Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.ipad > #58567 > unrolled thread

Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.ipad

Contents

  Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-12 01:34 +0000
    Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-11 21:45 -0400
      Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac AL <noemail@invalid.com> - 2016-09-11 20:17 -0700
        Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-12 20:11 +0000
      Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-12 20:11 +0000
        Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-12 16:26 -0400
          Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-12 21:14 +0000
            Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-12 17:44 -0400
              Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 00:22 +0000
                Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-12 20:34 -0400
                  Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 03:32 +0000
                    Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-12 23:38 -0400
                      Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 04:05 +0000
                        Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-13 00:14 -0400
                          Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 04:50 +0000
                            Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-13 01:07 -0400
                              Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 05:13 +0000
                                Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-13 01:18 -0400
                                  Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 05:26 +0000
                                Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-13 05:19 +0000
                          Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 04:51 +0000
                    Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-13 04:39 +0000
                      Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 05:13 +0000
                        Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-13 05:26 +0000
                          Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-16 18:12 +0000
                            Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 05:28 +1000
                              Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-16 20:36 +0000
                                Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-17 03:13 +0000
                                  Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 17:02 +1000
                                  Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-17 07:13 +0000
                                    Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-17 10:08 -0400
                              Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-17 03:10 +0000
                                Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 15:17 +1000
                            Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-16 20:34 +0000
                              Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 10:38 +1000
                                Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-17 03:13 +0000
                                  Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 17:10 +1000
                                  Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-17 07:26 +0000
                                Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-17 07:25 +0000
                                  Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 20:02 +1000
                                    Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-17 17:31 +0000
                                      Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 06:05 +1000
                                        Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-17 20:42 +0000
                                          Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 07:46 +1000
                              Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-17 03:09 +0000
                                Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 15:10 +1000
                                Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-17 07:46 +0000
                                  Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 20:04 +1000
                          Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-16 18:12 +0000
                      Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 15:29 +1000
            Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 10:10 +1000
              Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 03:32 +0000
                Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-12 23:38 -0400
        Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 07:07 +1000
        Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-12 21:35 +0000
          Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac ElfinArc <elfinarc6@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 16:44 -0500
          Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 00:21 +0000
            Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-13 00:48 +0000
              Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-12 20:50 -0400
                Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-13 02:07 +0000
                  Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 04:05 +0000
                    Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 15:20 +1000
                      Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 05:26 +0000
                Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 04:50 +0000
                  Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-13 05:11 +0000
                    Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 05:26 +0000
              Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 03:32 +0000
                Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-13 04:33 +0000
                  Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 05:13 +0000
                    Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-13 01:18 -0400
                      Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 05:26 +0000
                    Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-13 05:24 +0000
                      Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 05:29 +0000
    Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-12 02:25 +0000
      Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-12 20:38 +0000
        Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-12 16:41 -0400
          Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 00:22 +0000
            Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-12 20:34 -0400
        Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-12 21:02 +0000
    Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-09-12 09:47 +0100
      Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-12 05:25 -0400
        Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-12 21:14 +0000
    Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Wade Garrett <wade@cooler.net> - 2016-09-12 09:00 -0400
      Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 00:22 +0000
        Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 03:31 +0000
        Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 04:49 +0000
          Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-13 05:08 +0000
            Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 05:26 +0000
              Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-13 05:30 +0000
                Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 05:42 +0000
                  Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-13 01:49 -0400
                    Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 06:10 +0000
                      Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-13 02:19 -0400
                        Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-14 04:41 +0000
                  Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-13 05:51 +0000
                    Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 06:10 +0000
                      Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-13 06:14 +0000
                  Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-14 04:40 +0000
              Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-13 01:49 -0400
                Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> - 2016-09-13 06:10 +0000

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#58745

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stupid Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, like router configuration options, the native iTunes
>> app provides *much* more functionality and is *far* more
>> integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.
> 
> idevices don’t actually have a web site, fuckwit.

Insults are the last refuge of an intellectual coward. The iTunes web site
is available to any device, and the native iTunes app provides more
functionality than the web site viewed through a web browser because native
apps have access to native APIs that aren't available to web apps viewed
through a web browser. Naturally the same concept applies to router
configuration.

>>> And I prefer to be able to use my phone to configure the router anyway.
> 
>> That's neither here nor there
>> since like web browser-based router configuration pages, Apple's
>> native apps are available for iOS, macOS, and Windows.
> 
> But can't actually be used to configure a router from scratch without any
> physical access to the router

Red herring (but you need access to any router you want to configure,
regardless of whether you configure it with a web browser or a native app).

> you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist. 

Insults mean you have nothing of value to add.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58747

Stupid Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Stupid Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote

>>> Yes, like router configuration options, the native iTunes
>>> app provides *much* more functionality and is *far* more
>>> integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.

>> idevices don’t actually have a web site, fuckwit.

> Insults are the last refuge of an intellectual coward.

Yes, that describes you to a T.

> The iTunes web site is available to any device,

IDEVICES don’t provide a web site, fool.

> and the native iTunes app provides more functionality than
> the web site viewed through a web browser because native
> apps have access to native APIs that aren't available to web
> apps viewed through a web browser. Naturally the same
> concept applies to router configuration.

But not to idevice configuration, fool.

>>>> And I prefer to be able to use my phone to configure the router anyway.

>>> That's neither here nor there since like web browser-based
>>> router configuration pages, Apple's native apps are
>>> available for iOS, macOS, and Windows.

>> But can't actually be used to configure a router from
>> scratch without any physical access to the router

> Red herring

More of your lies.

> (but you need access to any router you want to configure, regardless
> of whether you configure it with a web browser or a native app).

Wrong when the router is net accessible.

>> you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> Insults

That isnt an insult, it’s a statement of fact.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58750

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stupid Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Stupid Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
> 
>>>> Yes, like router configuration options, the native iTunes
>>>> app provides *much* more functionality and is *far* more
>>>> integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.
> 
>>> idevices don’t actually have a web site, fuckwit.
> 
>> The iTunes web site is available to any device,
> 
> IDEVICES don’t provide a web site, fool.

Not what I said. You're confused. I'm done here. You'll have to have your
little one-boy "last word" party without me. Bye now.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58756

Stupid Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Stupid Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Stupid Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
>>
>>>>> Yes, like router configuration options, the native iTunes
>>>>> app provides *much* more functionality and is *far* more
>>>>> integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.
>>
>>>> idevices don’t actually have a web site, fuckwit.
>>
>>> The iTunes web site is available to any device,
>>
>> IDEVICES don’t provide a web site, fool.

> Not what I said.

Yep, that's where you fucked up completely.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58726

On 16 Sep 2016 20:34:45 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Apple's routers are more secure then most routers because:
> 
> • Apple routers do not ship with *any* default user name or password. As
> anyone knows, most routers on the market ship with default user names
> and passwords for the administrator account, which means out of the box
> they are configured to allow *anyone* with an internet connection to log
> into the configuration interface to change the router configuration. 

I agree with you that, for morons (which this all-Apple household is),
having no default password & admin name can be useful.

It's useless for someone who is intelligent.
So, for morons - it works fine.
 
> • Since configuration of Apple routers does not use or require a user
> name or password, the standard brute force attacks that work for most
> other routers on the market *cannot* work for Apple routers. As anyone
> knows, routers are constantly hit with such attacks once they are
> connected to the internet.

I can look at my router logs and see thousands upon thousands of these
login requests. 

But that doesn't change what we both agree upon, which is that for
*intelligent* people, they'd be changing the username and password anyway.

So, it's only more secure "for morons" (which this all-Apple household is).

> • The Apple router configuration interface is *not* based on the typical
> open source web server setup that most routers on the market use. As
> such, standard attacks that try to exploit vulnerabilities in open
> source web servers used in most routers *cannot* work against Apple
> routers.

You don't understand a thing about proprietary software vulnerabilities.

All your statement means is that you move from open-source vulnerabilities
to security-by-obscurity proprietary-software vulnerabilities.

No change there - you just move the attack direction from the front door to
the back door, literally.

> Apple's routers are easier to configure than most routers because:
> 
> • Rather than configuring Apple routers with clunky web pages served by
> an open source web server on the router, you use a bone fide macOS, iOS,
> or Windows application that is written explicitly for the purpose of
> configuring Apple routers. Anyone who knows anything knows that native
> applications give you a must more simple, robust, and feature-rich user
> experience than the typical clunky web-based configuration pages offered
> by most web browser.

Well, as a user of those wondrous "bona fide MacOS, iOS, or Windows"
applications from Apple (e.g., bonjour, Quicktime, iTunes, etc.), you've
got to be kidding.

Comparing an Apple app to most open-source apps is like comparing Apple
Maps to Google Maps.

I mean, compare the atrocious Apple Video player on the iPad to VLC on the
iPad. 

Geezus. You really do think an Apple app is *better* than an open-source
app such as Firefox. You're entitled to that opinion, as I'll never shake
you from that mountain you live on - but I will say that your vaunted Apple
apps suck when compared, one on one, to open-source similar apps.

> • For instance, rather than using a web browser and typing in the router
> address to view a web page on the router and log in with default user
> name and password, you simply open the native application and it
> automatically discovers the router on the network and connects to it,
> prompting you to set the administration password. 

Again, what you're saying is that, for morons, the Apple router is easier
to configure. Since this all-Apple household contains morons, the Apple
router might have been the way to go.

But it's also *limited* like you can't believe - and it's no better in the
end than what an *intelligent* person could set up.

So, it's:
a. More secure when used by morons
b. Easier to configure when configured by morons
c. Extremely limited - which the morons won't even notice

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58730

Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> wrote
> Jolly Roger wrote

>> Apple's routers are more secure then most routers because:

>> • Apple routers do not ship with *any* default user name or password.
>> As anyone knows, most routers on the market ship with default user names
>> and passwords for the administrator account, which means out of the box
>> they are configured to allow *anyone* with an internet connection to log
>> into the configuration interface to change the router configuration.

> I agree with you that, for morons (which this all-Apple household is),
> having no default password & admin name can be useful.

Not just for morons, for those who don’t bother to keep up with
the technical detail, it forces them to do what is most secure.

> It's useless for someone who is intelligent.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> So, for morons - it works fine.

And for those who don’t bother to keep up with the technical
detail and who just expect things to be designed properly so
that it isnt possible to fuck things up security wise.

>> Since configuration of Apple routers does not use or
>> require a user name or password, the standard brute force
>> attacks that work for most other routers on the market *cannot*
>> work for Apple routers. As anyone knows, routers are constantly
>> hit with such attacks once they are connected to the internet.

> I can look at my router logs and see thousands
> upon thousands of these login requests.

And the average user doesn’t bother to do that.

> But that doesn't change what we both agree
> upon, which is that for *intelligent* people, they'd
> be changing the username and password anyway.

Much better to design the router so no one needs to
even consider something like that, it just happens.

> So, it's only more secure "for morons"

Wrong, as always.

> (which this all-Apple household is).

Even sillier than you usually manage. They clearly have enough
sense to have all apple products until some fool with a hundred
names was actually stupid enough to tell them to buy a non
apple product that isnt as useful for them and required him
to get involved in setting it up, which wouldn’t have been
necessary if they had just go the apple product.

>> The Apple router configuration interface is *not* based on
>> the typical open source web server setup that most routers
>> on the market use. As such, standard attacks that try to
>> exploit vulnerabilities in open source web servers used
>> in most routers *cannot* work against Apple routers.

> You don't understand a thing about proprietary software vulnerabilities.

You don’t have a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

> All your statement means is that you move from
> open-source vulnerabilitiesto security-by-obscurity
> proprietary-software vulnerabilities.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

There is no security by obscurity involved at all.

> No change there - you just move the attack direction
> from the front door to the back door, literally.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.
There is no back door when you need physical access.

>> Apple's routers are easier to configure than most routers because:

>> Rather than configuring Apple routers with clunky web pages
>> served by an open source web server on the router, you use a
>> bone fide macOS, iOS, or Windows application that is written
>> explicitly for the purpose of configuring Apple routers. Anyone
>> who knows anything knows that native applications give you
>> a must more simple, robust, and feature-rich user experience
>> than the typical clunky web-based configuration pages offered
>> by most web browser.

> Well, as a user of those wondrous "bona fide MacOS,
> iOS, or Windows" applications from Apple (e.g., bonjour,
> Quicktime, iTunes, etc.), you've got to be kidding.

> Comparing an Apple app to most open-source
> apps is like comparing Apple Maps to Google Maps.

> I mean, compare the atrocious Apple Video
> player on the iPad to VLC on the iPad.

> Geezus. You really do think an Apple app is *better* than an open-source
> app such as Firefox. You're entitled to that opinion, as I'll never shake
> you from that mountain you live on - but I will say that your vaunted 
> Apple
> apps suck when compared, one on one, to open-source similar apps.

>> For instance, rather than using a web browser and typing in the router
>> address to view a web page on the router and log in with default user
>> name and password, you simply open the native application and it
>> automatically discovers the router on the network and connects to it,
>> prompting you to set the administration password.

> Again, what you're saying is that, for morons,
> the Apple router is easier to configure.

More of your lies/pathetic excuse for a troll.

> Since this all-Apple household contains morons,

Who were actually stupid enough to ask you...
You're right.

> the Apple router might have been the way to go.

No might have been about it, and for plenty of others too.

> But it's also *limited* like you can't believe - and it's no better
> in the end than what an *intelligent* person could set up.

Wrong with the lack of a web access page.

> So, it's:
> a. More secure when used by morons

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> b. Easier to configure when configured by morons

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> c. Extremely limited

More of your bare faced lies. The apple router is more
limited than that steaming turd you recommended they get.

> - which the morons won't even notice

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58739

On 2016-09-17, Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> wrote:
>
> I agree with you that, for morons

Insults are the last refuge of the intellectual coward.

> It's useless for someone who is intelligent.

It has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence or skill level, and
everything to do with security - something you clearly don't understand.

> So, for morons - it works fine.

It works fine for anyone. You're trolling, and it's lame.
  
>> • Since configuration of Apple routers does not use or require a user
>> name or password, the standard brute force attacks that work for most
>> other routers on the market *cannot* work for Apple routers. As
>> anyone knows, routers are constantly hit with such attacks once they
>> are connected to the internet.
>
> I can look at my router logs and see thousands upon thousands of these
> login requests. 
>
> But that doesn't change what we both agree upon, which is that for
> *intelligent* people, they'd be changing the username and password
> anyway.

And the security vulnerability associated with the brute force attack
vector you admit exists on other routers with web-based configuration
does not exist on Apple routers since there is no user name and password
combo that even exists. You don't ever set a user name on Apple routers
since configuration doesn't authenticate against a local user account on
the router. That attack vector therefore does not exist on Apple's
routers. tl;dr: no brute force attacks for Apple routers. It's got
nothing to do with the intelligence of the person using the router -
unless you consider that an intelligent person would recognize that
Apple's offering is more secure by design.

> So, it's only more secure "for morons" (which this all-Apple household
> is).
>
>> • The Apple router configuration interface is *not* based on the
>> typical open source web server setup that most routers on the market
>> use. As such, standard attacks that try to exploit vulnerabilities in
>> open source web servers used in most routers *cannot* work against
>> Apple routers.
>
> You don't understand a thing about proprietary software
> vulnerabilities.

Of course I do - I've been developing software all my life and am paid
handsomely to do it for a living. You don't know what I understand.

> All your statement means is that you move from open-source
> vulnerabilities to security-by-obscurity proprietary-software
> vulnerabilities.

Even if we ignore the fact that there is no user name (default or set by
the user) on Apple's routers to brute force attack, in this particular
case, since more brute force attacks you admit show up in your logs are
designed to exploit those open source web browsers in other web browser,
obscurity is a good thing because it means those attacks cannot work.
It's good you are starting to realize Apple's router is more secure by
design.

>> Apple's routers are easier to configure than most routers because:
>> 
>> • Rather than configuring Apple routers with clunky web pages served
>> by an open source web server on the router, you use a bone fide
>> macOS, iOS, or Windows application that is written explicitly for the
>> purpose of configuring Apple routers. Anyone who knows anything knows
>> that native applications give you a must more simple, robust, and
>> feature-rich user experience than the typical clunky web-based
>> configuration pages offered by most web browser.
>
> Well, as a user of those wondrous "bona fide MacOS, iOS, or Windows"
> applications from Apple (e.g., bonjour, Quicktime, iTunes, etc.),
> you've got to be kidding.

Nope, I'm serious.

> Geezus. You really do think an Apple app is *better* than an
> open-source app such as Firefox.

No, I said native apps were better than a web-based router configuration
page. Firefox happens to be a native app on macOS as well as on Linux.
Try harder to focus. iAnd try not to introduce red herrings like this in
the future, please. But since you mention it, I can easily list some
Apple applications that are *much* more functional that anything
available on Linux. Photoshop vs GIMP comes to mind. Most of the things
Linux excels at (mostly servers and so on) run on macOS as well though.
Not that this has anything to do with native versus web apps.

> Apple apps suck when compared, one on one, to open-source similar apps

Red herring. See above.

>> • For instance, rather than using a web browser and typing in the
>> router address to view a web page on the router and log in with
>> default user name and password, you simply open the native
>> application and it automatically discovers the router on the network
>> and connects to it, prompting you to set the administration password. 
>
> Again, what you're saying is that, for morons

Insults are the last refuge of the intellectual coward.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58741

Fuckwit Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote 
> Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> wrote

>> I agree with you that, for morons

> Insults are the last refuge of the intellectual coward.

Yes, that is a very accurate description of you. 
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58721

On 13 Sep 2016 05:26:41 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Apple routers work with devices of any make. And they are more secure,
> easier to configure, and get updated far longer in the product life
> cycle than most routers. Those are all good reasons.

While I *understand* what *you* mean by:
- More secure
- Easier to configure

You're really just echoing Apple MARKETING mantra.

I'm sure you *believe* this Apple MARKETING mantra, so, to you, actually 
"more secure" and "easier to configure".

I doubt that, for anyone who knows how to configure a router, that it's 
"more secure" in any sense of the word though.

And, while I don't doubt that it's *easier to configure*, I also don't 
doubt that there are limitations becuase of that (there almost always are). 

So, what you're saying, in reality, is:
- It's just as secure as any other router (when propertly configured)
- It's easier to configure but likely has fewer user options 

In the end, I think the recommendation is correct that, for *these* 
particular people, who already have an all-Apple household, my advice to go 
to Best Buys to just buy the fastest $100 name-brand AC router they can 
find was probably not as good as your advice.

To me, the suggested Apple router would be the wrong purchase; but for them 
(an all-Apple household already), it's probably a good idea.

Too bad I hadn't thought of it sooner as they don't want to change what is 
already set up and working nicely for them (I haven't checked in two days 
though so I'm due to check as I told them to fix things in this order...
1. Internet with Comcast
2. Vonage VOIP
3. Microcell with AT&T

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58649

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote 
> Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> wrote

>> He has the new router up and running, and he found an 
>> "android-#####" device on his network, so, he *already* has 
>> an intruder (within hours!) because he himself has no Android 
>> devices (and neither does his wife), so, that's interesting. 

> Then either he configured the router insecurely or he actually does have
> an Android device in his house unbeknownst to him. The fact that he
> calls his laptop an "iMac" makes one wonder about his awareness. 

The only way that could happen is if he has reused the old SSID and 
passcode for the new router. Quite likely that he has done that tho. 

> Anyhow, this is a good example of how Apple's routers 
> are more secure by design. Apple's routers force you to 
> set a strong pass phrase for WiFi access.

> Not only that, but there is no default user name or password 
> on Apple routers (which many users fail to ever change, leaving 
> them open for attack), nor is there the standard web server-based 
> configuration facility to attack. 

>> I told him to use "Fing" to keep track of intruders.
 
> Much better would be to advise him to set up his 
> router securely, or better yet tell him to return that 
> thing and get an Airport Extreme instead.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58602

"Horace Algier" <horatio@horatio.net> wrote in message 
news:nr75rb$lue$2@gioia.aioe.org...
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 16:26:14 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>>> Fundamentally, *that* is the question.
>>> Specifically, *what* numerous wifi scanner app would people use in an
>>> all-apple household.
>>
>> do a search on the app store or use google.
>
> Nevermind.
>
> As you can tell from the OP, I already ran a search.
>
> In another thread, we discuss why simply spitting out search results is 
> not
> only nearly worthless, but often it's less useful than worthless.
>
> As we've said, the cost in freeware is in *TESTING* each one and finding
> the one that actually works well. Since Jolly Roger should know, I have
> already suggested the app *he* suggested for these people to use on their
> Macs.
>
> I have no way of testing them, unless I try it on the library computer but
> I suspect the library won't let me install it.
>
>>> I don't have an Apple computer so mostly I'm asking about the Apple
>>> computer apps.
>>
>> you don't need an apple computer to find such an app.
>
> As you can tell from the OP, I already ran a search.
>
> In another thread, we discuss why simply spitting out search results is 
> not
> only nearly worthless, but often it's less useful than worthless.
>
> For example, I could have spit out this review:
> 7 free Wi-Fi stumbling and surveying tools for Windows and Mac
> http://www.networkworld.com/article/2925081/wi-fi/7-free-wi-fi-stumbling-and-surveying-tools-for-windows-and-mac.html
>
> But that review includes a Mac app that doesn't seem to exist, and, it
> doesn't include the Mac app that Jolly Roger kindly suggested.
>
> In the end, only a user who has *used the apps* would know which ones are
> good or bad, as reviews almost invariably are wrong in that they test the
> wrong things or they are fronts for software sales.
>
>>> If they had any other platform (Windows, Linux, or Android), I'd be all
>>> over it - but I know less about Macs than anyone here.
>>
>> you know less about a *lot* of stuff than anyone here.
>
> I know absolutely nothing about Mac computers, so, that's why I asked.
> The article I referenced above suggests 5 Windows and 2 Mac tools:
> a. Acrylic WiFi (Windows)
> b. AirGrab WiFi Radar (Mac OS X)
> c. Cain & Abel (Windows)\
> d. Homedale (Windows)
> e. LizardSystems Wi-Fi Scanner (Windows)
> f. WirelessNetView (Windows)
> g. Wireless Diagnostics (Mac OS X Lion and later)
>
> But, only one of the Mac tools seems to actually exist.
> And it's not the tool that Jolly Roger kindly suggested, so, it's probably
> not as good as the one that Jolly Roger suggested.
> - NetSpot: WiFi survey & wireless scanner, By Etwok LLC
>
> So it seems the two Mac WiFi scanning freeware tools to test are:
> 1. 
> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/netspot-wifi-survey-wireless/id514951692
> 2. (The airgrab site seems to be for sale)
> 3. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202663
>
>>> So that's why I ask.
>>> Just saying there are "numerous" apps tells me nothing useful.
>>
>> it tells you to search.
>>
>> you do know how to search, do you not?
>
> As you can tell from the OP, I already ran a search.
>
> In another thread, we discuss why simply spitting out search results is 
> not
> only nearly worthless, but often it's less useful than worthless.
>
> If you don't know the answer, you don't have to answer the question.
>
> Luckily, Jolly Roger kindly supplied an answer of value which I provided 
> to
> the all-Apple household to test out when they get home from work.
>
>>> Which of those numerous wifi scanning apps do you suggest for their 
>>> laptop?
>>> Would you suggest the Mac app that I found for their Macbook Pros?
>>
>> i don't suggest any, since the problem is almost certainly the linksys
>> wrt54g.

> It might be, but, *wired* the signal *should* be the same (essentially) at
> the modem as it is at the router. That it's apparently *half* at the 
> router
> is odd, since this is a wired connection where the router spec is 10/100 
> so
> 25Mbps should be within the 100 Mbps spec.

You're confusing the specs of the port with what thruput the router can 
manage.

>>> Or is there something better for the Mac?
>>>
>>>>> An Apple-only friend (who lives in the boonies) called just now from
>>>>> another state with Comcast Internet problems at home.
>>>>
>>>> he's correct in that comcast is a problem.
>>>
>>> I'm not so sure *where* the problem lies yet.
>>
>> i am.
>
> The good news is that they called me and told me they picked up the 
> Netgear
> ac1900 for about $200 at Best Buys, so tonight they will set it up and 
> that
> will tell them whether it was the linksys router or not.
>
>>> Comcast tested the system and while Comcast said they can't tell what 
>>> speed
>>> they're getting, they can see "all green lights" from their side.
>>
>> they were looking at the traffic light outside their office.
>
> Heh heh ... they said it was 'all green' on their side.
> The iMac hooked to the modem *did* show above 25/5 Mbps so, it doesn't 
> seem
> to be Comcast's problem (aka Xfinity).
>
>>> Apparently the throttling to 25/5Mbps happens with a file that they say 
>>> is
>>> on the Docsys modem that seems to be working properly.
>>>
>>> So, *at* the modem, they're getting what they pay for; but with the iMac
>>> wired to the Linksys WRT54G, they're not getting half that (it 
>>> fluctuates
>>> from 12 down and 1 up to a variety of numbers in between, they tell me).
>>
>> then it's the linksys.
>
> We'll find out tonight when they hook up the new router.
>
>>> So, they are buying a Netgear Nighthawk $200 ac1900 router from Best 
>>> Buys
>>> as we speak, but I don't see how the *wired* part of the router can be 
>>> the
>>> problem since the wired speeds are slower at the router (by a lot!) than
>>> they are at the modem.
>>
>> the linksys can't handle broadband speeds.
>> it was a cool router in its day, but not anymore.
>
> I agree with you that the WRT54G was "the" router to get in the olden 
> days.
> I don't know what you mean by "broadband" speeds, in that they get 25/5
> from Comcast and the router spec, wired, is 10/100 which is well within 
> the
> 25 Mbps speed.
>
> Likewise, the wifi on the Linksys WRT54G is apparengly 54Mbps, which is
> also well within their input speeds of 25/5 Mbps.
>
> So, the router *should* handle the speeds (AFAIK).
> What the router can't do is give them an empty frequency for their WiFi.
>
> That's why I'm asking about WiFi scanners.
> They need to be on an unused frequency.

Not necessarily. Plenty of well designed routers share frequencys fine.

> That should be less of a problem if they're on 5GHz than on 2.4 GHz.
> Btw, do all the iMacs and Macbook Pros have 5GHz?
>
>>>>> They're on the $56.95 25Mbps "Performance Internet" plan which 
>>>>> advertises
>>>>> 25 Mbps down & 5 Mbps up. They own their own Motorola Docsys 3.0 modem 
>>>>> from
>>>>> Costco.
>>>>
>>>> spendy for those speeds.
>>>
>>> I don't disagree.
>>> They're in a state that has fewer voters than my county probably.
>>
>> the number of voters isn't the issue.
>
> Well, what I meant is that Comcast is a monopoly that is regulated by the
> voters, who have a say in what price they charge.
>
>>> Sure, the WRT54G is ancient - but I just looked up the specs and it's
>>> 10/100 at the four ports. I forget what 10/100 means (why not just 100?)
>>> but I think it means that it can do 10Mbps wired or it can do 100Mbps
>>> wired, and since the input from the modem is 29 Mbps, that's less than a
>>> 100.
>>
>> the ports aren't the issue, it's how much throughput it can manage over
>> wifi or wan-lan if it's used as a router.
>>
>> the wrt54g hails from an era when 1.5mbit was 'fast'. today, 25-50 is
>> common and gigabit is 'fast'.
>
> I don't disagree with most of your words, but maybe I don't understand 
> what
> it means that the WRT54G is 54Mbps wireless and 10/100 wired?
>
> To me, 54Mbps wireless is double what their modem is giving them, so,
> unless something else is interfering with their wifi signal, 54Mbps should
> be well within the capabilities of the router.

Again, you are confusing the basic wifi spec with what the router
can deliver thruput wise. Plenty can't manage anything like the
basic wifi spec, particularly with the lower priced routers.

> Likewise, 10/100 means it can handle 100 Mbps (AFAIK
> - I'm not sure why the 10 is there since the 100 overrules it).

Its there because some devices can only do 10 and that router
is happy to talk to those and works out what it is automatically.

> If that's correct, then wired, the router can handle
> 100Mbps and they're only getting 25 Mpbs at best.

Again, you are confusing the basic wifi spec with what the router
can deliver thruput wise. Plenty can't manage anything like the
basic wifi spec, particularly with the lower priced routers.

> So, looking at specs,

That’s where you are going wrong with thruput.

> I don't see that the Linksys can't handle the throughput.

> However, I do see that the Linksys WRT54G is using "g" and not "n" or "ac"
> so *that* will limit their speeds, and, in addition, it's stuck on 11
> channels, so, if there is interference on their channel, that will also
> slow them down.

Not necessarily. If the other users of a particular channel
are well away physically it will have no effect at all.

> But their *wired* speeds are half at the router than
> at the modem, so, something funny is going on

Not necessarily, it can be just a low performing router.

> - so they need tools to debug that work on iOS or on Mac.

Nope.

> That's all I'm asking for. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58616

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 10:10:34 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

>> 25Mbps should be within the 100 Mbps spec.
> 
> You're confusing the specs of the port with what thruput the router can 
> manage.

You're definitely correct that I'm confused.
And you're almost certainly correct that I'm confusing what you call the
"specs of the port" with the throughput of the router.

I guess it doesn't matter though, since the WRT54G is history.
He's already replaced the linksys with the Netgear ac 1900 router.

On a vonage phone call, things seemed better - but - I'm on Ooma over a
WISP connection, so he really needs to test with a landline friend.

I told him to first get the Internet working.
Then we will worry about the Vonage QOS.
And lastly we'd worry about the AT&T Microcell (which they call an mcell).

>> They need to be on an unused frequency.
> 
> Not necessarily. Plenty of well designed routers share frequencys fine.

I had him look with the router what devices are on his new network and he
found two devices on the 2.5GHz network, one of which he recognized but the
other he didn't recognize. 

He's gonna use Fing on the mobile device to figure out what that other
device is, over time.

>> To me, 54Mbps wireless is double what their modem is giving them, so,
>> unless something else is interfering with their wifi signal, 54Mbps should
>> be well within the capabilities of the router.
> 
> Again, you are confusing the basic wifi spec with what the router
> can deliver thruput wise. Plenty can't manage anything like the
> basic wifi spec, particularly with the lower priced routers.

Well, I agree with you that I don't know what I'm talking about when it
comes to router specs. 

I thought the 54Mbps meant that's what it can handle but if that's too
simplistic, then the simpler answer is that he no longer has the Linksys
WRT54G in service. He now has the Netgear ac 1900 so *that* should be fast
enough for Comcast 25/5 Mbps service. :)

>> Likewise, 10/100 means it can handle 100 Mbps (AFAIK
>> - I'm not sure why the 10 is there since the 100 overrules it).
> 
> Its there because some devices can only do 10 and that router
> is happy to talk to those and works out what it is automatically.

I guess that makes sense that 10/100 means that devices stuck on the 10
"protocol" work fine while others on the 100 "Protocol" work fine too.

I was only pointing out that 100 is far greater than 25Mbps but again, I
never once said I understood those specs.

Suffice to say that the new router is in place, where I doubt a new ac 1900
router is slowing him down when his Internet feed from Comcast is only
25/5.
 
Thanks for the advice.

At this point, he has the necessary tools on the iOS device to debug:
a. AirPort Utility (to check for interference)
b. Fing (to check for intruders)

And if he needs it, he can install the necessary tools on the Macs:
a. NetSpot (to check for interference)
b. Wireless Diagnostics (to check for interference)

Here are the related URLs:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/airport-utility/id427276530
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/netspot-wifi-survey-wireless/id514951692
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202663

And to check for intruders on either platform:
- Fing 
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fing-network-scanner/id430921107

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58619

In article <nr7rvf$1jcr$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
<horatio@horatio.net> wrote:

> You're definitely correct that I'm confused.

yep.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58595

"Horace Algier" <horatio@horatio.net> wrote in message 
news:nr726c$fgi$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 21:45:16 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> with one of numerous wifi scanner apps.
>
> Fundamentally, *that* is the question.
> Specifically, *what* numerous wifi scanner app would people use in an
> all-apple household.
>
> I don't have an Apple computer so mostly I'm asking about the Apple
> computer apps.
>
> If they had any other platform (Windows, Linux, or Android), I'd be all
> over it - but I know less about Macs than anyone here.
>
> So that's why I ask.
> Just saying there are "numerous" apps tells me nothing useful.
>
> Which of those numerous wifi scanning apps do you suggest for their 
> laptop?
> Would you suggest the Mac app that I found for their Macbook Pros?
>
> Or is there something better for the Mac?
>
>>> An Apple-only friend (who lives in the boonies) called just now from
>>> another state with Comcast Internet problems at home.
>>
>> he's correct in that comcast is a problem.
>
> I'm not so sure *where* the problem lies yet.
>
> Comcast tested the system and while Comcast said they can't tell what 
> speed
> they're getting, they can see "all green lights" from their side.
>
> Apparently the throttling to 25/5Mbps happens with a file that they say is
> on the Docsys modem that seems to be working properly.
>
> So, *at* the modem, they're getting what they pay for; but with the iMac
> wired to the Linksys WRT54G, they're not getting half that (it fluctuates
> from 12 down and 1 up to a variety of numbers in between, they tell me).
>
> So, they are buying a Netgear Nighthawk $200 ac1900 router from Best Buys
> as we speak, but I don't see how the *wired* part of the router can be the
> problem since the wired speeds are slower at the router (by a lot!) than
> they are at the modem.
>
>>> They're on the $56.95 25Mbps "Performance Internet" plan which 
>>> advertises
>>> 25 Mbps down & 5 Mbps up. They own their own Motorola Docsys 3.0 modem 
>>> from
>>> Costco.
>>
>> spendy for those speeds.
>
> I don't disagree.
> They're in a state that has fewer voters than my county probably.
>
>>> They have iPads, iPhones, Macbook Pros, and an iMac.
>>> (Also they have Vonage.)
>>>
>>> With an iMac wired to the modem, they're getting 29 down and 6 up
>>> (sometimes 1 up) at around 38ms ping times, but at the various wireless
>>> devices they're only getting half that.
>>>
>>> They haven't told me what they get wired to the router (a WRT54G, which
>>> only has channels 1 through 11) but I told them to scan for WiFi signals
>>> (to see if they are clashing with their neighbors).
>>
>> interference is unlikely to be the problem, a wrt54g is too old to
>> handle 25mbit, plus it lacks 802.11ac and 802.11n.
>>
>> replace it with something new and faster.
>
> They're in the store as we speak, buying the AC 1900 router but I don't 
> see
> how the router is the problem, per se, anyway - at least not for the
> *wired* portion of the network.
>
> Sure, the WRT54G is ancient - but I just looked up the specs and it's
> 10/100 at the four ports. I forget what 10/100 means (why not just 100?)
> but I think it means that it can do 10Mbps wired or it can do 100Mbps 
> wired,

Yes.

> and since the input from the modem is 29 Mbps, that's less than a 100.

> Right?

Yes, but it can't necessarily deliver a full 29Mbps over the 4 ports 
simultaneously. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58598

On 2016-09-12, Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> wrote:
>
> So, they are buying a Netgear Nighthawk $200 ac1900 router from Best Buys
> as we speak

Bad move IMO, considering they could have gotten an Apple Airport
Extreme which is *far* easier to configure, much more secure due to its
design, updated for much longer during the life of the product, for the
same price.

> but I don't see how the *wired* part of the router can be the
> problem since the wired speeds are slower at the router (by a lot!) than
> they are at the modem.

The simple explanation is the old, crusty router isn't able to keep up. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58600

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2016-09-12, Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> wrote:
>> 
>> So, they are buying a Netgear Nighthawk $200 ac1900 router from Best Buys
>> as we speak
> 
> Bad move IMO, considering they could have gotten an Apple Airport
> Extreme which is *far* easier to configure, much more secure due to its
> design, updated for much longer during the life of the product, for the
> same price.
> 
I firmly agree.  In an Apple environment it is really the best choice. 
Rock solid and simple to configure.  Mine has been sitting there for years
just working away.  I might have reset it a couple times over the years,
probably when it got an update.

>> but I don't see how the *wired* part of the router can be the
>> problem since the wired speeds are slower at the router (by a lot!) than
>> they are at the modem.
> 
> The simple explanation is the old, crusty router isn't able to keep up. 
> 
Good guess!


-- 
Elfin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58603

On 12 Sep 2016 21:35:59 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Bad move IMO, considering they could have gotten an Apple Airport
> Extreme which is *far* easier to configure, much more secure due to its
> design, updated for much longer during the life of the product, for the
> same price.

I will tell them when I call when they get back home from work.

Looking up the AirMac Extreme, it's even *less* money than what they just
paid for their ac 19000 router, but the Apple AirMac Extreme web page is
frustratingly high on marketing BS and extremely low on real details.\

I *expect* the main page to be filled with Marketing bs...
http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/

But, when you click for "more information", you're actually supposed to get
"more information", not more of the same lack of information.

I mean, um, "With 802.11ac technology and a powerful beamforming antenna
array, AirPort Extreme gives you up to 3x faster Wi-Fi and a stronger,
clearer signal". 

Yeah. Right. They have entire pages of nothingness there.
Total BS for a technical "description" if you ask me.
http://www.apple.com/shop/product/ME918LL/A/airport-extreme

Sure, it's marketing, but it's worthless to make a real comparison
decision.

The entire web site related to the airport extreme is filled with this
marketing "nothingness", for page, after page, after page:
http://www.apple.com/compare-wifi-models/

Digging deeper for a fact, any fact, any real fact that can be used to
*compare* the price:performance with the newly bought router, I'll have to
look on a non-Apple-Marketing-written site just to get *any* real
information about the thing...
https://www.tekrevue.com/802-11ac-routers-compared-apple-belkin-netgear-linksys/
http://www.cnet.com/products/apple-airport-extreme-base-station-802-11ac/
http://www.toptenreviews.com/computers/networking/best-premium-wireless-routers/airport-extreme-review/
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/review/wifi-routers/apple-airport-extreme-80211ac-6th-generation-review-3536034/
etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58610

Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2016 21:35:59 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> 
>> Bad move IMO, considering they could have gotten an Apple Airport
>> Extreme which is *far* easier to configure, much more secure due to its
>> design, updated for much longer during the life of the product, for the
>> same price.
> 
> I will tell them when I call when they get back home from work.

Sure you will...

> Looking up the AirMac Extreme, it's even *less* money than what they just
> paid for their ac 19000 router, but the Apple AirMac Extreme web page is
> frustratingly high on marketing BS and extremely low on real details.\

I'll save you some time. Nobody here  is interested in yet another of your
misguided and trollish spec comparisons since those of us who aren't here
purely to troll realize spec comparisons aren't the only or best method of
determining actual value.

> I *expect* the main page to be filled with Marketing bs...
> http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/
> 
> But, when you click for "more information", you're actually supposed to get
> "more information", not more of the same lack of information.

For someone who constantly claims he is smarter than everyone else in the
Apple news groups, you sure seem to have a hard time with basic things like
clicking the Tech Specs link on that very page:

<http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/specs/>

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58611

In article <e3p0noF2b3mU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:


> 
> > Looking up the AirMac Extreme, it's even *less* money than what they just
> > paid for their ac 19000 router, but the Apple AirMac Extreme web page is
> > frustratingly high on marketing BS and extremely low on real details.\
> 
> I'll save you some time. Nobody here  is interested in yet another of your
> misguided and trollish spec comparisons since those of us who aren't here
> purely to troll realize spec comparisons aren't the only or best method of
> determining actual value.
> 
> > I *expect* the main page to be filled with Marketing bs...
> > http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/
> > 
> > But, when you click for "more information", you're actually supposed to get
> > "more information", not more of the same lack of information.
> 
> For someone who constantly claims he is smarter than everyone else in the
> Apple news groups, you sure seem to have a hard time with basic things like
> clicking the Tech Specs link on that very page:
> 
> <http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/specs/>

and even getting the product name correct:
> > Looking up the AirMac Extreme, it's even *less* money than what they just
> > paid for their ac 19000 router, but the Apple AirMac Extreme web page is

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58613

On 2016-09-13, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <e3p0noF2b3mU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>> Looking up the AirMac Extreme, it's even *less* money than what
>>> they just paid for their ac 19000 router, but the Apple AirMac
>>> Extreme web page is frustratingly high on marketing BS and
>>> extremely low on real details.\
>> 
>> I'll save you some time. Nobody here  is interested in yet another of
>> your misguided and trollish spec comparisons since those of us who
>> aren't here purely to troll realize spec comparisons aren't the only
>> or best method of determining actual value.
>> 
>>> I *expect* the main page to be filled with Marketing bs...
>>> http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/
>>> 
>>> But, when you click for "more information", you're actually
>>> supposed to get "more information", not more of the same lack of
>>> information.
>> 
>> For someone who constantly claims he is smarter than everyone else in
>> the Apple news groups, you sure seem to have a hard time with basic
>> things like clicking the Tech Specs link on that very page:
>> 
>> <http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/specs/>
>
> and even getting the product name correct:
>
>>> Looking up the AirMac Extreme, it's even *less* money than what they
>>> just paid for their ac 19000 router, but the Apple AirMac Extreme
>>> web page is

Must be his pathetic aversion to the "evil M.A.R.K.E.T.I.N.G names"...

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.ipad

csiph-web