[arch-general] Proposed netcfg expansion

Andrei Thorp garoth at gmail.com
Mon Apr 20 16:32:49 EDT 2009


Certainly, WPA is the way to go (though that's been cracked somewhat
easily too using video cards' vector capabilities from what I hear).
Regardless, there are WEP access points, and people do only know the
passphrase.

Do you suggest that this should go for iwconfig rather than netcfg? I
technically agree.

Ah, Daenyth's e-mail just came in. I can try to do something with the
iwconfig guys, but honestly, adding passphrase support is pretty
trivial and I must wonder if they haven't added it due to
philosophical reasons.

Guess I'll try get in touch with them and see what they say.

-A"G"T

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Andrei Thorp <garoth at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello there,
>>
>> I was recently digging around in the netcfg code to figure out why my
>> WEP passphrase wasn't working. As I expected, it is because iwconfig
>> at the moment doesn't support WEP passphrase.
>>
>> Anyway, so I'd like to know the reason this has not been implemented
>> in general. Is it because the netcfg devs want it in iwconfig and the
>> iwconfig guys don't want to write this? Is it because no one has cared
>> enough to do it? Should I go talk about this elsewhere?
>>
>> Anyway, I personally think that netcfg could use this feature, and
>> that it'd be dead simple to implement. I figured I'd do it while I'm
>> on break, but I wanted to confirm that this is indeed a feature that
>> wasn't being avoided for some reason. If it is a feature that is being
>> avoided, can I at least write a small patch to tell the user what's
>> the haps? (At the moment, netcfg tries to use the improper passphrase
>> by passing a command to iwconfig and then iwconfig throws out a
>> cryptic "unknown command" error.)
>
> Well, technically this has nothing to do with netcfg. If you patch
> iwconfig to support it, the patch would go upstream and netcfg would
> "just work", it seems.
>
> That said, isn't WEP all sorts of broken? I was under the impression
> WPA was the way to go these days
>


More information about the arch-general mailing list