Thats understood. I was actually looking for a bit more of a technical interpretation. Nevertheless, I think its safe to put this thread to rest with the idea that WPA2>WPA>WEP. Cheers!

For a good technical, but easy-to-understand discussion on the subject of encryption, check out the Security Now! podcasts. Steve Gibson is a brilliant guy and his explanations of encryption are both technically advanced but easy to understand, a great feat I think.

Steve Gibson is more than a bit controversial due to the numerous factual errors and whacky, unsubstantiated claims he makes.

http://www.grcsucks.com/

and his WikiPedia entry are good starting points to form yourself an opinion.

If you look for a guy who knows what he's talking, has written a couple of books on crypto and is pleasant to read, check out Bruce Schneiers blog http://www.schneier.com/blog/ instead.

All I know of the guy is the podcasts, and those are factual and don't have any of the fear-mongering alleged on that page. In fact he downplays most of the risks people assume, and stresses that you should learn the details and decide for yourself. There is zero question that he does know how crypto works, does know the math behind it, and can explain it all very effectively.

I've never read his site or anything else about him. The podcasts have great quality. Blogs are hard to read while driving.

From what you are saying it sounds like you don't have any way to evaluate the facts of Steve Gibson's podcasts except by what he himself says. As Voldenuit mentions, security experts that have published books, regularly spoken at security conferences, who contribute to security mailing lists such as Bugtraq have a very poor opinion of Steve, and it would be wise to evaluate at least some third party materials about him before coming up with your own opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Gibson
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op...psecurity.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01..._fud_from_grc/

Trevor

Opinionated blogs/podcasts/etc are just that, opinionated. Facts and emperical data are the end all solution. This is why I tend to stick to factual and emperical evidence when researching or examining a telecom topic/subject. I think podcasts are alot like public radio. If you have the money and tools, any average joe can get on there and start ranting and raving about something. We, as intelligent listeners, need to be able to disregard the false and embrace the true.

I think guys like Steve have something to say, and in many instances what he has to say is interesting. However, he also tends to say some things that have no factual basis. So you have this threshold that keeps some people listening, while others keep criticising. Its an interesting cycle to say the least.

Half of what he says on the podcasts are things I already know. They are basic facts about encryption, hard to have an "opinion" on it. When asked if users should or should not do things, he puts out facts and tells users to evaluate and decide. When he describes the mathematical path to achieve encryption, those are facts, which are easily checked.

If I think about it, I can't come up with any opinions stated in those podcasts. I'm sure there were some. Usually they are somewhat dry and enjoyable if you like math and technology I guess.

The guy with idiotic opinions is his sidekick, Leo Laporte...that guy can drive me to insanity in one sentence.

One of you critics should listen to one of the podcasts on crypto and tell me if there's something incorrect or opinionated about it.

This is careening off topic, but...

I'm not trying to be a critic, except in the sense of someone who looks at a question critically (2. Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment: a critical reading.) I urge you to make up your own mind regarding the trustworthiness of Steve Gibson, and regarding everything else too, for that matter. If I'm seeming too negative, then I apologize.

Regarding whether or not Mr. Gibson has stated items of questionable truth in his podcast, read the article from the Register, linked above. It says in part
(Boldfacing is mine. Article is copyright 2006 The Register.)

It goes on from there, and is quite damning of Mr. Gibson.

Another interesting page related to Mr. Gibson and GRC: http://www.radsoft.net/news/roundups/grc/

Trevor

I no longer listen to TWiT because between that lunatic Dvorak and the blithering idiot Laporte, there's no content left. However, on the Security Now podcast, he said it's CONCEIVABLE that WMF and other things were back doors, and I happen to agree. So maybe we're just two conspiracy nuts.

In any case, like I said, all I know is that the Security Now podcasts are of very high quality and WILL answer these crypto questions.

This question is a bit off topic, but figured that it was better then starting a new thread. I've got an iBook G3 that I am setting it up to use with a wireless g router system. The iBook has one of the original Airport cards. I was wondering if I can set the router for WPA? Will the iBook G3 be able to access the wireless router? Or is it only usable set at WEP?
Thanks

I think WPA/WEP depends on the version of OS X you're running, not the card, just try it out, it's not like you're gonna break anything...

But of course you'll only get b-speed out of a b-card and if it's the only machine using the g router, you should try to switch it to b-only mode for slightly better speed.

It does depend on the hardware and software, but my PowerBook G3 "Pismo" also has the original Airport card and I believe WPA was enabled by an AirPort update somewhere during the Panther era and it does work. WPA was not originally available for that original card, but Apple made it happen, at least on that laptop model.