On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:20:00 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:08:36 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:41:25 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.
Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

He is right. Especially when you find out how easy it is to hack WIFI
to the homes and businesses around you, especially on those that
haven't a clue about security. Years ago I used to connect up and
print out messages on their printers to clue them in.

Wired is faster, but how fast do you NEED? I see no evidence of a
trend to wired for residential use.

As for ease of hacking, this is mostly FUD. Has any data breach
causing economic harm to anyone _ever_ been traced to a wifi hack?

Most data thieves don't go after Joe Homeowner or Fred's Pizza. They
go after somebody who is likely to have enough in assets accessible by
computer to actually be worth stealing.

You haven't a clue. You can sit in a parking lot and hack into BB or
HD or any other corp, once in you can go hard wired where you have the
speed to d/l whatever you accessed.

So tell us exactly how often this has actually happened in the real
world with resulting financial loss?

And how do you "go hard wired once you're in"? Do you somehow
magically make a wire fly through the air?

You are assuming that I don't know how to hack. The question is not
whether a hack is possible, it is whether it is sufficiently likely to
justify avoiding the use of a technology.

Your argument seems to be "Someone who is highly motivated and highly
skilled can potentially hack into a wifi network so everybody should
avoid wifi".

Tell us of ONE incident where someone successfully stole information
from either a Home Depot or a Best Buy by sitting in the parking lot
hacking their wifi. You are asserting that this is a serious risk
that justifies abandoning wifi, and you used Best Buy and Home Depot
as examples, so tell us when it actually happened. Not that they were
hacked "somehow" but specifically that they were hacked by someone
sitting in a parking lot penetrating their wifi.

As to homes, you can access all their business info, CC's Bank
accounts, Photo's and video's, whatever they have.

So tell us exactly how many times this has actually happened in the
real world with financial loss? Don't bluster about it, give us a
number.

Why do you think some people hacked the local CC readers of peoples
personal accounts like at Target, and with drew a slew of minimal
amounts from many people and had the money transferred elsewhere?

They didn't hack the "local CC readers of people's personal accounts",
they hacked the whole Target system so they were getting every credit
card that anybody used in any of the 1,828 Target stores. That's a
large enough volume to be worth attacking. And you have not
demonstrated that wifi had _any_ role in that attack.

Why do people attach CC readers to gas pumps, and bank withdrawal
systems? They go where ever there is easy money and few are going to
trace down 500 or 1000 bucks here and there, they just right it off as
the cost of doing business.

So how many did this by hacking wifi?

If you are that naive, then you are probable vulnerable.

I am far far more likely to be murdered, die in a car crash, drown,
fall, or experience death in some other manner than to be hacked.
There were less than a thousand documented hacking incidents with
financial loss in 2017.

One takes reasonable precautions but one does not build one's life
around the notion that one can come to grief.

And you have gone far afield from technical issues now.