dennis@home wrote:


"Clive George" wrote in message
...


Yes, it's theoretically a bit more open. But in practice with WPA it's
secure enough, and hackers have got better targets.


Don't forget that all the important stuff is encrypted before it leaves
the browser.
Its done like that because of the ease of hacking the wired networks.

Its not easy at all to hack a wired network

"dennis@home" :
Don't forget that all the important stuff is encrypted before it leaves
the browser.

Don't forget that for some of us, a lot of important stuff doesn't go
anywhere near a browser.

Its done like that because of the ease of hacking the wired networks.

It's only easy for networks outside the premises. We're talking about a
network inside the premises.

--
Mike Barnes

The Natural Philosopher
wibbled on Thursday 07 January 2010 09:51

dennis@home wrote:


"Clive George" wrote in message
...


Yes, it's theoretically a bit more open. But in practice with WPA it's
secure enough, and hackers have got better targets.


Don't forget that all the important stuff is encrypted before it leaves
the browser.
Its done like that because of the ease of hacking the wired networks.

Its not easy at all to hack a wired network

Do you trust everyone in your ISP. And the next ISP and the next until the
other end?

--
Tim Watts

You know you need more insulation when the snow blanket on the roof makes
the house 3 degrees warmer...

Tim W wrote:
The Natural Philosopher
wibbled on Thursday 07 January 2010 09:51

dennis@home wrote:

"Clive George" wrote in message
...

Yes, it's theoretically a bit more open. But in practice with WPA it's
secure enough, and hackers have got better targets.

Don't forget that all the important stuff is encrypted before it leaves
the browser.
Its done like that because of the ease of hacking the wired networks.
Its not easy at all to hack a wired network

Do you trust everyone in your ISP. And the next ISP and the next until the
other end?

No, that's why peole use ssh/https.

yes, its POSSIBLE to monitor packet level stuff IF the right kit is in
place and IF you make some very obvious alterations to the hardware.

But you cant simply hook a sniffer on a ISP backbone. Its switches
everywhere. You have to get to a main feed carrying ALL traffic (and
that's usually optical) and insert a boxes in all traffic lines. It can
be done..but its heavyweight kit.

More typically traffic monitoring is dine via invisible web proxies etc.


But they wont be intercepting e.g. ssh traffic and the like.

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:59:23 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
.. .

Agreed. I wish ISPs would not supply wireless routers too. A lot of
people think they have to use wireless!

No, supplying wireless routers is definitely something ISPs should be doing.
Laptops are becoming much more popular, and wireless is ideal for those, and
if one buys a suitable card rather than the OP's ****, it gives you an
easier desktop install too if you can't be bothered laying cat5 about the
place. Also, wireless generally works rather better than the doomsayers here
are saying - most of the houses I visit have it and it works. Given most
people's traffic is likely to be internet-bound rather than within the
house, speed is much less of an issue too.

I disagree. If you need wireless then an separate access point is
better than having everything combined. The ideal location for the
access point is not always the same place as the best place for the
router.

IME wireless does not work well for most people. I hear frequent
cases of interrmittant operation, slow speeds and areas where no
wireless access is possible.

Laying cable is not that difficult (this /is/ a DIY ng) and for those
that can't there's always homeplug.

(all that said, I'll use wired where appropriate - fixed kit, where I've got
the wire in place).
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

"MM" wrote in message
news
In many cases it's not more hassle

"many" is not "all", is it? Therefore, it is more hassle than wired. I
can't understand why you will not acknowledge this.

Whereas I'm wondering why you're struggling quite so much with the idea that
supplying a wireless router by default makes sense for the majority of
people, and thus makes commercial sense for ISPs.

Well, I present far less of a target with my wired network and that's
the way it's gonna stay.

You're missing the point that you're a special snowflake. Yes, your needs
are a bit different from the mainstream. Acknowledge that, accept that as a
result you may not be using the default package mainstream providers give
you, move on.

"MM" wrote in message
...

Um, I'm not the one trying to make things difficult. Wireless isn't
difficult. Remember, you're the one not using it - I'm using it entirely
happily.

Of COURSE it's more difficult than wired! You have to consider all the
security implications for a start. With wired, you connect the cable
and... well, that's it! Done!

How much work do you think there is to "consider" the security implications?
IME the routers supplied by ISPs come with WPA turned on. One of them you
have to press a button to allow the computer to connect as well. The
password is written either on the box or a little piece of paper. It really
isn't hard at all - and in many cases, easier than running a cable.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Who are more worried about tripping over a wire than snoopers hijacking
their credit card details.

You worked out how to hack HTTPS then?

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Who are more worried about tripping over a wire than snoopers hijacking
their credit card details.

You worked out how to hack HTTPS then?

I can, if I want to.
Its just as easy on a wired network as it requires a hack on the target
router and it makes no difference if its wireless or not.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Its not easy at all to hack a wired network

Oh come off it, its dead easy as nobody puts any security on it as they
think its safe.
I bet you think linux is safe and don't bother with any extra security
either.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

But you cant simply hook a sniffer on a ISP backbone. Its switches
everywhere. You have to get to a main feed carrying ALL traffic (and
that's usually optical) and insert a boxes in all traffic lines. It can be
done..but its heavyweight kit.

Look up port mirroring..
how do you think we test the stuff and analyse traffic?

"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" :
Don't forget that all the important stuff is encrypted before it leaves
the browser.

Don't forget that for some of us, a lot of important stuff doesn't go
anywhere near a browser.

Its done like that because of the ease of hacking the wired networks.

It's only easy for networks outside the premises. We're talking about a
network inside the premises.

So if I want to hack in I just wait for an open door, walk in and plug in a
wireless bridge somewhere and you are none the wiser and I can so what I
like.
Its just a matter of being worth the effort or do i just trick you into
loading a keylogger program or put a keylogger hardware bit in while I am
hacking the LAN.
Its all easy to get stuff so be careful.
Then there are the others you can do by hacking the targets router before
you get onto what you can do to an ISPs links out there in the green
cabinets.

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

Who are more worried about tripping over a wire than snoopers hijacking
their credit card details.

You worked out how to hack HTTPS then?


Can be done allegedly.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/SSL-S...n-101075.shtml

dennis@home wrote:


"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Who are more worried about tripping over a wire than snoopers
hijacking their credit card details.

You worked out how to hack HTTPS then?

I can, if I want to.
Its just as easy on a wired network as it requires a hack on the target
router and it makes no difference if its wireless or not.
and how do you propose to do that?

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:59:41 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"MM" wrote in message
.. .


Cat5e is a darned sight cheaper.

Not if you have to pay for installation it isn't.

DIY

nor is it cheaper if you have to redecorate after putting it in.

A 10mm hole in the ceiling?

Wireless routers cost the same or less than wired ones and are usually free.

So I can pop into PC World and demand a free wireless router, yes?

laptops come with wireless these days so it is free.

I don't have a laptop.

desktops cost about £8 to make wireless.

That's eight cheeseburgers!

wireless isn't a trip hazard.

Neither is properly routed cable.

wireless doesn't export potentials outside the building if you have your
server in the shed.

I don't. I don't even have a shed.

most people don't do anything where the speed difference between wired and
wireless matters.

Whenever I use a friend's or relative's wireless network, it always
stalls for a half-second, then recovers. A few minutes later it stalls
again. Seems to be a feature, and one I can do without, as I do, in
fact, with my wired network.

Don't imagine that if you have something worth stealing that the "extra"
security of wired will stop someone stealing it.

But it's obviously easier to gain access to a wireless network unless
suitable measures are taken.

MM

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:41:41 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Who are more worried about tripping over a wire than snoopers hijacking
their credit card details.

You worked out how to hack HTTPS then?

Fact is, hackers are very resourceful if they see a loophole. They
will see less of a loophole in the case of a wired network, like a
burglar will aim for houses where a window has been left open.

MM

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:36:21 +0000, Mike Barnes
wrote:

MM :
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:26:20 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:
Wireless isn't
difficult. Remember, you're the one not using it - I'm using it entirely
happily.

Of COURSE it's more difficult than wired! You have to consider all the
security implications for a start. With wired, you connect the cable
and... well, that's it! Done!

I find it hard to believe that this needs pointing out, but apparently
it does, so here goes... You're neglecting the obvious, which is that
*routing* that wire in a household-friendly way is often far from easy.

'Course it's easy! How is your house supplied with electricity and
water? Cables and pipes.

MM

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


"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Who are more worried about tripping over a wire than snoopers hijacking
their credit card details.

You worked out how to hack HTTPS then?

I can, if I want to.
Its just as easy on a wired network as it requires a hack on the target
router and it makes no difference if its wireless or not.
and how do you propose to do that?

'course, we do know how most hacking is done don't we? It's not through
technology...

(though normally more subtle than http://xkcd.com/538/ )

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:39:15 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"MM" wrote in message
.. .

Um, I'm not the one trying to make things difficult. Wireless isn't
difficult. Remember, you're the one not using it - I'm using it entirely
happily.

Of COURSE it's more difficult than wired! You have to consider all the
security implications for a start. With wired, you connect the cable
and... well, that's it! Done!

How much work do you think there is to "consider" the security implications?
IME the routers supplied by ISPs come with WPA turned on. One of them you
have to press a button to allow the computer to connect as well. The
password is written either on the box or a little piece of paper. It really
isn't hard at all - and in many cases, easier than running a cable.

It's extra work that isn't necessary with wired.

MM

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:46:29 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"MM" wrote in message
.. .


My Ubuntu rack runs fine with wired, talks to Windows on the other
box. What's the problem? Why make things difficult when they can be
easy?

Its all fine when it works.

Mine works.

Its finding solutions when it doesn't that's hard.

Never had that problem.

Why make it harder by having to, potentially, find more solutions?

Never had that problem.

Same machine, same os, same applications makes things easier.

PS, I'm biased as ubuntu is absolutely cr@p on a HP tx2.

In what way? Perhaps you need to find solutions?

Win7 is far better on it.

Win7? Is that Windows NT with more bells and whistles? What happened
about that black screen of death problem (like BSOD, but now black,
apparently)?

MM

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:39:04 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"MM" wrote in message
news
In many cases it's not more hassle

"many" is not "all", is it? Therefore, it is more hassle than wired. I
can't understand why you will not acknowledge this.

Whereas I'm wondering why you're struggling quite so much with the idea that
supplying a wireless router by default makes sense for the majority of
people, and thus makes commercial sense for ISPs.

Well, I present far less of a target with my wired network and that's
the way it's gonna stay.

You're missing the point that you're a special snowflake. Yes, your needs
are a bit different from the mainstream. Acknowledge that, accept that as a
result you may not be using the default package mainstream providers give
you, move on.

I chose Zen. They provided me with what I wanted. It worked straight
off the bat. Since 2007.

MM

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:59:23 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
. ..

Agreed. I wish ISPs would not supply wireless routers too. A lot of
people think they have to use wireless!

No, supplying wireless routers is definitely something ISPs should be
doing.
Laptops are becoming much more popular, and wireless is ideal for those,
and
if one buys a suitable card rather than the OP's ****, it gives you an
easier desktop install too if you can't be bothered laying cat5 about the
place. Also, wireless generally works rather better than the doomsayers
here
are saying - most of the houses I visit have it and it works. Given most
people's traffic is likely to be internet-bound rather than within the
house, speed is much less of an issue too.

I disagree. If you need wireless then an separate access point is
better than having everything combined. The ideal location for the
access point is not always the same place as the best place for the
router.

True, but better doesn't necessarily mean worthwile. A separate access point
will be another device to configure and also cost more. We're back to the
commercial reality thing.

IME wireless does not work well for most people. I hear frequent
cases of interrmittant operation, slow speeds and areas where no
wireless access is possible.

IME it works well for most people, but there is a loud minority of people
who have problems with it. What I'm reading on this NG is entirely the
opposite of what I see in real life.

Laying cable is not that difficult (this /is/ a DIY ng) and for those
that can't there's always homeplug.

There's always wireless, which is easy and works for the majority of people.
The markets we're talking about aren't the readers of this NG.

On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:56:12 -0000, "Roger Mills"
wrote:

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Adrian Brentnall wrote:

HI Folks
The new 'net connection came complete with a wireless router -
so was playing with the idea of getting rid of the wired network
connections between the three (dell desktop) office pc's (winxp) and
the router and loacting the router at the master socket.

Bought a couple of 'Newlink' Wireless 11g 54Mbps PCI cards (CPC) &
installed them. Wouldn't install under Windows' 'found new hardware'
routine - had to use the manufacturer's own utility to install.

Anyway - they seem to be working - but one of the PCs is losing its
wireless connection intermittently, and both were in a 'very
unresponsive, mouse cursor not responding' sort of place, this
morning. -needed rebooting to get any life...

Looking at the diagnostics on the wireless cards - both are showing
100% signal strength (can't be more than 10ft from the pc to the
router!) - and (only?) 60 - 80% link quality.
The detailed stats show (amongst other things) rx retry of 20% -
and a whole bundle of RX CRC errors..

There's no troubleshooting info with the PCI cards - and no means of
contacting a tech support organisation - the instruction leaflet says
'contact your vendor' ..... (CPC! - yeah, right)

So - 'Dear Marge - is this normal ?'
If so - I think I'll just dump the wireless idea and go back to good
old cables!

Thanks for any advice / experience
Adrian

Unless you're frequently moving your PCs (laptops?) around, I'd go for a
wired solution every time. It's far more reliable and far more secure.

Someone tell Clive and Dennis, PLEASE! I have tried.

MM

"MM" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:39:04 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"MM" wrote in message
news
In many cases it's not more hassle

"many" is not "all", is it? Therefore, it is more hassle than wired. I
can't understand why you will not acknowledge this.

Whereas I'm wondering why you're struggling quite so much with the idea
that
supplying a wireless router by default makes sense for the majority of
people, and thus makes commercial sense for ISPs.

Well, I present far less of a target with my wired network and that's
the way it's gonna stay.

You're missing the point that you're a special snowflake. Yes, your needs
are a bit different from the mainstream. Acknowledge that, accept that as
a
result you may not be using the default package mainstream providers give
you, move on.

I chose Zen. They provided me with what I wanted. It worked straight
off the bat. Since 2007.

So why the **** are you whining that ISPs don't supply what you want?

Clive George
wibbled on Thursday 07 January 2010 12:41

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Who are more worried about tripping over a wire than snoopers hijacking
their credit card details.

You worked out how to hack HTTPS then?

It's easier if you can mount a man in the middle attack - how many people
worry of the certificate doesn't look good?

--
Tim Watts

You know you need more insulation when the snow blanket on the roof makes
the house 3 degrees warmer...

Mark wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:59:23 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
...

Agreed. I wish ISPs would not supply wireless routers too. A lot of
people think they have to use wireless!
No, supplying wireless routers is definitely something ISPs should be doing.
Laptops are becoming much more popular, and wireless is ideal for those, and
if one buys a suitable card rather than the OP's ****, it gives you an
easier desktop install too if you can't be bothered laying cat5 about the
place. Also, wireless generally works rather better than the doomsayers here
are saying - most of the houses I visit have it and it works. Given most
people's traffic is likely to be internet-bound rather than within the
house, speed is much less of an issue too.

I disagree. If you need wireless then an separate access point is
better than having everything combined. The ideal location for the
access point is not always the same place as the best place for the
router.

IME wireless does not work well for most people. I hear frequent
cases of interrmittant operation, slow speeds and areas where no
wireless access is possible.

Laying cable is not that difficult (this /is/ a DIY ng) and for those
that can't there's always homeplug.

(all that said, I'll use wired where appropriate - fixed kit, where I've got
the wire in place).


homeplug being more or less wireless through pre-laid mains cabling..

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Its not easy at all to hack a wired network

Oh come off it, its dead easy as nobody puts any security on it as they
think its safe.
I bet you think linux is safe and don't bother with any extra security
either.

Dennis. Nothing is safe of and by itself.

It's the way things are put together.

But, unlike you, I have actually RUN an ISP. Not a big one, and not
recently, but yes, I DO know what security is all about and how hard it
is to tap a switched wired network without specialised hardware.

And even then, the sort of loads it will impose are likely to be
noticed. |t an ISP anyway. Not at home of course.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

But you cant simply hook a sniffer on a ISP backbone. Its switches
everywhere. You have to get to a main feed carrying ALL traffic (and
that's usually optical) and insert a boxes in all traffic lines. It
can be done..but its heavyweight kit.

Look up port mirroring..
how do you think we test the stuff and analyse traffic?



*You* don't, dennis.

You are simply a plonker who reads stuff and regurgitates it without it
ever having passed through any thinking.

You are George Brown AICM$5

dennis@home wrote:


"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" :
Don't forget that all the important stuff is encrypted before it leaves
the browser.

Don't forget that for some of us, a lot of important stuff doesn't go
anywhere near a browser.

Its done like that because of the ease of hacking the wired networks.

It's only easy for networks outside the premises. We're talking about a
network inside the premises.

So if I want to hack in I just wait for an open door, walk in and plug
in a wireless bridge somewhere and you are none the wiser and I can so
what I like.
Its just a matter of being worth the effort or do i just trick you into
loading a keylogger program or put a keylogger hardware bit in while I
am hacking the LAN.
Its all easy to get stuff so be careful.
Then there are the others you can do by hacking the targets router
before you get onto what you can do to an ISPs links out there in the
green cabinets.

Dennis thinks he's in 'spooks'

The man who can tap an optical fibre in microseconds, and has the ten to
a hundred grands worth of hardware to filter it.

In his white van, parked suspiciously by the optical cable sneaking out
of the cabinet.

MM :
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:36:21 +0000, Mike Barnes
wrote:

MM :
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:26:20 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:
Wireless isn't
difficult. Remember, you're the one not using it - I'm using it entirely
happily.

Of COURSE it's more difficult than wired! You have to consider all the
security implications for a start. With wired, you connect the cable
and... well, that's it! Done!

I find it hard to believe that this needs pointing out, but apparently
it does, so here goes... You're neglecting the obvious, which is that
*routing* that wire in a household-friendly way is often far from easy.

'Course it's easy! How is your house supplied with electricity and
water? Cables and pipes.

Those cables and pipes were either installed when the house was built,
or installed later with a great deal of mess and inconvenience. I don't
see how that supports your idea that retrofitting network wiring is a
trivial matter.

I find it hard to believe that this needs pointing out, but apparently
it does, so here goes... The point of trolling is to make *other* people
look stupid.

--
Mike Barnes

"MM" wrote in message
...

Unless you're frequently moving your PCs (laptops?) around, I'd go for a
wired solution every time. It's far more reliable and far more secure.

Someone tell Clive and Dennis, PLEASE! I have tried.

You've utterly failed, because right now I'm using a laptop in a place where
running a cable from the router would be tedious, and it is secure enough.
I've not had any problems with reliability at all, contrary to the naysayers
on this group.

You've missed the points I've made which is that it works well enough, is
easy enough to set up, makes commercial sense to offer, and offers
advantages in quite a few situations - and I'm in one of them now.

In some ways it was a bit nerdy at christmas watching all the younger
members of the family with their laptops out - 6 of us in one room. But it
worked, and would be really tedious to set up with wires. That was with a
default ISP supplied router (not my house).

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:53:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dennis thinks he's in 'spooks'

The man who can tap an optical fibre in microseconds, and has the ten to
a hundred grands worth of hardware to filter it.

Oh, how I laughed :-)

In Den-den's world, passwords appear in plain-text on the screen, and you
can you enhance security camera images indefinitely...

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:55:12 +0000, Mike Barnes
wrote:

MM :
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:36:21 +0000, Mike Barnes
wrote:

MM :
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:26:20 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:
Wireless isn't
difficult. Remember, you're the one not using it - I'm using it entirely
happily.

Of COURSE it's more difficult than wired! You have to consider all the
security implications for a start. With wired, you connect the cable
and... well, that's it! Done!

I find it hard to believe that this needs pointing out, but apparently
it does, so here goes... You're neglecting the obvious, which is that
*routing* that wire in a household-friendly way is often far from easy.

'Course it's easy! How is your house supplied with electricity and
water? Cables and pipes.

Those cables and pipes were either installed when the house was built,
or installed later with a great deal of mess and inconvenience. I don't
see how that supports your idea that retrofitting network wiring is a
trivial matter.

I find it hard to believe that this needs pointing out, but apparently
it does, so here goes... The point of trolling is to make *other* people
look stupid.

Elsewhere in the thread I have referred to a 10mm hole in the ceiling.
If you think it's hard to route Cat5e cable, don't buy a hammer!

MM

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:36:45 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"MM" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:39:04 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"MM" wrote in message
news
In many cases it's not more hassle

"many" is not "all", is it? Therefore, it is more hassle than wired. I
can't understand why you will not acknowledge this.

Whereas I'm wondering why you're struggling quite so much with the idea
that
supplying a wireless router by default makes sense for the majority of
people, and thus makes commercial sense for ISPs.

Well, I present far less of a target with my wired network and that's
the way it's gonna stay.

You're missing the point that you're a special snowflake. Yes, your needs
are a bit different from the mainstream. Acknowledge that, accept that as
a
result you may not be using the default package mainstream providers give
you, move on.

I chose Zen. They provided me with what I wanted. It worked straight
off the bat. Since 2007.

So why the **** are you whining that ISPs don't supply what you want?

Eh? When? Where?

MM

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:36:45 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"MM" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:39:04 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"MM" wrote in message
news
In many cases it's not more hassle

"many" is not "all", is it? Therefore, it is more hassle than wired. I
can't understand why you will not acknowledge this.

Whereas I'm wondering why you're struggling quite so much with the idea
that
supplying a wireless router by default makes sense for the majority of
people, and thus makes commercial sense for ISPs.

Well, I present far less of a target with my wired network and that's
the way it's gonna stay.

You're missing the point that you're a special snowflake. Yes, your
needs
are a bit different from the mainstream. Acknowledge that, accept that
as
a
result you may not be using the default package mainstream providers
give
you, move on.

I chose Zen. They provided me with what I wanted. It worked straight
off the bat. Since 2007.

So why the **** are you whining that ISPs don't supply what you want?

Eh? When? Where?

Apologies, that was Mark. "I wish ISPs would not supply wireless routers
too."

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


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Its not easy at all to hack a wired network

Oh come off it, its dead easy as nobody puts any security on it as they
think its safe.
I bet you think linux is safe and don't bother with any extra security
either.

Dennis. Nothing is safe of and by itself.

It's the way things are put together.

But, unlike you, I have actually RUN an ISP. Not a big one, and not
recently, but yes, I DO know what security is all about and how hard it is
to tap a switched wired network without specialised hardware.

ah well, I ran (after building it) a model of some of the BT 21cn network
complete with ISP and data center.
(Nothing big, a few 80G atm switches, some server irons, a few inverse
caches, a couple of DSLAMs, some 160G wdm kit, loads of cisco kit, etc. oh
about £1M of TV broadcast kit supplied by BBC technology).
and you obviously have no idea about the hardware or you would have looked
at port mirroring and realised that the hardware is already there to tap
into a link and with little overhead.
Now run along and stop pretending you know about networks and security.

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Who are more worried about tripping over a wire than snoopers
hijacking their credit card details.

You worked out how to hack HTTPS then?

I can, if I want to.
Its just as easy on a wired network as it requires a hack on the target
router and it makes no difference if its wireless or not.
and how do you propose to do that?

'course, we do know how most hacking is done don't we? It's not through
technology...

Its easy when you have idiots that think they are safe.
Its the paranoid ones that are hard to hack.

"MM" wrote in message
...

PS, I'm biased as ubuntu is absolutely cr@p on a HP tx2.

In what way? Perhaps you need to find solutions?

Maybe ubuntu needs to support dual mode touch screens and pen tablets?


Win7 is far better on it.

Win7? Is that Windows NT with more bells and whistles? What happened
about that black screen of death problem (like BSOD, but now black,
apparently)?


never had that problem, that's me and a few tens of million others.

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:07:06 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
ah well, I ran (after building it) a model of some of the BT 21cn network
complete with ISP and data center.

Was your model made out of cardboard and bits of string?

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:03:56 -0600, Jules
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:07:06 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
ah well, I ran (after building it) a model of some of the BT 21cn network
complete with ISP and data center.

Was your model made out of cardboard and bits of string?

Surely there was also some sticky backed plastic?


--