WPA2, the wireless security thing, is not available on Windows XP x64, and for the 32bit version, it is not a mandatory download. “We know Microsoft is serious about security and they don’t appreciate the lack of it on Windows any more than we do, but it’s things like this that make people wonder. How hard would it be to label this as a recommended download via Windows Update for all x86 users – and to roll out a version with x64 support before Windows XP x64 SP2 comes out, years from now?”
Perhaps because not all devices support WPA2…. just a thought.
Doesn’t mean they can’t make it an option. I found it to be a complete pain in the ass to setup my roommate’s windows machine to use WPA2 but it was a piece of cake on my mac.
If you had a hard time then blame the hardware. I’ve had no problems with WPA2 on Windows except for when I have devices on the network that don’t support it. This is not a Windows problem.
Well, if you’re a *normal person* and you just got a WPA2 compliant router and a WPA2 compliant network card, you would expect them to just, you know, work.
As a *normal user* you have no idea that you need to look for something called the “WPA2 Patch for XP.” You also believe that having told XP it’s OK to automatically download updates that it *would* naturally download said updates.
Then you discover that no, XP isn’t like Mac. XP only downloads *useless* updates automatically. If you want something that *really works* you have to know what you’re looking for, where to download it, and you have to do it yourself.
Then you chuck your PC out of the Window and wonder why the hell computers are so hard to use.
“Windows Update for all x86 users – and to roll out a version with x64 support before Windows XP x64 SP2 comes out, years from now?””
I doubt SP2 will be out years from now as it is already at RC stage
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsserver/sp2.mspx
That’s sad. I think Macs have been supporting WPA2 since at least Mac OS X 10.3 (at least three years ago).
To me, this screams nothing but “We don’t care”, and it tells me that WPA means nothing to Microsoft but “Windows Product Activation”.
And, even if Microsoft does “care” and is taking security seriously, “caring” is a far cry from implementing.
Seems like it’s slightly hyped to me. I see nothing that says you can’t get WPA2 on your networks – unless of course you’re running XP 64-bit(arguably the only thing in the article worth getting bent up about). I mean, sure, it’d be nice if they mandated the download so everyone had it, but who really cares?
Ermmm.. If you had a wireless network and you wanted it secured, I presume you *would* care…….. I guess that’s why you use Windows
Ermmm.. If you had a wireless network and you wanted it secured, I presume you *would* care…….. I guess that’s why you use Windows
Actually I use linux(except at work) – and I do care. What’s your point? It’s easy enough to download and install WPA2 as it is.
“It’s easy enough to download and install WPA2….”
For you, maybe. But what about those that don’t know any better? Like I said in my previous comment, they expect it to just work. They did the “hard” part by picking out the hardware and installing the drivers. Isn’t that enough?
On Linux, it’s enough. On OS X too. But not on Windows – That’s the problem.
For you, maybe. But what about those that don’t know any better?
Those that don’t know any better still broadcast their ssid as linksys, unencrypted, with the router password left at admin.
Edited 2007-02-27 22:59
So, by your post, you are implying that it’s “OK” for MS to screw around with an essential security feature, leaving it (by default) unavailable to users, simply because some users are ignorant?
Here’s a clue, if WPA2 was (by default) installed on Windows machines, *maybe* the router makers would have incentive to start using something beyond WEP/WPA1. Right now, it would be suicide.
So yes, let’s blame ignorant users for not setting up their routers properly, I have no arguments against that. The router makers are just as guilty about not *forcing* more secure installations at a minimum, but they do it for marketing/sales reasons, I can also understand this.
MS has *no* reason not to include WPA2 by default (unless it’s buggy as heck, but that applies to just about every Windows release…) They’re just making users who want to try and use better secured wireless encryption standards have to jump through hoops. It’s a poor decision, and it frustrates me to no end that something as short-sighted as this would be done, *especially* with no conceivable reason as to why. If you’ve got one, by all means, do explain.
First off, microsoft isn’t screwing around with an “essential” security feature. WPA works fine as long as you don’t put forth a dictionary password. And just how are they leaving WPA2 unavailable to users? Why don’t you just download it and use it?
I’m not arguing that WPA2 shouldn’t be included as an automatic update; I’m simply putting forth my opinion that they’re making a mountain out of a mole hill.
If you want WPA2 go download the software.
Here’s a clue, if WPA2 was (by default) installed on Windows machines, *maybe* the router makers would have incentive to start using something beyond WEP/WPA1
So you’re blaming microsoft for other vendors not adding WPA2? Look, I’m not that much of a fan of microsoft either, but I think those who make routers know their reputation is on the line when they don’t include the latest security features.
Edited 2007-02-27 23:23
It seems as though you ignored half my post, and skipped reading the other half.
WPA2 is being left unavailable to the VAST MAJORITY of users, like it or not. I realize you think all people who aren’t computer gurus should be left in the cold, you’ve made that quite obvious, but I do not share the same view.
Mountain/mole hill – I’m not making a mountain, I’m simply saying there is no conceivable reason for MS not to issue this as an automatic update. You’ve agreed with me. Why are you trying to argue with what you agree on?
Go tell your grandma to go download WPA2, she’s the one who’s going to need help, not me. Same with the people a few houses down, etc.
Nice quote you made concerning MS/router manufacturers. Did you not even read the paragraph following that one? I very specifically place blame on the router manufacturers for their terrible approach to security. Not MS. I do know, however, if MS doesn’t make WPA2 standard on windows machines, router manufacturers have *0* incentive to bother with moving up to it. Now, maybe if MS did add it – they still wouldn’t (would not surprise me) but it’s detestable that MS wouldn’t include such a thing by default. It’s not like it’s some kind of crazy new technology, I’ve been using it for quite a while on my wireless networks.
So, if you’re going to quote/respond to me, please read my entire post and make an attempt at comprehending it first. I mean no offense by this, I am simply asking you do it in order to prevent you from wasting time making replies that do not address what I actually said.
Thanks,
David
It seems as though you ignored half my post, and skipped reading the other half.
WPA2 is being left unavailable to the VAST MAJORITY of users, like it or not. I realize you think all people who aren’t computer gurus should be left in the cold, you’ve made that quite obvious, but I do not share the same view.
People who aren’t computer gurus are already left in the cold because most router setups leave encryption disabled anyways. Microsoft making WPA2 enabled as an automatic update by default won’t change this(how many routers have WEP by default?).
Go tell your grandma to go download WPA2, she’s the one who’s going to need help, not me. Same with the people a few houses down, etc.
Okay, why don’t you install WPA2 for her, and then tell her to configure her own router to use it? I did address that point in an earlier post – http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=17375&comment_id=217079
I do know, however, if MS doesn’t make WPA2 standard on windows machines, router manufacturers have *0* incentive to bother with moving up to it. Now, maybe if MS did add it – they still wouldn’t (would not surprise me) but it’s detestable that MS wouldn’t include such a thing by default. It’s not like it’s some kind of crazy new technology, I’ve been using it for quite a while on my wireless networks.
You contradicted yourself – you said there’s zero incentive, and yet you’re using WPA2 – so there’s is a demand, and the router manufacturers are meeting that demand – there’s your incentive.
So, if you’re going to quote/respond to me, please read my entire post and make an attempt at comprehending it first. I mean no offense by this, I am simply asking you do it in order to prevent you from wasting time making replies that do not address what I actually said.
Hope I’ve shown I’ve thought your post through. I stick by my statement that it’s a mountain out of a molehill, because those who want WPA2 can get it if they want – with the exception of XP-64bit, which, like I said in my first post, is probably the only thing from that article truely worth griping about.
having this problem with many laptop users in my lab right now… (if it’s there everything runs *smooth* tho…)
they should really make it a ‘standard’ update
Edited 2007-02-27 20:53
I couldn’t get WPA to work with my router, even if it supported WPA2, I doubt I’d have any better luck.
128bit WEP with MAC filtering is fine for my network.
My Access Point is configured for WPA2 Personal/AES. It shows up as a Wireless Network. I double click it and enter my passphrase. Windows then connects.
On another machine I had installed the WPA2 patch, so the pull down shows WPA2 as an option. When I double click on it and enter the passphrase Windows XP still selects WPA (not WPA 2) as the type.
On my old machine with an 11b (WPA 1 Only) it wasn’t able to connect at all.