tzwlwm / reaver-wps

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/reaver-wps
0 stars 0 forks source link

Dreaded receive timeouts after EAPOL start request on Netgear router--stuck at 30+% #356

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
Hi folks,

I'm here just wondering what could be the issue.  I'm pretty new to reaver and 
have been testing out the security of my router, and neighbor's router--I 
understand this is illegal, but bear with me.  I do not intend on stealing his 
Internet access.  I already have Internet access, and I can prove this with my 
AT&T billing statements.  I believe in knowledge is power, and I like proving 
people wrong.  Anyways, I have been able to successfully hack my ATT internet 
gateway.  That was really cool.  However, my next goal is to crack my 
neighbor's Netgear router.  After setting up reaver to run with all the 
switches and timeouts properly set up, I was able to get it running all night.  
It was testing different pins, and would sleep for 4 minutes when the pin 
transactions started failing.  Anyways, this morning, I checked on the status 
of reaver, and the WPS transaction kept failing over and over again at 30+% 
completion.  I checked wash to see if the router locked out WPS, and it has 
not.  I rechecked the switches, such as -d timeout, -L no locks, etc..., and 
tried various combinations to no avail.  It is able to associate with the AP, 
so I'm sure the router is still up.  I'm just wondering, I have read that on 
certain routers, WPS runs as a separate process or daemon, and sometimes it 
crashes.  Does this sound like what is happening here?  

Some more info: Reaver 1.4 running on Backtrack 5 release 2 using an RTL8187 
based adapter running in monitor mode.  Signal strength is great given the 
router is upstairs in my neighbor's apt.  I don't know the exact model of 
Netgear router.  I will ask my neighbor when I see him later.  I'm going to 
tell him what I've been up to.  Maybe he'll be interested in participating in 
this test.  

Much thanks for listening.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by ribeyest...@gmail.com on 16 Jul 2012 at 9:02