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

#58629

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]

#58625

On 2016-09-13, 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. 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.

-- 
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]

#58635

On 13 Sep 2016 04:39:57 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> 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.

Since they're all Apple, the Airport Extreme makes sense.
It's hard to tell from the specs the power, but what they have for EIRP at
32dBm seems pretty good (it's maximum, of course, but, they all lie with
specs).

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

#58646

On 2016-09-13, Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2016 04:39:57 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Since they're all Apple, the Airport Extreme makes sense.

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.

-- 
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]

#58720

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]

#58722

Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> wrote
> 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

Don’t have a default passphrase for example and don’t
allow very simple and easy to guess passphrases.

> - Easier to configure

Defaults to the configs that most should be using.

Although that certainly does conflict with the first one a bit.

> You're really just echoing Apple MARKETING mantra.

Nope, stating facts.

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

In fact they are both. That is a fact.

> I doubt that, for anyone who knows how to configure a router,

Plenty don’t.

> that it's "more secure" in any sense of the word though.

It is anyway, most obviously with no default passphrase
that can be left as the default and because it doesn’t
allow you to use very easy to guess passphrases.

> 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).

Irrelevant to whether it is easier to configure than some routers.

> So, what you're saying, in reality, is:
> - It's just as secure as any other router (when propertly configured)

You're lying thru your fucking teeth, as always.

> - It's easier to configure but likely has fewer user options

You're pig ignorantly lying, as always.

> 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.

No probably about it, it was.

> 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.

I havent compared it with the best routers available.

> 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]

#58724

On 2016-09-16, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> wrote
>> 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
>
> Don’t have a default passphrase for example and don’t
> allow very simple and easy to guess passphrases.

Also there is no web server interface to attack with brute force. Both
of these make Apple's routers far more secure right out of the box than
most other routers.

>> - Easier to configure
>
> Defaults to the configs that most should be using.

It's also configured using a native application designed specifically
for that purpose, as opposed to a clunky set of web pages with arcane
descriptions and options.

-- 
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]

#58728

On 16 Sep 2016 20:36:51 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Also there is no web server interface to attack with brute force.

Which means it's more limited.

So, it's really THREE things:
a. More secure (for morons, which this all-Apple household is)
b. Easier to configure (for morons, see above)
c. More limited (but the morons will never know)

>  Both
> of these make Apple's routers far more secure right out of the box than
> most other routers.

Yup. For once we agree:
a. More secure and MORE limited

So it's great for morons (as this all-Apple household happens to be).

>>> - Easier to configure
>>
>> Defaults to the configs that most should be using.
> 
> It's also configured using a native application designed specifically
> for that purpose, as opposed to a clunky set of web pages with arcane
> descriptions and options.

Heh heh ... again ... 
a. Easier to configure (for morons)
b. Also far more limited (so it prevents intelligent people from using it)

It's the same with iOS.

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

#58734

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

>> Also there is no web server interface to attack with brute force.
 
> Which means it's more limited.

More of your pig ignorant lies. When the app can do 
anything the web server interface can do, it isnt, liar. 
 
> So, it's really THREE things:
> a. More secure (for morons, which this all-Apple household is)
> b. Easier to configure (for morons, see above)
> c. More limited (but the morons will never know)

More of your lies. 

>> Both of these make Apple's routers far more secure 
>> right out of the box than most other routers.

> Yup. For once we agree:
> a. More secure and MORE limited

More of your lies. 
 
> So it's great for morons 

More of your lies. 

> (as this all-Apple household happens to be).

Yes, they are certainly complete and utter morons 
to have actually asked a fool like you what to do. 
 
>>>> - Easier to configure

>>> Defaults to the configs that most should be using.

>> It's also configured using a native application designed 
>> specifically for that purpose, as opposed to a clunky set 
>> of web pages with arcane descriptions and options.

> Heh heh ... again ... 
> a. Easier to configure (for morons)

More of your lies. 

> b. Also far more limited 

More of your lies. 

> (so it prevents intelligent people from using it)

More of your lies. 
 
> It's the same with iOS.

More of your lies. 
 

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

#58736

On 2016-09-17, Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2016 20:36:51 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Also there is no web server interface to attack with brute force.
>
> Which means it's more limited.

No it doesn't. In fact any software developer knows native applications
have access to system resources and APIs that a web browser connected to
a web server cannot have access to. So in a lot of respects, it's more
functional. For instance the Apple router configuration app is able to
automatically discover the router through the WiFi interface of the
computer. Other routers can't do that. And because there is no web
server to attack, and no default user name and password to brute force,
Apple's solution is inherently more secure. It's the opposite of limited
- it's empowering.

> So, it's really THREE things: a. More secure (for morons, which this
> all-Apple household is)

It's more secure for anyone. Skill and intelligence level do not play
into it. Obvious and lame troll.

> b. Easier to configure (for morons, see above)

See above. Lame troll.

> c. More limited (but the morons will never know)

The moron in this case is you, for making delusional claims like "it's
more limited" that cannot be substantiated and do not reflect reality
due to your ignorance on the subject.

>> Both of these make Apple's routers far more secure right out of the
>> box than most other routers.
>
> Yup. For once we agree: a. More secure and MORE limited

We don't agree since that's not what I said, and it's also not true.
You're lying and trolling as usual. You refuse to accept that *anything*
Apple does can be good due to your irrational hatred; so you knee jerk
and troll what you do not understand our of pure ignorance.  You're just
lame.

> So it's great for morons (as this all-Apple household happens to be).

And we all know insults are the last refuge of the intellectual coward.
Make mommy proud!

-- 
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]

#58744

In article <e448nsFmc8sU5@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >
> >> Also there is no web server interface to attack with brute force.
> >
> > Which means it's more limited.
> 
> No it doesn't. In fact any software developer knows native applications
> have access to system resources and APIs that a web browser connected to
> a web server cannot have access to. So in a lot of respects, it's more
> functional. For instance the Apple router configuration app is able to
> automatically discover the router through the WiFi interface of the
> computer. Other routers can't do that. And because there is no web
> server to attack, and no default user name and password to brute force,
> Apple's solution is inherently more secure. It's the opposite of limited
> - it's empowering.

one of the coolest features is if you buy a new airport router, it
automatically finds the old airport router and asks if you want to
migrate the settings over.

but only morons would want that :)

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

#58727

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 05:28:22 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

>> While I *understand* what *you* mean by:
>> - More secure
> 
> Don┤ have a default passphrase for example and don┤
> allow very simple and easy to guess passphrases.

As I said, for an all-Apple household, the router may be 
a. More secure
b. Easier to configure

However, it's not "more secure" in the hands of someone who knows what he's
doing; it's just maybe more secure in the hands of morons (which, I agree,
this all-Apple household is).

But what you're really saying is that, *for morons*, it's more secure and
easier to configure.

I'm not going to disagree.

I'm only saying that for *intelligent* people, it's not only *not* more
secure, but it almost certainly is limited (as *all* Apple devices are
limited in huge ways, when compared to their more modern counterparts).

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

#58732

Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> wrote 
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> While I *understand* what *you* mean by:
>>> - More secure
 
>> Don't have a default passphrase for example and don't
>> allow very simple and easy to guess passphrases.
 
> As I said, 

As you lied, as always. 

> for an all-Apple household, the router may be 

No maybe about it. 

> a. More secure
> b. Easier to configure

And it is for plenty of not all apple households too. 
 
> However, it's not "more secure" in the hands 
> of someone who knows what he's doing; 

Wrong, as always with the need for physical access alone. 

> it's just maybe more secure in the hands of morons 

More of your pig ignorant lies. 

> (which, I agree, this all-Apple household is).

Yes, only a moron would actually be stupid enough 
to ask you what to do and actually stupid enough to 
do what you told them to do, and get a much worse 
result at a higher cost than they would have got doing
what they had previously done, get an apple router. 
 
> But what you're really saying is that, *for morons*, 
> it's more secure and easier to configure.

I said nothing of the sort, you silly little pathological liar. 
 
> I'm not going to disagree.

Having fun thrashing yet another straw man
/lying thru your fucking teeth, as always ?
 
> I'm only saying that for *intelligent* 
> people, it's not only *not* more secure, 

And you are just plain wrong about that, as always. 

> but it almost certainly is limited 

It is no more limited than that steaming 
turd you told the morons to get instead. 

> (as *all* Apple devices are limited in huge ways, when 
> compared to their more modern counterparts).

More of your bare faced lies/pathetic excuse for a troll.  

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

#58723

On 2016-09-16, Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> wrote:
> 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.

Nope, you clearly *don't* understand, which is typical for you. There is
no "Apple marketing mantra" involved. Your puke green troll glasses are
blinding you, as usual. 

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. 

• 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.

• 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.

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.

• 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. 

• The default configuration options are set up to do what most people
want. So most people needn't futz around changing too many things to get
one up and running with a secure configuration that does what they want. 
 
None of this is "marketing mantra"; it's all based on factual details of
the difference between Apple's routers and typical routers made by the
rest of the market.

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

Right; so you readily admit you don't know, but you go right ahead and
doubt anyway. So your entire position is one of pure ignorance, with a
good measure of troll mindset sprinkled throughout. Color us "shocked".
You can doubt all you want and it won't change reality.

[remainder of useless trollish babbling omitted]

-- 
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]

#58725

"Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote in message 
news:e433b5Fdpk5U2@mid.individual.net...
> On 2016-09-16, Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Nope, you clearly *don't* understand, which is typical for you. There is
> no "Apple marketing mantra" involved. Your puke green troll glasses are
> blinding you, as usual.
>
> 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.

> • 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.

> • 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.

> 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

Like you get with iTunes eh ?  Yeah, right.

> than the typical clunky web-based configuration
> pages offered by most web browser.

Most do in fact have a decent app that talks to the router.

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

> • 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.
>
> • The default configuration options are set up to do what most people
> want. So most people needn't futz around changing too many things to get
> one up and running with a secure configuration that does what they want.
>
> None of this is "marketing mantra"; it's all based on factual details of
> the difference between Apple's routers and typical routers made by the
> rest of the market.
>
>> I doubt that, for anyone who knows how to configure a router, that it's
>> "more secure" in any sense of the word though.
>
> Right; so you readily admit you don't know, but you go right ahead and
> doubt anyway. So your entire position is one of pure ignorance, with a
> good measure of troll mindset sprinkled throughout. Color us "shocked".
> You can doubt all you want and it won't change reality.
>
> [remainder of useless trollish babbling omitted]
>
> -- 
> 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]

#58729

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 10:38:39 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

>> ‧ 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
> 
> Like you get with iTunes eh ?  Yeah, right.

Jolly Roger actually thinks Apple Maps is better than Google Maps, and, he 
thinks iTunes is a wondrous set of efficient software.

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

#58735

Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> 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

>> Like you get with iTunes eh ?  Yeah, right.

> Jolly Roger actually thinks Apple Maps is better than Google Maps,

In a couple of areas it is. MUCH more secure about what you look at and
never flogs your data to anyone and apple never uses that themselves either.

> and, he thinks iTunes is a wondrous set of efficient software.

He hasn’t actually ever said that. 

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

#58738

On 2016-09-17, Horace Algier <horatio@horatio.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 10:38:39 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>> ¡E 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
>> 
>> Like you get with iTunes eh ?  Yeah, right.
>
> Jolly Roger actually thinks Apple Maps is better than Google Maps, and, he 
> thinks iTunes is a wondrous set of efficient software.

Nope, I just realize that like web-based vs native router configuration
options, the native iTunes app provides *much* more functionality and is
*far* more integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.

Keep up the ignorant trolling though - it's *really* working for you. ; ) 

-- 
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]

#58737

On 2016-09-17, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote in message 
> news:e433b5Fdpk5U2@mid.individual.net...
>
>> 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
>
> Like you get with iTunes eh ?  Yeah, right.

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. 

> 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.

-- 
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]

#58740

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

>>> 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

>> Like you get with iTunes eh ?  Yeah, right.

> 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.

Even more pathetic than you usually manage.

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

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

> That's neither here nor there

Wrong, as always.

> 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, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist. 

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

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

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

csiph-web