Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-12-31 09:26:34 +0000, gort said:


A fourth (for the terminally stupid, and what tends to come out of the
box) is to do neither.

BT Router impressed me the other day, out of the box with WPA
enabled.Well done BT.

Dave

Did they remember to include the password?

Is it the same for all of them or based on something like the MAC address,
or is it genuinely individual and random?

Yes, its on the bottom of the router on a label. No idea, I would like to
think its random, but this is BT!

Dave

Andy Hall wrote:

Data transfers of large files?

It depends on the environment, but in an home/office LAN very seldom.

Not true.

It depends on what the business is that they carry out on their home
office.

If it is related to IT/networking or to some form of media handling then
the data volumes can be large.

I'd hazard a guess that this is unlikely in the majority of cases. I
reckon that the majority of soho used computers out there run little
more than Windows and MS Office. I'll wager that is the case here.

In any case, the wireless network is suggested as a way to share an
internet connection whose bandwidth doesn't come close to that of the
wireless LAN. Most of the cheap wireless routers I've seen have a 10/100
switch included anyway, if you really need the bandwidth.

In that case, I would turn on some form of security....

Why on earth would I do that ?

Up to you.

One philosophy is not to bother with security in the wireless domain, to
treat the wireless network as dirty
and connect to the protected network via a firewall.

A second one is to use one of the wireless security mechanisms

A third is to use both of the above.

A fourth (for the terminally stupid, and what tends to come out of the
box) is to do neither.

Yes, mine is set up to use WPA. I misread your original point

Dave Liquorice wrote:

what's the point in having a LAN which is faster ?

So I don't have to wait for the data to trickle to/from the server and my
machine. One single A4 photo print this morning was 56.5Meg is size.
Approx 45 seconds at 10Mbps or 4.5 seconds at 100Mbps, I know which I
prefer...

The 10Mbps thing is a bit of a red herring now that 100Mbps is
ubiquitous. The 100Mbps network has only double the bandwidth of a
wireless G network under ideal conditions. The question here is whether
it is worthwhile or not to run cables around the house. I would find it
difficult to justify that just to double the bandwidth. Others may
differ depending on their circumstances.

In the original poster's case we're talking about a convenient way to
connect a broadband internet connection, which is probably 1-4Mbps, in
which case all this stuff about ethernet bandwidth has very little
relevance.

If I were a pedant I'd complain that you've been dishonest in your
suggestion that the wire speed of the physical layer is the actual rate
at which your photograph data would be transferred.

Are there any WiFi systems that have physical only access?
I'm not sure what this requirement means.

Oh dear. With any radio based system anyone within radio range can "see"
the traffic on that system. This applies not only to WiFi but baby
alarms, cordless phones, anything that uses a radio. How much of a
security hole this is depends on the technology used and what security
features are included *and* enabled.

Mine uses encryption and MAC filtering. Yes, I did have to configure that.

Are there any WiFi systems that "just work"?
Mine did, right out of the box.

You just made the physical connections and nothing else? You didn't have
to load a driver or configure anything? Oh dear, yet another wireless LAN
available for free loaders and identity thieves. Down in the town the
majority of the domestic wireless LANs that have sprung up in the last
year or so are wide open. Default ID's, default passwords, no encryption
etc etc.

I had to do a minimum degree of configuration, but there was very little
effort involved in making it work. Even if the network were wide open
there isn't *that* much scope for hacking on a properly configured
machine; most sensitive things use HTTPS anyway, and file/print sharing
over SMB should not be enabled on Windows machines.

I would rather use cable - that way I can keep a check on what my kids
are using the Internet for - at the moment we have two computers in one
room - the laptop is wireless free and hence cannot be used for the
unwanted!

In article , Geronimo W. Christ
Esq writes
Dave Liquorice wrote:

what's the point in having a LAN which is faster ?

So I don't have to wait for the data to trickle to/from the server and my
machine. One single A4 photo print this morning was 56.5Meg is size.
Approx 45 seconds at 10Mbps or 4.5 seconds at 100Mbps, I know which I
prefer...

The 10Mbps thing is a bit of a red herring now that 100Mbps is
ubiquitous. The 100Mbps network has only double the bandwidth of a
wireless G network under ideal conditions. The question here is whether
it is worthwhile or not to run cables around the house. I would find it
difficult to justify that just to double the bandwidth. Others may
differ depending on their circumstances.

In the original poster's case we're talking about a convenient way to
connect a broadband internet connection, which is probably 1-4Mbps, in
which case all this stuff about ethernet bandwidth has very little
relevance.

If I were a pedant I'd complain that you've been dishonest in your
suggestion that the wire speed of the physical layer is the actual rate
at which your photograph data would be transferred.

Are there any WiFi systems that have physical only access?
I'm not sure what this requirement means.

Oh dear. With any radio based system anyone within radio range can "see"
the traffic on that system. This applies not only to WiFi but baby
alarms, cordless phones, anything that uses a radio. How much of a
security hole this is depends on the technology used and what security
features are included *and* enabled.

Mine uses encryption and MAC filtering. Yes, I did have to configure that.

Are there any WiFi systems that "just work"?
Mine did, right out of the box.

You just made the physical connections and nothing else? You didn't have
to load a driver or configure anything? Oh dear, yet another wireless LAN
available for free loaders and identity thieves. Down in the town the
majority of the domestic wireless LANs that have sprung up in the last
year or so are wide open. Default ID's, default passwords, no encryption
etc etc.

I had to do a minimum degree of configuration, but there was very little
effort involved in making it work. Even if the network were wide open
there isn't *that* much scope for hacking on a properly configured
machine; most sensitive things use HTTPS anyway, and file/print sharing
over SMB should not be enabled on Windows machines.


--
John Alexander,

Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail