"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

SSID, encryption, etc.


Really?

There isn't much point in having a wizard that sets encryption, etc. on a
WAP that doesn't set it on the PC.


Wow. Tell me, with the plethora of different wireless chipsets possible on
a PC, and the random fact that the user may be using Microsoft wireless
configuration OR something else, and different operating systems - exactly
how is a setup disc wizard FOR THE WAP going to set up encryption on the
PC?


What makes you think they don't all store the data in the same place?
What makes you think there isn't a standard set of library calls to
manipulate them?
Can you name a card/driver combination where things like the "net" commands
and "ipconfig" don't work?

dennis@home wrote:

What makes you think they don't all store the data in the same place?

They don't. I don't see the development of an industry wide definition
set of wireless profiles other than the microsoft SP2 set.

What makes you think there isn't a standard set of library calls to
manipulate them?

There is a Microsoft Wireless LAN API but it's not available if the user
has decided to use manufacturers wireless drivers.

Can you name a card/driver combination where things like the "net"
commands and "ipconfig" don't work?

Wow. Pure Dennis.

Go on. How do you set SSID and WPA encryption with "net" and "ipconfig"
CLI tools? You can maybe do some things with "netsh wlan" in Vista, but XP?

It would be very stupid and unusual for a router/WAP manufacturer to
issue utilities that jerk around with the users network card
configuration. An unknown quantity.

I've checked the manual for the Dlink DAP-1160. It does nothing of the
sort and offers instructions for the user to do the adaptor encryption
setttings manually.

Screaming at someone for running the install disc and suggesting that
had ruined the install somewhere so suggesting system restore...

Pure Dennis. :-(

--
Adrian C

In uk.d-i-y, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Mike Barnes was thinking very hard :
In any event you get best performance by putting the "modem" as close to
the exchange as you can get it.

I'm very close to our exchange at 0.6km, but I doubt even extending
that another 60m on twisted pair even to the far end of our garden
would make any difference at all.

I wouldn't be so confident.

--
Mike Barnes

In uk.d-i-y, Graeme wrote:
In message , Mike Barnes
writes
In uk.d-i-y, Graeme wrote:

It could hardly have been more difficult :-)

Ah, but it's *educational*.

Indeed. I read every post on the subject, and kept reading until I
understood (most of) it.

And there is a silver lining. You can keep your router where it should
be (near where the phone line comes into the house) and position your
WAP somewhere else that gives you better wireless performance. A
combined unit doesn't allow you to do that.

Agreed.

One final thought has occurred. I'm not sure how secure the wireless
part of the network is, and whether I'm allowing anyone who hacks the
wireless part, access to the wired part. The WAP is plugged into one
of the ports of the router.

I'm glad you said that. I was skimming the new postings to the thread
and I saw your EUREKA! and made a mental note to go back to that message
and follow it up with a reminder about security. Too many people sit
back with a sigh of relief when they get it working and don't risk
screwing it up by applying any security. It's refreshing to see that
you're not one of them.

I've accessed Shields Up from the net book, and it passed all tests,
except the Ping test, but that result is the same for any PC on this
network.

When setting up the WAP, I selected WPA2 security.

WPA2 is OK. Choose a long password. But accept that a sufficiently
determined attacker will be able to crack it, and I'm led to understand
that tools that make it easy for anyone to do that are freely available
on t'Internet if you know where to look. How far do you trust your
neighbours?

The two things they can do a access the internet (slowing things down
for you and adding to your bandwidth usage) and carry out various
nefarious activities, which, if they're traced to your ADSL connection,
you'll have to come up with an explanation for; and access the PCs on
your wired network.

If you don't share files or printers between the PCs on the wired
network you should disable sharing on all PCs. If you do share files or
printers, there might be something you can do with passwords, but I'm
the wrong person to ask about that. I side-step the problem by having
two routers and two LANs, one for wireless and one for wired. So the
wired LAN is protected from the WAP just like it's protected from the
Internet.

--
Mike Barnes

"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

What makes you think they don't all store the data in the same place?

They don't. I don't see the development of an industry wide definition set
of wireless profiles other than the microsoft SP2 set.

What makes you think there isn't a standard set of library calls to
manipulate them?

There is a Microsoft Wireless LAN API but it's not available if the user
has decided to use manufacturers wireless drivers.

You aren't going to explain how the standard commands and utility programs
manage to access this data that you claim is stored in odd places then?


Can you name a card/driver combination where things like the "net"
commands and "ipconfig" don't work?

Wow. Pure Dennis.

Wow pure TMH.

You are the one that claims they are all different, why can't you name one
so I can have a look?


Go on. How do you set SSID and WPA encryption with "net" and "ipconfig"
CLI tools? You can maybe do some things with "netsh wlan" in Vista, but
XP?

Who said it was XP?

It would be very stupid and unusual for a router/WAP manufacturer to issue
utilities that jerk around with the users network card configuration. An
unknown quantity.

I've checked the manual for the Dlink DAP-1160. It does nothing of the
sort and offers instructions for the user to do the adaptor encryption
setttings manually.

Screaming at someone for running the install disc and suggesting that had
ruined the install somewhere so suggesting system restore...

Why not, its the easy way to uninstall stuff.
Why do you think system restore was added if not to make life easy.


Pure Dennis. :-(

Yep, and nothing you have said is anything other than you stating you are
correct and failing to back up anything you say.

Pure TMH.

dennis@home wrote:


Waste of time. As always. See ya.

--
Adrian C

"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


Waste of time. As always. See ya.

I agree you were a waste of time as you failed to have any logical answer to
anything I said.
Even your last ditched attempt by suggesting using system restore to
uninstall stuff is wrong fell flat on its face.
cya.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
news
Mike Barnes wrote:

WPA2 is OK. Choose a long password. But accept that a sufficiently
determined attacker will be able to crack it, and I'm led to understand
that tools that make it easy for anyone to do that are freely available
on t'Internet if you know where to look. How far do you trust your
neighbours?

I think at the moment the only realistic attacks against WPA2 with AES is
to dictionary attack weak pass phrases. So if you have selected something
reasonably secure, then you should be safe for now.

It isn't worth the roving user trying to break it.
You can make it so nobody finds it worthwhile by changing the passphrase
often enough.

dennis@home wrote:


"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


Waste of time. As always. See ya.

I agree you were a waste of time as you failed to have any logical
answer to anything I said.
Even your last ditched attempt by suggesting using system restore to
uninstall stuff is wrong fell flat on its face.
cya.

My last ditched attempt is not to continue speaking to idiots like you
who plainly have no clue what they are talking about and only exist to
confuse the matter of the original question even further.

System Restore. Really.
Not XP? Really.
Pure Dennis. Really.

:-(

--
Adrian C

And there is a silver lining. You can keep your router where it should
be (near where the phone line comes into the house) and position your
WAP somewhere else that gives you better wireless performance. A
combined unit doesn't allow you to do that.



Also if your in a terraced house or flats bear in mind that everyone
could have a wireless point and interference can and does take place!..

Also from video senders microwave ovens and the like;!..

With regard to changing your IP addy on the PC sometimes this takes a
few minutes to get its act together. In a DOS prompt box type "ipconfig"
and that should show you what its set to.

You can have more than the one IP address per machine like we do here..

If all else fails ask a teenager to set it up for you..
--
Tony Sayer

"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


Waste of time. As always. See ya.

I agree you were a waste of time as you failed to have any logical answer
to anything I said.
Even your last ditched attempt by suggesting using system restore to
uninstall stuff is wrong fell flat on its face.
cya.

My last ditched attempt is not to continue speaking to idiots like you who
plainly have no clue what they are talking about and only exist to confuse
the matter of the original question even further.

You are being the idiot here.
The solution as done in more detail here was to ignore the CD and do it by
manual means, which is exactly what I said BTW.


System Restore. Really.

Do you even know what system restore is?
I doubt it by the way you keep bringing it into this thread.
Windows does checkpoints and you can wind it back to one of those check
points by selecting it and saying yes please.
It is infinitely better than some uninstall programs and doesn't leave
registry entries and stuff like that that some installers leave behind.

Now we have established that it is you that doesn't know what you are
talking about we can forget it.

Not XP? Really.
Pure Dennis. Really.

Pure TMH.

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:19:28 -0700 (PDT), zymurgy
wrote:

Windows can find the wireless network without any of the cr@p that comes on the cds.

That depends on the wireless card and if it has a standard chipset.
Anything from Netgear, D-Link or 3com should be ok, and recognised by
windows.

The chipset doesn't come into it. If it's transmitting the right kind
of wireless (and it will be) the computer will be able to pick it up.
The software provided on the computer will be fine.

Standard procedure with all this sort of gear is to ignore the
software provided. Connect to a computer with a network cable. Find
the address of the device from the manual. Typically it will be
192.168.0.1 or 192.168.1.1 Type it into your web browser, in the
same way as you'd type a www. address. There may be a default logon
and password. Typically some combination of "admin", "user" and
"password". Again the manual will tell you.

Once you're into the device's control panel (which looks and acts just
like a web page) make any necessary settings. For an access point the
only changes you'll probably need to make from the defaults is to
choose a network name and set a password (so that neighbours and
passers-by can't access your connection).

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:30:54 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

It is also no bad thing for your LAN's security, to change the IP's
away from their default settings anyway, especially so if you add a
WAP.

Doesn't really make any difference. Anyone who can see the network at
all can also see the ip.

Typically it will be
192.168.0.1 or 192.168.1.1 Type it into your web browser, in the
same way as you'd type a www. address. There may be a default logon
and password. Typically some combination of "admin", "user" and
"password". Again the manual will tell you.

Correction - those are typical router addresses. An access point will
be different. Maybe 50 or 254 as the final number.

dennis@home wrote:

Waste of time. As always. See ya.

--
Adrian C

In uk.d-i-y, Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:30:54 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

It is also no bad thing for your LAN's security, to change the IP's
away from their default settings anyway, especially so if you add a
WAP.

Doesn't really make any difference. Anyone who can see the network at
all can also see the ip.

Quite so. Non-obvious IP address, IP filtering, MAC filtering... ISTM
that those are the speed bumps of the wireless security world. They slow
people down a fraction but keep no-one out.

--
Mike Barnes

Mike Barnes wrote:
In uk.d-i-y, Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:30:54 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

It is also no bad thing for your LAN's security, to change the IP's
away from their default settings anyway, especially so if you add a
WAP.
Doesn't really make any difference. Anyone who can see the network at
all can also see the ip.

Quite so. Non-obvious IP address, IP filtering, MAC filtering... ISTM
that those are the speed bumps of the wireless security world. They slow
people down a fraction but keep no-one out.

MAC filtering will be quite hard to spoof.

But the real point is that there are DOZENS of WAPs around completely
open with almost no encryption advertising themselves.


My frind has three where he lives in suburban essex. I found four when I
set up an office network.

Here, I cant get a signal from my own unit in the house when sitting on
the garden.. Must be the metal lath the house is rendered over ;-(

In uk.d-i-y, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mike Barnes wrote:
In uk.d-i-y, Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:30:54 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

It is also no bad thing for your LAN's security, to change the IP's
away from their default settings anyway, especially so if you add a
WAP.
Doesn't really make any difference. Anyone who can see the network at
all can also see the ip.
Quite so. Non-obvious IP address, IP filtering, MAC filtering...
ISTM
that those are the speed bumps of the wireless security world. They slow
people down a fraction but keep no-one out.

MAC filtering will be quite hard to spoof.

That's not my impression. I just Googled up this video...

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/itdojo/?p=149

That's is from the days of WEP. I suspect that moving on to WPA doesn't
change anything that's said there - does anyone know?

In any event, put this sort of information on the web together with the
teenager next door and you'll see why securing your network is
important.

--
Mike Barnes

Mike Barnes wrote:
In uk.d-i-y, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mike Barnes wrote:
In uk.d-i-y, Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:30:54 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

It is also no bad thing for your LAN's security, to change the IP's
away from their default settings anyway, especially so if you add a
WAP.
Doesn't really make any difference. Anyone who can see the network at
all can also see the ip.
Quite so. Non-obvious IP address, IP filtering, MAC filtering...
ISTM
that those are the speed bumps of the wireless security world. They slow
people down a fraction but keep no-one out.

MAC filtering will be quite hard to spoof.

That's not my impression. I just Googled up this video...

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/itdojo/?p=149


Oh it can be done, but you need a wifi device that supports it, and some
knowledge..

Why bother when the next network along is not so hard?


That's is from the days of WEP. I suspect that moving on to WPA doesn't
change anything that's said there - does anyone know?


I would guess that MAC addresses are no encrypted, only the data.

However WPA is pretty secure.

In any event, put this sort of information on the web together with the
teenager next door and you'll see why securing your network is
important.


The real issue is whether or not you are sending info so senaitive and
incriminating that someone will spend days trying to crack your network,
or whether its just a case of a line of cars in the street and a chav
trying every one till he finds one that isn't locked.

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 09:41:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


MAC filtering will be quite hard to spoof.
MAC address filtering is trivial to bypass as is SSID hiding.

But the real point is that there are DOZENS of WAPs around completely
open with almost no encryption advertising themselves.
This tends to be true of older routers and access points that shipped
with "no security" as the default. Its increasingly common for routers to
be shipped with security settings enables - particularly those that are
supplied by ISPs

BW

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


MAC filtering will be quite hard to spoof.

Capture a couple of frames, read MAC, go to windows properties, change the
MAC address, job done.
Even easier on linux.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Oh it can be done, but you need a wifi device that supports it, and some
knowledge..

I would like you name one that doesn't support it.

Why bother when the next network along is not so hard?

To see what you are hiding.


That's is from the days of WEP. I suspect that moving on to WPA doesn't
change anything that's said there - does anyone know?


I would guess that MAC addresses are no encrypted, only the data.

However WPA is pretty secure.

Yes it takes a few minutes/hours, rather than seconds/minutes for WEP.


In any event, put this sort of information on the web together with the
teenager next door and you'll see why securing your network is
important.


The real issue is whether or not you are sending info so senaitive and
incriminating that someone will spend days trying to crack your network,
or whether its just a case of a line of cars in the street and a chav
trying every one till he finds one that isn't locked.

It is no longer days if you know what you are doing.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Oh it can be done, but you need a wifi device that supports it, and
some knowledge..

I would like you name one that doesn't support it.

Why bother when the next network along is not so hard?

To see what you are hiding.


If you are that paranoid, use wired only.

I don't like wireless ..its flay, its vulnerable and it dosn't cope well
with bits of metal

My house is largely cat5 wired everywhere.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Oh it can be done, but you need a wifi device that supports it, and some
knowledge..

I would like you name one that doesn't support it.

Why bother when the next network along is not so hard?

To see what you are hiding.


If you are that paranoid, use wired only.

I don't like wireless ..its flay, its vulnerable and it dosn't cope well
with bits of metal

My house is largely cat5 wired everywhere.

But you use it enough to advise on its security?

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Oh it can be done, but you need a wifi device that supports it, and
some knowledge..

I would like you name one that doesn't support it.

Why bother when the next network along is not so hard?

To see what you are hiding.


If you are that paranoid, use wired only.

I don't like wireless ..its flay, its vulnerable and it dosn't cope
well with bits of metal

My house is largely cat5 wired everywhere.

But you use it enough to advise on its security?



I have been required to install it, thats all. Which means I have to
learn enough to know something at least.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


I have been required to install it, thats all. Which means I have to learn
enough to know something at least.


Well in that case..

Things that don't add significant security to a wireless network and really
just show the administrator doesn't know much about wireless lans..

MAC address restrictions.
fixed IP addressing.
obscure IP address ranges.

Things that might slow down the unaware..

WEP

Things that will slow most down..

WPA

Things that will really upset a hacker..

IPSEC (or similar) tunnels over WPA and a firewall/tunnel server between the
wireless and the real address.

In uk.d-i-y, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I don't like wireless ..its flay, its vulnerable and it dosn't cope
well with bits of metal

Agreed.

My house is largely cat5 wired everywhere.

Same here. But I also have handheld PCs which use wireless. I'm relaxed
about that because they're isolated from the wired stuff by a NAT
router. Oh, and our neighbours are all well out of range. :-)

--
Mike Barnes

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I don't like wireless ..its flay, its vulnerable and it dosn't cope well
with bits of metal

I like wireless - it's reliable enough, secure enough, and lets people
access the internet without having wires dangling all over the living room.

My house is largely cat5 wired everywhere.

When I still used a desktop, I'd have gone for that solution. Now my
computers are portable, my connectivity needs to be too.

If I have friends or relatives visiting, I let them use my wireless internet
access, and vice-versa. This works well.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


I have been required to install it, thats all. Which means I have to
learn enough to know something at least.


Well in that case..

Things that don't add significant security to a wireless network and
really just show the administrator doesn't know much about wireless lans..

MAC address restrictions.
fixed IP addressing.
obscure IP address ranges.


I know. They don't do a lot. MAC does a little more, because the caller
cant just get in on any old numbers.



Things that might slow down the unaware..

WEP

Things that will slow most down..

WPA


Yes. I agree.

Things that will really upset a hacker..

IPSEC (or similar) tunnels over WPA and a firewall/tunnel server between
the wireless and the real address.

Yes, but heck, this is DOMESTIC crap FFS.

Another good one is disable wireless on the router except when you are
using it..

Clive George wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I don't like wireless ..its flay, its vulnerable and it dosn't cope well
with bits of metal

I like wireless - it's reliable enough, secure enough, and lets people
access the internet without having wires dangling all over the living room.

My house is largely cat5 wired everywhere.

When I still used a desktop, I'd have gone for that solution. Now my
computers are portable, my connectivity needs to be too.

If I have friends or relatives visiting, I let them use my wireless internet
access, and vice-versa. This works well.


I let them plug into a cat5 on the wall. Because realistically, with
foil covered plasterboard and chicken wire on the outer walls, my WIFI
range is about 12 feet.

I must get something stuck on a chimney for garden use..

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I don't like wireless ..its flay, its vulnerable and it dosn't cope well
with bits of metal

I like wireless - it's reliable enough, secure enough, and lets people
access the internet without having wires dangling all over the living
room.

My house is largely cat5 wired everywhere.

When I still used a desktop, I'd have gone for that solution. Now my
computers are portable, my connectivity needs to be too.

If I have friends or relatives visiting, I let them use my wireless
internet access, and vice-versa. This works well.

I let them plug into a cat5 on the wall. Because realistically, with foil
covered plasterboard and chicken wire on the outer walls, my WIFI range is
about 12 feet.

I must get something stuck on a chimney for garden use..

See aforementioned wires dangling all over the place. But I don't have foil
everywhere.

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:38:00 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

Oh, and our neighbours are all well out of range. :-)

The record for 802.11b, unamplified but with serious antennas stands at
around 125 miles with a clear line of sight.

http://www.unwiredadventures.com/unw..._wifi_sho.html

Significant improvements over "normal" installations can be had just by
using a high gain directional antenna (£30-£40 and readily available) on
one end of the connection only.

Or you could just use something like this...
http://www.instructables.com/id/Buil...ter-DIY-style/

Now, how far away did you say your neighbours were again...

BW

In article ,
Bambleweeny57 scribeth thus
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:38:00 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

Oh, and our neighbours are all well out of range. :-)

The record for 802.11b, unamplified but with serious antennas stands at
around 125 miles with a clear line of sight.

http://www.unwiredadventures.com/unw..._wifi_sho.html

Significant improvements over "normal" installations can be had just by
using a high gain directional antenna (£30-£40 and readily available) on
one end of the connection only.


Yes for point to point working that is a good idea, but it doesn't do
much for wi-fi around your back yard!....


Or you could just use something like this...
http://www.instructables.com/id/Buil...ter-DIY-style/

Now, how far away did you say your neighbours were again...

BW

--
Tony Sayer

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:34:53 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

Significant improvements over "normal" installations can be had just by
using a high gain directional antenna (£30-£40 and readily available) on
one end of the connection only.


Yes for point to point working that is a good idea, but it doesn't do
much for wi-fi around your back yard!....

There's directional and directional.... something like this ...
http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?...C=SO&U=strat15
would be perfect for a large back garden.

BW

In article ,
Bambleweeny57 scribeth thus
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:34:53 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

Significant improvements over "normal" installations can be had just by
using a high gain directional antenna (£30-£40 and readily available) on
one end of the connection only.


Yes for point to point working that is a good idea, but it doesn't do
much for wi-fi around your back yard!....

There's directional and directional.... something like this ...
http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?...C=SO&U=strat15
would be perfect for a large back garden.

BW

Lets hope you don't get too much interference from elsewhere with
that;!..
--
Tony Sayer

In message , John
Rumm writes
Graeme wrote:

When setting up the WAP, I selected WPA2 security.

That ought to keep the wireless side secure. Given you only have the
one known user on the wireless side (wifey on wifi ;-))

I laughed, wifey wanted to know why, and I made the mistake of telling
her. We both got a glare :-)

FYI: The WAP configuration may also allow you to control the level of
bridging between wired and wireless. So for example if you wanted the
netbook to see the internet but have no access to any of the wired
clients, that can usually be done. Also because you made the (sensible)
decision to go for a separate WAP, you have the option of setting
firewall rules in both the WAP and the router to control exactly what
can be done from where if you want.

TBH, I'm far from an expert (which is obvious!), but I'm fairly relaxed,
now. The main network is all wired, with the exception of the one net
book. PCs on our wired network, can see the name of the net book, but
cannot access any files. The net book can see the name of our home
(wired) network, but none of the PCs on it.
--
Graeme

Graeme wrote:
In message , John
Rumm writes
Graeme wrote:

When setting up the WAP, I selected WPA2 security.

That ought to keep the wireless side secure. Given you only have the
one known user on the wireless side (wifey on wifi ;-))

I laughed, wifey wanted to know why, and I made the mistake of telling
her. We both got a glare :-)

FYI: The WAP configuration may also allow you to control the level of
bridging between wired and wireless. So for example if you wanted the
netbook to see the internet but have no access to any of the wired
clients, that can usually be done. Also because you made the
(sensible) decision to go for a separate WAP, you have the option of
setting firewall rules in both the WAP and the router to control
exactly what can be done from where if you want.

TBH, I'm far from an expert (which is obvious!), but I'm fairly relaxed,
now. The main network is all wired, with the exception of the one net
book. PCs on our wired network, can see the name of the net book, but
cannot access any files. The net book can see the name of our home
(wired) network, but none of the PCs on it.

Micro**** firewall. Turn it off. Prevents file sharing by default.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Browsers store history..a list of where you have been. Its this that
has been used in evidence as much as actual downloaded material.


They also stotre cookies..a list of registered sites you have
registration for.

Of course, these may be deleted periodically if you are savvy.

Or better still, inspected and *then* deleted.


--
Ian White

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


It is insufficient that its not on your hard drive.

Browsers store history..a list of where you have been. Its this that
has been used in evidence as much as actual downloaded material.


They also stotre cookies..a list of registered sites you have
registration for.


Neither of those would be stored on *your* computer though, if someone else
had hacked into your wireless network.

But your ISP would probably know what sites had been accessed via *your*
connection - and may be required to reveal that to Plod.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:07:50 +0100, Ian White wrote:

Browsers store history..a list of where you have been. Its this
that
has been used in evidence as much as actual downloaded material.

They also stotre cookies..a list of registered sites you have
registration for.

Amongst other things, some sites set cookies without you having to
register or do anything other than look at a page.

Of course, these may be deleted periodically if you are savvy.

Or better still, inspected and *then* deleted.

Then the unused areas of the disc overwritten by a suitable program
otherwise the information is still there in pristine condition. If
you want to get really paranoid you overwrite each sector several
times with a different pattern each time.

--
Cheers
Dave.