this something you want to discuss just out of an interest in the subject matter, or did you have some goal in mind? Its hard to understand where you're going with this since you didnt answer my question about what sort of input you want on this..

Maybe its time to learn how to code so you could actually confirm these theories are valid, and put them into practice.

[Lucifer]

I just wanted to hear other people their opinion, that's it.
the second Idea is not untested, I've tried this. (only with WEP encryption since airbase doesn't allows setting WPA encryption yet)
it comes down to this: when the right essid and WEP key are set (but my idea would allow airbase to auto-set the key), then a disconnected WINDOWS client will try and reconnect to the same AP. I've tested this a whole lot actually, a windows client close to the fake ap, far from the fake ap, whatever. when such a client is disconnected from his real ap using airdrop, he will always reconnect to our fake ap, no escape. now, I was suggesting recoding airbase, so the whole proces would run in auto-mode. if you read my 2nd idea carefully, I'm sure you'll understand.

[Archangel-Amael]

Use the edit button on your posts.
Your posts are all here.

[Lucifer]

I see that. why? there's even a post that doesn't belong here, I posted that in my other topic. (and also, why is it still necessary every that every post is to be reviewed by a mod? I thought that was only going to last for the first 3 days I registered..)

thanks

[Archangel-Amael]

Well frankly I merged them because they look like pretty much the same thing to me. Furthermore I will mention this one more time (in the interest of helping you) if you want anyone to take you or your posts serious then I would highly suggest you work on them a bit. One huge paragraph is not likely to be read by anyone other than the person that wrote it ( in your case you).

As for your posts being moderated well that is apart of the rules you agreed to. There is a thread on this in the announcements section.

[Lucifer]

fair enough, I'll keep your suggestion in mind the next time I post.
as for the tutorial I posted, where you asked me to clean it up,
to be honest, I'd like to keep it that way, instead of investing another 45 minutes just to 'clean it up',
hope you don't mind.
I'm sure anyone who would be interested in that tutorial, will understand it, as I really try to explain everything as much as possible.

thank you,

D.

[Gitsnik]

I just wanted to hear other people their opinion, that's it.

You got that, then proceeded to tell people they were wrong or not getting it anyway. I'm having crazy flashbacks to when I was younger here!

the second Idea is not untested, I've tried this. (only with WEP encryption since airbase doesn't allows setting WPA encryption yet)
it comes down to this: when the right essid and WEP key are set (but my idea would allow airbase to auto-set the key), then a disconnected WINDOWS client will try and reconnect to the same AP. I've tested this a whole lot actually, a windows client close to the fake ap, far from the fake ap, whatever. when such a client is disconnected from his real ap using airdrop, he will always reconnect to our fake ap, no escape. now, I was suggesting recoding airbase, so the whole proces would run in auto-mode. if you read my 2nd idea carefully, I'm sure you'll understand.

I understand that if you are close enough to drop the client, you are close enough to snarf the handshake.

I also understand that we have fakeap capture programs for accepting WPA from a client, I can never find the link but no doubt someone else here has it bookmarked.

Basically what everyone has been trying to tell you comes down to: "There are easier, faster, and simpler ways to do this". You haven't postulated anything new, either in tool or otherwise, you've merely slightly restructured known good attacks to be a slightly-less-good solution.

[Lucifer]

" I understand that if you are close enough to drop the client, you are close enough to snarf the handshake."

the WPA handshake capture has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with what I explained. this isn't my goal with this idea.

"There are easier, faster, and simpler ways to do this". there are not. I wouldn't make such a big deal out of it is there were. if only I could code it myself, and then show you on a video how great this idea of mine would be, and how easy, I'm sure you'd agree it isn't a bad one. ofcourse, it's not the find of the year either.

I can't seem to explain it properly, as I'm noticing none of you really get it, so I'll let it go, and might learn to code!

thank you,

and lastly, I'm 100% sure lots of people would make use of this 'upgrade', this idea of mine.

what I have in my head isn't anything new, like I said, it would just make things A LOT easier, evil auto-ap, that's it.
but I cannot explain it how I want it to be, and defenitely not in english, but thanks to everyone who responded anyway!

this topic may be closed if you want.

D.

[Thorn]

I just wanted to hear other people their opinion, that's it.

Short answer: It's pointless. Go back and read the objections that you've been given, and you should see why.

Basically what everyone has been trying to tell you comes down to: "There are easier, faster, and simpler ways to do this". You haven't postulated anything new, either in tool or otherwise, you've merely slightly restructured known good attacks to be a slightly-less-good solution.

^ What he said.^ Or as I used to say in a former career: "There's nothing to see here; move along."

Keep thinking of attacks though, and you might come up with something. Your thought processes are good, it's just that this particular attack is useless.

[Lucifer]

Whatever you say.
I may not be the best best or the smartest in here, but I'm not a retard either.
I would not post this, if it were useless.
I've got great insign in things, and in life in general.
this isn't a new attack or something, it would just be a good upgrade, for the last time, making life easier. isn't that want all human kind wants? :s
none of the current tools can do what I explained.
lots of people would appreciate this, I'm sure.
it really is a pity I cannot code it, then you'd see how 'useless' it really is.
and I'm not just sucking all this out of my thumb, I've tested it, manually, but it would be nice if it did the same in auto-pilot. what part about this don't you understand?

thanks