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 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#58567 — Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac

What is the best way, nowadays, to scan for wireless frequencies given an
entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook Pros, and an iMac?

An Apple-only friend (who lives in the boonies) called just now from
another state with Comcast Internet problems at home.

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. 

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).

They don't know how.

They are on iOS with iPhones and iPads & they have a couple of MacBook Pros
which apparently don't have an Ethernet port (nor do they have the adapter)
but they do have an iMac which does have an Ethernet port.

So they're running the *wired* tests using the iMac but I'm trying to get
them to run wireless tests and they're not technical people.

My only question is how do I get them to run a test of the WiFi frequencies
in use where they are.

Googling, I found this which explains for them how to run a WiFi scan on
the iPads and iPhones that they own:
- TIP: Choosing the best WiFi channel using iPad
-
http://forum.music-group.com/showthread.php?6603-TIP-Choosing-the-best-WiFi-channel-using-iPad

But looking for how to run the same test on the iMac or MacBook Pros, I'm
not sure because I don't know what operating system they're on.

For example, here is information for OSX but I don't know how good it is as
I have no Apple computers:
- Any free good software wireless analyzers, like Windows' Netstumbler and
inSSIDer, for Mac OS X 10.8.3?
- https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5073997?tstart=0

What is the best way, nowadays, for this older couple to scan for wireless
frequencies given an entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook
Pros, and an iMac?

 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#58568

In article <nr50m6$125u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
<horatio@horatio.net> wrote:

> What is the best way, nowadays, to scan for wireless frequencies given an
> entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook Pros, and an iMac?

with one of numerous wifi scanner apps.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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

#58571

On 9/11/2016 6:45 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <nr50m6$125u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier

>> 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.

And dual-band. In my area I see umpteen signals on the 2.4GHz band but 
only one other on the 5GHz band. (And that makes it very easy to avoid 
him. I'm on ch36 and he's on ch157.)

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

#58588

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 20:17:28 -0700, AL wrote:

> And dual-band. In my area I see umpteen signals on the 2.4GHz band but 
> only one other on the 5GHz band. (And that makes it very easy to avoid 
> him. I'm on ch36 and he's on ch157.)

I have kids in graduate school and there I see so many access points on my
Android phone (using inSSIDer or WiFi Analyzer or WiFi SNR or Fritz WLAN)
that I'm shocked how utterly filled the frequencies are.

Where "I" live, there are extremely few people on *any* frequency, so, an
old WRT54G would work just fine since nobody's router can spill onto
another house purely because of distance (although we all have rooftop
radios since that's how "we" get our Internet, and they *can* easily spill
- but they're on specific horizontal and vertical channels to match the
access point protocols).

Where these people are, it should be somewhere in between, in that any
nearby neighbor can easily step on their frequency (they're in an old
factory warehouse style building from the 1800s that was renovated into
condos probably within the past 10 years).

But, remember, the *wired* signal at the router is half the wired signal at
the modem (which is strange). The wired signal is not affected by the WiFi
bands. 

The main thing I need to ask you guys is *how* to check for WiFi
interference from the neighbors on an all-Apple household. 

On "my" iPad, I know to do this:
http://forum.music-group.com/showthread.php?6603-TIP-Choosing-the-best-WiFi-channel-using-iPad

I just tried AirPort
(https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/airport-utility/id427276530?mt=8)

1. I already have the AirPort utility from the Appstore
2. I went to Settings and found the "AirPort Utility" on the left
3. I have version "1.3.4 (134.22)& I turned on the "WiFi Scanner" switch
4. On my desktop, I clicked on the "Airport utility" which said:
"No AirPort base stations have been found", and it also said 
"AirPort Utility will continue searching"

WORLD:
5. I tapped the "World" icon which showed 3 pieces of information:
a. Connection = connected
b. Router Address = 192.168.1.1
c. DNS Server = 192.168.1.1

INFO:
6. On the top right, I taped on the blue "Wi-Fi Scan"
7. A white form titled "All Networks" came up
8. On the white "All Networks" form I tapped the (i) on the bottom right
That summarized the 2.4GHz and 5 GHz devices as follows:
2.4GHZ - 4 Devices
a. channel 1 = 1 device
b. channel 6 = 1 device
c. channel 7 = 1 device
d. channel 11 = 1 device
5.0GHz - 1 Device
channel 156 = 1 device

WIFI SCAN:
9. I hit the "Back" & "Done" buttons on the "All Networks" form
10. That brought me to the AirPort Utility "World" screen.
11. On the top right of the "World" screen, I tapped the blue "WiFi Scan" 
12. On the top right of a white "All Networks" form, I tapped "Scan"
13. That showed me four lines for each WiFi signal it found:
a. SSID (e.g., FOOBAR_nomap)
b. BSSID (e.g., DE:AD:BE:EF:CA:FE)
c. RSSI (e.g., 36dBm)
d. Channel (e.g., 7 for 2.4GHz or channel 150 for 5GHz)

NOTE: For a description of the relative difference in signal strength, see:
http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/2004broadbandforum/comments/YDI_understandingdb.pdf

This works, so my only question is whether there is a better way on iOS
than AirPort, and, for the Mac, my question is whether it's better to run
this test on the Mac? (For example, maybe the Mac utility gives a graphical
display?)

Q1: Is AirPort the best WiFi Scanning freeware app for iOS?
Q2: What utility do you use on the Mac for WiFi scanning?

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

#58589

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

Right?

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

#58590

In article <nr726c$fgi$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
<horatio@horatio.net> 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.

do a search on the app store or use google.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> >> 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.

> >> 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, 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'.

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

#58596

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.

>> 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.

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. 

Likewise, 10/100 means it can handle 100 Mbps (AFAIK - I'm not sure why the
10 is there since the 100 overrules it). If that's correct, then wired, the
router can handle 100Mbps and they're only getting 25 Mpbs at best. 

So, looking at specs, 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.

But their *wired* speeds are half at the router than at the modem, so,
something funny is going on - so they need tools to debug that work on iOS
or on Mac. 

That's all I'm asking for.

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

#58599

In article <nr75rb$lue$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
<horatio@horatio.net> wrote:

> The iMac hooked to the modem *did* show above 25/5 Mbps so, it doesn't seem
> to be Comcast's problem (aka Xfinity).

if they're getting 25/5 at the comcast modem, then the problem is not
comcast.

the bottleneck is within the house, namely the linksys.

it's really very simple.

unless there's more to the story that you haven't disclosed.




> 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.

that's the port speed, not the router throughput.

> Likewise, the wifi on the Linksys WRT54G is apparengly 54Mbps, which is
> also well within their input speeds of 25/5 Mbps.

802.11g is 54mbps, but actual throughput is roughly half, about 25 mbit
or so, and that's *maximum*. in the real world, it will be less.

> So, the router *should* handle the speeds (AFAIK).
> What the router can't do is give them an empty frequency for their WiFi.

it doesn't an empty one, it only needs one that doesn't have much
interference.

> That's why I'm asking about WiFi scanners.
> They need to be on an unused frequency.
> 
> 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?

if it's about 8 years old or less it should. 

option-click the wifi icon in the menubar for lots of geek info. 

> >>>> 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.

the voters have no say whatsoever what comcast does.

comcast does what it does because it can. they're almost always the
only game in town, so they can charge pretty much whatever they want
and you have to suck it up. 

> >> 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?

one is wireless and the other is wired. duh.

> 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. 
> 
> Likewise, 10/100 means it can handle 100 Mbps (AFAIK - I'm not sure why the
> 10 is there since the 100 overrules it). If that's correct, then wired, the
> router can handle 100Mbps and they're only getting 25 Mpbs at best. 

the ports are 100bt, but that doesn't mean the electronics inside
support those speeds.

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

#58605

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 17:44:31 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> The iMac hooked to the modem *did* show above 25/5 Mbps so, it doesn't seem
>> to be Comcast's problem (aka Xfinity).
> 
> if they're getting 25/5 at the comcast modem, then the problem is not
> comcast.

I agree.

> the bottleneck is within the house, namely the linksys.
> 
> it's really very simple.
> 
> unless there's more to the story that you haven't disclosed.

I don't know if there is more to the story, as all I know is that they
called me asking how to figure out why they're getting horrid cellular
signal, even with the AT&T "M port" (or whatever they called it), and
whether they're on cellular or WiFi, and that Vonage call quality sucked.

Interestingly, they didn't mention that their Internet was slow.

So I conference called them to Comcast support and that's how we found out
that they 're paying for 25/5 Mbps and that, at their router, they were
getting half that.

The iMac wasn't charged up and they couldn't find any RJ45 ports on the
Macbook pro. I was incredulous, and I told them I hadn't seen a laptop in
decades that didn't have an RJ45 port but they confirmed it wasn't there.

So they started charging up the iMac and after the initial call to Comcast,
they hooked the iMac to the modem and that's when they saw good speeds for
the first time.

Comcast said that it as "all green lights" from their side anyway, so
that's when I told them we'd have to start debugging.

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

#58609

In article <nr7grv$15q2$3@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
<horatio@horatio.net> wrote:

> The iMac wasn't charged up

once again, an imac is a *desktop* computer that plugs into the wall.
there is nothing to charge.

> and they couldn't find any RJ45 ports on the
> Macbook pro.

then it's very recent and likely has 802.11ac. 

> I was incredulous, and I told them I hadn't seen a laptop in
> decades that didn't have an RJ45 port but they confirmed it wasn't there.

a lot of laptops don't because wireless is far more convenient and just
as fast (or even faster) in real world use. 

laptops are *mobile* and people don't want to be tethered, so having an
ethernet port frequently goes unused.

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

#58618

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 20:34:02 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> The iMac wasn't charged up
> 
> once again, an imac is a *desktop* computer that plugs into the wall.
> there is nothing to charge.

Then he doesn't know what his machine is called.
I asked him again and he said iMac again so I'm not gonna press the issue.
He knows if it has a battery or not. 

>> and they couldn't find any RJ45 ports on the
>> Macbook pro.
> 
> then it's very recent and likely has 802.11ac. 

Good. 

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. 

I told him to use "Fing" to keep track of intruders.

>> I was incredulous, and I told them I hadn't seen a laptop in
>> decades that didn't have an RJ45 port but they confirmed it wasn't there.
> 
> a lot of laptops don't because wireless is far more convenient and just
> as fast (or even faster) in real world use. 

OK. Fair enough. It's just that he needed a wire to test the speeds.

Anyway, he still had oddities, as his download is now 29Mbps at both the
modem and the router, but his upload is 6Mbps at the modem but only 0.4Mbps
at the router using wireless (which is odd, indeed).

So his wired speeds are what one would expect.
And his wireless download is what one would expect.
But something is wrong with his wireless upload.

We did mess with Vonage QOS settings - but that shouldn't be a big factor.

> laptops are *mobile* and people don't want to be tethered, so having an
> ethernet port frequently goes unused.

Fair enough. Anyway, his router is all set up.

Since I have Netgear equipment, I was able to walk him through most of the
setup. WPA2/PSK, easily remembered non-dictionary passphrase (name of
consecutive presidents), no guest setup, _nomap on the SSID, etc.

Wired is fine now at both the modem and router.
Wireless down is fine at both the modem and router.
But wireless up is dismal (at 0.4Mbps) at the router.

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

#58620

In article <nr7s04$1jcr$4@gioia.aioe.org>, 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. 

didn't he set a passphrase? if he left it wide open, then don't be
surprised someone joined it.

> I told him to use "Fing" to keep track of intruders.

no need.

set a good passphrase and it's for all intents impossible to crack it.

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

#58622

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 23:38:49 -0400, nospam wrote:

> didn't he set a passphrase? if he left it wide open, then don't be
> surprised someone joined it.

Dunno what he did - as we only noticed the android intruder as I was
running through the setup with him showing him what was on 2.4GHz and what
was on 5GHz (since I had advised turning off the 2.4GHz if he could get
away with it).

>> I told him to use "Fing" to keep track of intruders.
> 
> no need.
> 
> set a good passphrase and it's for all intents impossible to crack it.

Actually, there are rainbow tables so, there are two things you need to do
with WPA/PSK-AES which is:
a. Use a non-dictionary unique but non-identifying SSID (with _nomap)
b. Use a good pass phrase (e.g., two subsequent president's names)

Remember, the lousy choice for a default salt for the passphrase means that
every common SSID is *already* compromised in WPA2-PSK; so that's why I
told him to use *both* of the above.

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

#58623

In article <nr7tud$1l29$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
<horatio@horatio.net> wrote:

> > set a good passphrase and it's for all intents impossible to crack it.
> 
> Actually, there are rainbow tables so, there are two things you need to do
> with WPA/PSK-AES which is:
> a. Use a non-dictionary unique but non-identifying SSID (with _nomap)

not required, and certainly not the nomap silliness.

just don't leave it as the default, e.g., 'linksys'. 

> b. Use a good pass phrase (e.g., two subsequent president's names)

that's what i said.

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

#58628

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 00:14:19 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> a. Use a non-dictionary unique but non-identifying SSID (with _nomap)
> 
> not required, and certainly not the nomap silliness.

The silliness is even worse than just "_nomap", since if you have Windows
10 nearby, you must also add "optout".

http://tourkick.com/advice-tips-howto/myth-busting-windows-10-wi-fi-sense-google-wireless-mapping/

So what is needed is SSID_optout_nomap, which, I agree, is ridiculous, but
that's what Microsoft and Google require for you to opt out.

The Microsoft-mandated "optout" can exist anywhere in the SSID; but the
Google-mandated "_nomap" must be at the end of the SSID.

> just don't leave it as the default, e.g., 'linksys'. 
> 
>> b. Use a good pass phrase (e.g., two subsequent president's names)
> 
> that's what i said.

Rainbow tables are a real thing.
For example 1 million common passphrases for 1,000 common SSID is only
33GB of data. 

You can get them by torrent here:
https://www.renderlab.net/projects/WPA-tables/

Basically, if both your WPA2/PSK SSID and passphrase aren't essentially
unique, then you're already hacked.

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

#58630

In article <nr80id$1npn$3@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
<horatio@horatio.net> wrote:

> 
> >> a. Use a non-dictionary unique but non-identifying SSID (with _nomap)
> > 
> > not required, and certainly not the nomap silliness.
> 
> The silliness is even worse than just "_nomap", since if you have Windows
> 10 nearby, 

i do

> you must also add "optout".

no i don't.

> http://tourkick.com/advice-tips-howto/myth-busting-windows-10-wi-fi-sense-goog
> le-wireless-mapping/
>
> So what is needed is SSID_optout_nomap, which, I agree, is ridiculous, but
> that's what Microsoft and Google require for you to opt out.

it's not 'needed'.

> The Microsoft-mandated "optout" can exist anywhere in the SSID; but the
> Google-mandated "_nomap" must be at the end of the SSID.
> 
> > just don't leave it as the default, e.g., 'linksys'. 
> > 
> >> b. Use a good pass phrase (e.g., two subsequent president's names)
> > 
> > that's what i said.
> 
> Rainbow tables are a real thing.

nobody said otherwise

> For example 1 million common passphrases for 1,000 common SSID is only
> 33GB of data. 

so what.

> You can get them by torrent here:
> https://www.renderlab.net/projects/WPA-tables/
> 
> Basically, if both your WPA2/PSK SSID and passphrase aren't essentially
> unique, then you're already hacked.

all that matters is the passphrase.

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

#58633

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 01:07:18 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> you must also add "optout".
> 
> no i don't.
> 
>> http://tourkick.com/advice-tips-howto/myth-busting-windows-10-wi-fi-sense-goog
>> le-wireless-mapping/
>>
>> So what is needed is SSID_optout_nomap, which, I agree, is ridiculous, but
>> that's what Microsoft and Google require for you to opt out.
> 
> it's not 'needed'.

Fair enough.
The "optout" isn't needed.

But I agree with you that we have to even *think* about adding "optout" and
"_nomap" to our SSIDs in order to opt *out* of Microsoft and Google
silliness respectively.

It should be opt *in* only.
But it's not.
Sigh.

>> Basically, if both your WPA2/PSK SSID and passphrase aren't essentially
>> unique, then you're already hacked.
> 
> all that matters is the passphrase.

Remember, the SSID is the *salt* to the encryption.
So the SSID matters too.
But yes, if your passphrase is unique (truly unique, as in not one of a
million known passphrases!), then you're fine.

But is your passphrase *that* unique?

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

#58636

In article <nr81su$1p9a$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
<horatio@horatio.net> wrote:

> But I agree with you that we have to even *think* about adding "optout" and
> "_nomap" to our SSIDs in order to opt *out* of Microsoft and Google
> silliness respectively.
>
> It should be opt *in* only.

no, because then few people would bother.

> >> Basically, if both your WPA2/PSK SSID and passphrase aren't essentially
> >> unique, then you're already hacked.
> > 
> > all that matters is the passphrase.
> 
> Remember, the SSID is the *salt* to the encryption.
> So the SSID matters too.
> But yes, if your passphrase is unique (truly unique, as in not one of a
> million known passphrases!), then you're fine.

that's what i've been saying.

> But is your passphrase *that* unique?

yes.

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

#58643

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 01:18:15 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> Remember, the SSID is the *salt* to the encryption.
>> So the SSID matters too.
>> But yes, if your passphrase is unique (truly unique, as in not one of a
>> million known passphrases!), then you're fine.
> 
> that's what i've been saying.
> 
>> But is your passphrase *that* unique?
> 
> yes.

Fair enough.
We agree.

I just hope *everyone* with a WPA2/PSK passphrase uses a unique one.

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

#58638

On 2016-09-13, Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> wrote:
> But yes, if your passphrase is unique (truly unique, as in not one of a
> million known passphrases!), then you're fine.
>
> But is your passphrase *that* unique?

If your pass phrase isn't unique, you're doing it wrong. Duh.

-- 
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 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web