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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #181131 > unrolled thread

[A bit OT] Diagnosing home network

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 07:50 +0200
    Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Nemeth Gyorgy <friczy@freemail.hu> - 2017-05-20 09:30 +0200
      Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 10:10 +0200
    Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-05-20 12:20 +0200
      Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 10:20 +0200
    Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-05-20 15:40 +0200
      Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-05-20 17:10 +0200
        Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 10:20 +0200
      Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-05-21 19:00 +0200
        Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-05-21 21:20 +0200
        Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-05-22 14:50 +0200
          Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-05-22 17:00 +0200
            Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Kent West <westk@acu.edu> - 2017-05-22 17:20 +0200
          Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-05-23 17:30 +0200
            Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-05-24 00:50 +0200
              Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-05-24 20:50 +0200
      Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 10:20 +0200
        Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-05-26 11:00 +0200
        Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-05-27 19:10 +0200
          Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-06-01 13:00 +0200
            Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 13:30 +0200
              Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network メット <mett@pmars.jp> - 2017-06-01 15:10 +0200
              Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-06-02 12:00 +0200
          Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 13:10 +0200
    Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 05:50 +0200
    Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2017-05-21 06:10 +0200
    Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-05-21 16:40 +0200
      Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 01:40 +0200
      Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 10:40 +0200
        Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-05-26 12:30 +0200
          Re: [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2017-05-27 07:20 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#181131 — [A bit OT] Diagnosing home network

Hello!

I have some doubts about the throughput of my home network and I'm 
hoping for some advice on tools that might help me diagnose it.

My home network consists of 2 Debian machines, one Jessie and one 
Stretch, an LFS mini-ITX machine acting as my firewall, another LFS 
laptop that is connected only occasionally, a Windows 8.1 laptop, 3 
iPhones of varying ages, 2 iPads, 1 Android tablet device, a couple of 
other proprietary tablets and a Buffalo Linkstation that provides most 
of the connectivity.

The internet access is via Cable. I run an ethernet cable from the cable 
modem to the firewall machine, then from the firewall machine to the 
Linkstation's WAN port. The firewall machine's WiFi interface is 
disabled (I didn't include its driver when I built the kernel for that 
machine). The Jessie box, a phone-to-ethernet device and a NAS are 
plugged into the Linkstation wired LAN ports. Everything else connects 
to the Linkstation WiFi. The LinkStation offers 2.4GHz and 5GHz 
connections, the 2.4GHz is b/g and the 5GHz is ac I believe. Those 
devices that can use the 5GHz connection, are, the rest are using the 
2.4GHz.

I have my doubts about cross-LAN throughput. For example, as I write I 
am using WinSCP on the Windows 8.1 laptop to copy a movie file from my 
Jessie box to the laptop. (The movie concerned is not copyright before 
anyone asks). The Jessie box is connected to the LinkStation by wired 
ethernet, and the Windows 8.1 laptop by WiFi. I am getting a transfer 
rate consistently across the life of the connection of 880KB/s. I'd 
expect it to be a lot faster than that. I checked the WinSCP software is 
capable of limiting the connection speed, but is set not to.

The laptop is situated here on my desktop, less than 2 feet from the 
LinkStation (albet with a computer monitor between them). Neither laptop 
nor Jessie box were doing anything else at the time -- the load on the 
Jessie box was essentially zero before the transfer started, rose to 1 
while the transfer was going on, then fell back to basically zero when 
it finished (monitored using xload).

I'd like to be able to diagnose what's going on here, why the transfer 
was so slow. Any recommendations for tools I should research? I am very 
willing to read man pages etc, but am a bit lost where to start. Google 
gave me a lot of Windows-based stuff which I could look into but I would 
prefer to use Linux-based tools if possible.

Pointers to tools I should research -- and even better, links to good 
tutorials on those tools if you know any -- would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Mark

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#181133

2017-05-20 07:41 keltezéssel, Mark Fletcher írta:
> I'd like to be able to diagnose what's going on here, why the transfer 
> was so slow. Any recommendations for tools I should research? I am very 
> willing to read man pages etc, but am a bit lost where to start. Google 
> gave me a lot of Windows-based stuff which I could look into but I would 
> prefer to use Linux-based tools if possible.
>
For speed measuring I suggest iperf.

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

#181392

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 09:29:12AM +0200, Nemeth Gyorgy wrote:
> 2017-05-20 07:41 keltezéssel, Mark Fletcher írta:
> > I'd like to be able to diagnose what's going on here, why the transfer 
> > was so slow. Any recommendations for tools I should research? I am very 
> > willing to read man pages etc, but am a bit lost where to start. Google 
> > gave me a lot of Windows-based stuff which I could look into but I would 
> > prefer to use Linux-based tools if possible.
> >
> For speed measuring I suggest iperf.
> 
 Cool, thanks. I will check that out.

Mark

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

#181134

On Saturday, May 20, 2017 01:41:20 AM Mark Fletcher wrote:
> The internet access is via Cable. I run an ethernet cable from the cable
> modem to the firewall machine, then from the firewall machine to the
> Linkstation's WAN port. The firewall machine's WiFi interface is
> disabled (I didn't include its driver when I built the kernel for that
> machine). The Jessie box, a phone-to-ethernet device and a NAS are
> plugged into the Linkstation wired LAN ports. Everything else connects
> to the Linkstation WiFi. The LinkStation offers 2.4GHz and 5GHz
> connections, the 2.4GHz is b/g and the 5GHz is ac I believe. Those
> devices that can use the 5GHz connection, are, the rest are using the
> 2.4GHz.
> 
> I have my doubts about cross-LAN throughput. For example, as I write I
> am using WinSCP on the Windows 8.1 laptop to copy a movie file from my
> Jessie box to the laptop. (The movie concerned is not copyright before
> anyone asks). The Jessie box is connected to the LinkStation by wired
> ethernet, and the Windows 8.1 laptop by WiFi. I am getting a transfer
> rate consistently across the life of the connection of 880KB/s. I'd
> expect it to be a lot faster than that. I checked the WinSCP software is
> capable of limiting the connection speed, but is set not to.

What is the laptop using--802.11a, b, g, n, or ac?

What is the Jessie system using--802.11a, b, g, n, or ac?

(I/m not sure how you can determine this--maybe the LInk Station has a 
"maintainance" screen you can access?)

(Also, the Linkstation has to act as a repeater between the laptop and Jessie 
system--I'm not sure how much that might slow the transfer.)

Anyway, note that the theoretical throughput of 802.11b is 11 Mbps--your 880 
KB/s is reasonably consistent with that.  IIRC, 802.11g can do 54 Mbps, I'm 
not sure about the others.

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

#181395

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 06:17:41AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 20, 2017 01:41:20 AM Mark Fletcher wrote:
> 
> What is the laptop using--802.11a, b, g, n, or ac?

It's a high-end couple-of-years-old Toshiba laptop sold in Japan. It'll 
be either N or AC. I believe the router does not offer anything slower 
on the 5GHz band.

> 
> What is the Jessie system using--802.11a, b, g, n, or ac?

As I stated in my original mail, it's wired, plugged into one of the 
AirStation's LAN ports. (and yes, as someone else pointed out, it is an 
AirStation not a LinkStation -- silly me).

> 
> (I/m not sure how you can determine this--maybe the LInk Station has a 
> "maintainance" screen you can access?)
> 
> (Also, the Linkstation has to act as a repeater between the laptop and Jessie 
> system--I'm not sure how much that might slow the transfer.)
> 

But that's it's entire raison d'etre so I would expect it to be good at it.

> Anyway, note that the theoretical throughput of 802.11b is 11 Mbps--your 880 
> KB/s is reasonably consistent with that.  IIRC, 802.11g can do 54 Mbps, I'm 
> not sure about the others.
> 

HOPEFULLY that is going to turn out to be irrelevant, as I don't think b 
is involved... I don't THINK it is, it SHOULDN'T be... The close match 
between theory and observation is suspicious though...

Mark

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

#181145

On Saturday 20 May 2017 01:41:20 Mark Fletcher wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I have some doubts about the throughput of my home network and I'm
> hoping for some advice on tools that might help me diagnose it.
>
> My home network consists of 2 Debian machines, one Jessie and one
> Stretch, an LFS mini-ITX machine acting as my firewall, another LFS
> laptop that is connected only occasionally, a Windows 8.1 laptop, 3
> iPhones of varying ages, 2 iPads, 1 Android tablet device, a couple of
> other proprietary tablets and a Buffalo Linkstation that provides most
> of the connectivity.
>
> The internet access is via Cable. I run an ethernet cable from the
> cable modem to the firewall machine, then from the firewall machine to
> the Linkstation's WAN port. The firewall machine's WiFi interface is
> disabled (I didn't include its driver when I built the kernel for that
> machine). The Jessie box, a phone-to-ethernet device and a NAS are
> plugged into the Linkstation wired LAN ports. Everything else connects
> to the Linkstation WiFi. The LinkStation offers 2.4GHz and 5GHz
> connections, the 2.4GHz is b/g and the 5GHz is ac I believe. Those
> devices that can use the 5GHz connection, are, the rest are using the
> 2.4GHz.
>
> I have my doubts about cross-LAN throughput. For example, as I write I
> am using WinSCP on the Windows 8.1 laptop to copy a movie file from my
> Jessie box to the laptop. (The movie concerned is not copyright before
> anyone asks). The Jessie box is connected to the LinkStation by wired
> ethernet, and the Windows 8.1 laptop by WiFi. I am getting a transfer
> rate consistently across the life of the connection of 880KB/s. I'd
> expect it to be a lot faster than that. I checked the WinSCP software
> is capable of limiting the connection speed, but is set not to.
>
> The laptop is situated here on my desktop, less than 2 feet from the
> LinkStation (albet with a computer monitor between them). Neither
> laptop nor Jessie box were doing anything else at the time -- the load
> on the Jessie box was essentially zero before the transfer started,
> rose to 1 while the transfer was going on, then fell back to basically
> zero when it finished (monitored using xload).
>
> I'd like to be able to diagnose what's going on here, why the transfer
> was so slow. Any recommendations for tools I should research? I am
> very willing to read man pages etc, but am a bit lost where to start.
> Google gave me a lot of Windows-based stuff which I could look into
> but I would prefer to use Linux-based tools if possible.
>
> Pointers to tools I should research -- and even better, links to good
> tutorials on those tools if you know any -- would be much appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Mark

Couple things here. I have no such problems. My routing is from the cable 
modem, to a buffalo netfinty router running dd-wrt, so I need no 
firewall. dd-wrt has very sharp teeth so I don't seem to need an 
additional guard dog. The output of the buffalo hits an 8 port managed 
switch, and everything else is plugged into that switch. There are 2 
more switch/hubs plugged into that switch so that one cable to the 
garage hitting an 8 port switch in the garage that feeds 3 machines 
there, and another cable thats been blowing in the wind for about 15 
years now, runs from the house to a 12x16 shop building in the upper 
rear corner of the back yard, where always 2, and occasionally a 3rd 
machine is plugged into a 4 port hub.  The 2 8 port switches and the hub 
are gigahertz capable.  Even the machines in the shop building can 
access the internet at megabyte+ a second speeds.  Amanda hits them all 
at about 1:30 am, and even then, with that load on this machine slowing 
it some, I don't notice a huge networking data slowdown.

You'll note no mention of wifi here as its turned off unless I have 
children visiting with their smart phones.  wifi is slower, and subject 
to being used by the neighbors as I found my net usage after the kids 
had been in was up about 80 Gb a month later. I don't couple the wifi to 
my net, only to the internet, but inspecting dd-wrt's list of dhcpd'd 
net leases disclosed that a neighbor seemed to have discovered it and 
was helping himself to my bandwidth. So I had to log back into the 
buffalo and turn the radio off again. As the garage has vinyl siding, I 
have to do the same thing on a raspberry pi 3b out there, which has an 
excellent wifi, and I had to shut it off too. The raspian-jessie 
defaults enable it, and a dhcpd server, so it was handing out addresses 
and connections on wlan0, using bandwidth I could see.  Ooops.  And I 
have to do it everytime I build a new sd card for it. dhcpcd killed 
forever now, or until I change sd cards.

I configured for future expansion, whereas your setup sounds like its 
machine to machine.  So get a router you can reflash, ditch the 
firewall, and feed the routerr (after setting up NAT in the router to 
put your local network on a local address in the 192.168.xx.zz block of 
addresses) and if you must have dhcpcd for your wireless stuff, do it in 
the router. Everything here is in /etc/hosts, resolv.conf says order 
host,dns, and dns is pointed at the router, and forwards dns requests to 
my ISP's dns servers.  And from this end, its all transparent, but the 
black hats are SOL, blocked at the router. I've one  porthole cut in 
that, to allow access to my web page in the sig.  Other than that, no 
one has come thru that setup and gotten into one of my machines in close 
to 15 years.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#181151

> On May 20, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Saturday 20 May 2017 01:41:20 Mark Fletcher wrote:
>> 
>> Hello!
>> 
>> I have some doubts about the throughput of my home network and I'm
>> hoping for some advice on tools that might help me diagnose it.
>> 
>> My home network consists of 2 Debian machines, one Jessie and one
>> Stretch, an LFS mini-ITX machine acting as my firewall, another LFS
>> laptop that is connected only occasionally, a Windows 8.1 laptop, 3
>> iPhones of varying ages, 2 iPads, 1 Android tablet device, a couple of
>> other proprietary tablets and a Buffalo Linkstation that provides most
>> of the connectivity.
>> 
>> The internet access is via Cable. I run an ethernet cable from the
>> cable modem to the firewall machine, then from the firewall machine to
>> the Linkstation's WAN port. The firewall machine's WiFi interface is
>> disabled (I didn't include its driver when I built the kernel for that
>> machine). The Jessie box, a phone-to-ethernet device and a NAS are
>> plugged into the Linkstation wired LAN ports. Everything else connects
>> to the Linkstation WiFi. The LinkStation offers 2.4GHz and 5GHz
>> connections, the 2.4GHz is b/g and the 5GHz is ac I believe. Those
>> devices that can use the 5GHz connection, are, the rest are using the
>> 2.4GHz.
>> 
>> I have my doubts about cross-LAN throughput. For example, as I write I
>> am using WinSCP on the Windows 8.1 laptop to copy a movie file from my
>> Jessie box to the laptop. (The movie concerned is not copyright before
>> anyone asks). The Jessie box is connected to the LinkStation by wired
>> ethernet, and the Windows 8.1 laptop by WiFi. I am getting a transfer
>> rate consistently across the life of the connection of 880KB/s. I'd
>> expect it to be a lot faster than that. I checked the WinSCP software
>> is capable of limiting the connection speed, but is set not to.

>> .
>> 
>> Thanks in advance
>> 
>> Mark

>  Delurking. Just a quick suggestion here. Do you have the proprietary non-free firmware installed for all your NICs? When they work without the firmware it is often a much slower connection, like b when the NIC is capable of n or a/c, but only when using the proprietary firmware. 

Cathy
> 

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

#181396

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 09:49:43AM -0400, Catherine Gramze wrote:
> 
> 
> > On May 20, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Saturday 20 May 2017 01:41:20 Mark Fletcher wrote:
> >> 
> >> Hello!
> >> 
> >> I have some doubts about the throughput of my home network and I'm
> >> hoping for some advice on tools that might help me diagnose it.
> >> 
> >> My home network consists of 2 Debian machines, one Jessie and one
> >> Stretch, an LFS mini-ITX machine acting as my firewall, another LFS
> >> laptop that is connected only occasionally, a Windows 8.1 laptop, 3
> >> iPhones of varying ages, 2 iPads, 1 Android tablet device, a couple of
> >> other proprietary tablets and a Buffalo Linkstation that provides most
> >> of the connectivity.
> >> 
> >> The internet access is via Cable. I run an ethernet cable from the
> >> cable modem to the firewall machine, then from the firewall machine to
> >> the Linkstation's WAN port. The firewall machine's WiFi interface is
> >> disabled (I didn't include its driver when I built the kernel for that
> >> machine). The Jessie box, a phone-to-ethernet device and a NAS are
> >> plugged into the Linkstation wired LAN ports. Everything else connects
> >> to the Linkstation WiFi. The LinkStation offers 2.4GHz and 5GHz
> >> connections, the 2.4GHz is b/g and the 5GHz is ac I believe. Those
> >> devices that can use the 5GHz connection, are, the rest are using the
> >> 2.4GHz.
> >> 
> >> I have my doubts about cross-LAN throughput. For example, as I write I
> >> am using WinSCP on the Windows 8.1 laptop to copy a movie file from my
> >> Jessie box to the laptop. (The movie concerned is not copyright before
> >> anyone asks). The Jessie box is connected to the LinkStation by wired
> >> ethernet, and the Windows 8.1 laptop by WiFi. I am getting a transfer
> >> rate consistently across the life of the connection of 880KB/s. I'd
> >> expect it to be a lot faster than that. I checked the WinSCP software
> >> is capable of limiting the connection speed, but is set not to.
> 
> >> .
> >> 
> >> Thanks in advance
> >> 
> >> Mark
> 
> >  Delurking. Just a quick suggestion here. Do you have the proprietary non-free firmware installed for all your NICs? When they work without the firmware it is often a much slower connection, like b when the NIC is capable of n or a/c, but only when using the proprietary firmware. 
> 

Interesting. The Jessie box is using wired LAN via an onboard (ie part 
of the motherboard) ethernet controller (motherboard is an ASUS P6T 
iirc). I wouldn't expect it to need firmware, would I be wrong?

At the laptop end, it's running Windows 8.1 so gawd alone knows what can 
/ should be updated...

Mark

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

#181200

On Saturday, May 20, 2017 09:38:21 AM Gene Heskett wrote:
> You'll note no mention of wifi here as its turned off unless I have
> children visiting with their smart phones.  wifi is slower, and subject
> to being used by the neighbors as I found my net usage after the kids
> had been in was up about 80 Gb a month later. 

You know there are security measures available for WiFi, right?  I do two 
things, I use one of the more advanced encryption protocols (something like 
WPA-2 (and maybe some more initials at the end??), and, I have it setup so 
that it doesn't announce its presence--only if someone knows the name can they 
try to enter a password and login.

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

#181203

On Sunday 21 May 2017 12:58:05 rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, May 20, 2017 09:38:21 AM Gene Heskett wrote:
> > You'll note no mention of wifi here as its turned off unless I have
> > children visiting with their smart phones.  wifi is slower, and
> > subject to being used by the neighbors as I found my net usage after
> > the kids had been in was up about 80 Gb a month later.
>
> You know there are security measures available for WiFi, right?  I do
> two things, I use one of the more advanced encryption protocols
> (something like WPA-2 (and maybe some more initials at the end??),
> and, I have it setup so that it doesn't announce its presence--only if
> someone knows the name can they try to enter a password and login.

As of the last time, the SSID broadcast had been turned of, WPA-2+AES was 
the effective login protocol with a 23 character password .  That didn't 
appear to much of an impediment, so I just turned the radios off.

First, they came in thru the buffalo I'm looking at, then they came in 
thru the pi's radio when it came online, which was still set at the 
default jessie on a pi settings.  I've got cat5 enough to connect 
everything I want on-line up. I assume one can buy for a winders box, 
some sort of a utility that can survey the band, and hack into the 
strongest signal it can find in a time frame thats 0.0000000000001% of 
what the cryptographers claim. So I take the ultimate hammer to it by 
turning off my radios.  Making a wifi connection work like a wired 
connection is a major PITA.  I had my lappy rigged, about 6 feet from my 
lathe, and I'd have to login fresh about every 5 minutes. 9 feet from a 
dongle plugged into the lappy to a matching dongle plugged into the 
buildings hub?  Life, remaining life anyway since I'm working on my 83rd 
trip around this star, is too short for that BS.  Screw it, its 
extremely distracting when your train of thought is on writing gcode for 
the lathes next cnc operation.  Plug it in and be done with that BS.  So 
I do.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#181239

rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 20, 2017 09:38:21 AM Gene Heskett wrote:
>> You'll note no mention of wifi here as its turned off unless I have
>> children visiting with their smart phones.  wifi is slower, and subject
>> to being used by the neighbors as I found my net usage after the kids
>> had been in was up about 80 Gb a month later. 
>
> You know there are security measures available for WiFi, right?  I do two 
> things, I use one of the more advanced encryption protocols (something
> like WPA-2 (and maybe some more initials at the end??), and, I have it
> setup so that it doesn't announce its presence--only if someone knows
> the name can they try to enter a password and login.

Probably WPA2-PSK ("Pre Shared Key") -- just means "password auth".
TBH, not having the SSID transmitted is actually LESS secure (overall)
than just having it transmit, due to the fact that your client devices
(phone, laptop, etc) have to broadcast "hey, I'm looking for SSID,
any APs in range have that one?"

If the devices aren't leaving your house (e.g. your Nest thermostat, or
similar) it's a bit of "6 one way / half dozen the other", and won't
really matter.

-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

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

#181250

On Monday 22 May 2017 08:28:54 Dan Purgert wrote:

> rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 20, 2017 09:38:21 AM Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> You'll note no mention of wifi here as its turned off unless I have
> >> children visiting with their smart phones.  wifi is slower, and
> >> subject to being used by the neighbors as I found my net usage
> >> after the kids had been in was up about 80 Gb a month later.
> >
> > You know there are security measures available for WiFi, right?  I
> > do two things, I use one of the more advanced encryption protocols
> > (something like WPA-2 (and maybe some more initials at the end??),
> > and, I have it setup so that it doesn't announce its presence--only
> > if someone knows the name can they try to enter a password and
> > login.
>
> Probably WPA2-PSK ("Pre Shared Key") -- just means "password auth".
> TBH, not having the SSID transmitted is actually LESS secure (overall)
> than just having it transmit, due to the fact that your client devices
> (phone, laptop, etc) have to broadcast "hey, I'm looking for SSID,
> any APs in range have that one?"
>
> If the devices aren't leaving your house (e.g. your Nest thermostat,
> or similar) it's a bit of "6 one way / half dozen the other", and
> won't really matter.

Very carefully, old fart-itis probably at work, none of that stuff 
resides here. This IoT stuff is way too damned close to 1984, the book.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#181254

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:

>
> This IoT stuff is way too damned close to 1984, the book.
>
>
http://anonymous-news.com/11-year-old-shocks-cybersecurity-experts-anything-wi-fi-can-weaponized/

-- 
Kent West                    <")))><
Westing Peacefully - http://kentwest.blogspot.com

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

#181281

On Monday, May 22, 2017 08:28:54 AM Dan Purgert wrote:

> Probably WPA2-PSK ("Pre Shared Key") -- just means "password auth".
> TBH, not having the SSID transmitted is actually LESS secure (overall)
> than just having it transmit, due to the fact that your client devices
> (phone, laptop, etc) have to broadcast "hey, I'm looking for SSID,
> any APs in range have that one?"

Interesting--I didn't know that, and I need to think about chaning my setup.  
Thanks!

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

#181298

rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2017 08:28:54 AM Dan Purgert wrote:
>
>> Probably WPA2-PSK ("Pre Shared Key") -- just means "password auth".
>> TBH, not having the SSID transmitted is actually LESS secure (overall)
>> than just having it transmit, due to the fact that your client devices
>> (phone, laptop, etc) have to broadcast "hey, I'm looking for SSID,
>> any APs in range have that one?"
>
> Interesting--I didn't know that, and I need to think about chaning my
> setup. 
> Thanks!

NP, kinda took me by surprise when I first heard it ... but when you sit
back and think about it, it makes sense that the client device has to
ask if the SSID is present.

-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

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

#181336

On Tue 23 May 2017 at 22:32:52 -0000, Dan Purgert wrote:

> rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 22, 2017 08:28:54 AM Dan Purgert wrote:
> >
> >> Probably WPA2-PSK ("Pre Shared Key") -- just means "password auth".
> >> TBH, not having the SSID transmitted is actually LESS secure (overall)
> >> than just having it transmit, due to the fact that your client devices
> >> (phone, laptop, etc) have to broadcast "hey, I'm looking for SSID,
> >> any APs in range have that one?"
> >
> > Interesting--I didn't know that, and I need to think about chaning my
> > setup. 
> > Thanks!
> 
> NP, kinda took me by surprise when I first heard it ... but when you sit
> back and think about it, it makes sense that the client device has to
> ask if the SSID is present.

If security if a wireless network is the aim you will be using WPA2.
Nobody is getting through that in a timeframe which makes sense. Hiding
the SSID is very appealing to some people, so they advocate it. It does
nothing for security, one way or the other.

-- 
Brian.

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

#181394

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 09:38:21AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 20 May 2017 01:41:20 Mark Fletcher wrote:
> 
> Couple things here. I have no such problems. My routing is from the cable 
> modem, to a buffalo netfinty router running dd-wrt, so I need no 
> firewall. dd-wrt has very sharp teeth so I don't seem to need an 
> additional guard dog. The output of the buffalo hits an 8 port managed 
> switch, and everything else is plugged into that switch. There are 2 
> more switch/hubs plugged into that switch so that one cable to the 
> garage hitting an 8 port switch in the garage that feeds 3 machines 
> there, and another cable thats been blowing in the wind for about 15 
> years now, runs from the house to a 12x16 shop building in the upper 
> rear corner of the back yard, where always 2, and occasionally a 3rd 
> machine is plugged into a 4 port hub.  The 2 8 port switches and the hub 
> are gigahertz capable.  Even the machines in the shop building can 
> access the internet at megabyte+ a second speeds.  Amanda hits them all 
> at about 1:30 am, and even then, with that load on this machine slowing 
> it some, I don't notice a huge networking data slowdown.
> 
> You'll note no mention of wifi here as its turned off unless I have 
> children visiting with their smart phones.  wifi is slower, and subject 
> to being used by the neighbors as I found my net usage after the kids 
> had been in was up about 80 Gb a month later. I don't couple the wifi to 
> my net, only to the internet, but inspecting dd-wrt's list of dhcpd'd 
> net leases disclosed that a neighbor seemed to have discovered it and 
> was helping himself to my bandwidth. So I had to log back into the 
> buffalo and turn the radio off again. As the garage has vinyl siding, I 
> have to do the same thing on a raspberry pi 3b out there, which has an 
> excellent wifi, and I had to shut it off too. The raspian-jessie 
> defaults enable it, and a dhcpd server, so it was handing out addresses 
> and connections on wlan0, using bandwidth I could see.  Ooops.  And I 
> have to do it everytime I build a new sd card for it. dhcpcd killed 
> forever now, or until I change sd cards.
> 
> I configured for future expansion, whereas your setup sounds like its 
> machine to machine.  So get a router you can reflash, ditch the 
> firewall, and feed the routerr (after setting up NAT in the router to 
> put your local network on a local address in the 192.168.xx.zz block of 
> addresses) and if you must have dhcpcd for your wireless stuff, do it in 
> the router. Everything here is in /etc/hosts, resolv.conf says order 
> host,dns, and dns is pointed at the router, and forwards dns requests to 
> my ISP's dns servers.  And from this end, its all transparent, but the 
> black hats are SOL, blocked at the router. I've one  porthole cut in 
> that, to allow access to my web page in the sig.  Other than that, no 
> one has come thru that setup and gotten into one of my machines in close 
> to 15 years.
> 

It seems like you read my original problem as slowness accessing the 
internet. That isn't the problem, I'm concerned about intra-LAN speeds. 
Haven't even got the length of worrying about internet speeds yet, since 
there are so many variables that can impact that, I have to be sure my 
end is in tip-top shape before I start poking at that.

Mark

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

#181399

On Friday 26 May 2017 04:17:10 Mark Fletcher wrote:

> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 09:38:21AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Saturday 20 May 2017 01:41:20 Mark Fletcher wrote:
> >
> > Couple things here. I have no such problems. My routing is from the
> > cable modem, to a buffalo netfinty router running dd-wrt, so I need
> > no firewall. dd-wrt has very sharp teeth so I don't seem to need an
> > additional guard dog. The output of the buffalo hits an 8 port
> > managed switch, and everything else is plugged into that switch.
> > There are 2 more switch/hubs plugged into that switch so that one
> > cable to the garage hitting an 8 port switch in the garage that
> > feeds 3 machines there, and another cable thats been blowing in the
> > wind for about 15 years now, runs from the house to a 12x16 shop
> > building in the upper rear corner of the back yard, where always 2,
> > and occasionally a 3rd machine is plugged into a 4 port hub.  The 2
> > 8 port switches and the hub are gigahertz capable.  Even the
> > machines in the shop building can access the internet at megabyte+ a
> > second speeds.  Amanda hits them all at about 1:30 am, and even
> > then, with that load on this machine slowing it some, I don't notice
> > a huge networking data slowdown.
> >
> > You'll note no mention of wifi here as its turned off unless I have
> > children visiting with their smart phones.  wifi is slower, and
> > subject to being used by the neighbors as I found my net usage after
> > the kids had been in was up about 80 Gb a month later. I don't
> > couple the wifi to my net, only to the internet, but inspecting
> > dd-wrt's list of dhcpd'd net leases disclosed that a neighbor seemed
> > to have discovered it and was helping himself to my bandwidth. So I
> > had to log back into the buffalo and turn the radio off again. As
> > the garage has vinyl siding, I have to do the same thing on a
> > raspberry pi 3b out there, which has an excellent wifi, and I had to
> > shut it off too. The raspian-jessie defaults enable it, and a dhcpd
> > server, so it was handing out addresses and connections on wlan0,
> > using bandwidth I could see.  Ooops.  And I have to do it everytime
> > I build a new sd card for it. dhcpcd killed forever now, or until I
> > change sd cards.
> >
> > I configured for future expansion, whereas your setup sounds like
> > its machine to machine.  So get a router you can reflash, ditch the
> > firewall, and feed the routerr (after setting up NAT in the router
> > to put your local network on a local address in the 192.168.xx.zz
> > block of addresses) and if you must have dhcpcd for your wireless
> > stuff, do it in the router. Everything here is in /etc/hosts,
> > resolv.conf says order host,dns, and dns is pointed at the router,
> > and forwards dns requests to my ISP's dns servers.  And from this
> > end, its all transparent, but the black hats are SOL, blocked at the
> > router. I've one  porthole cut in that, to allow access to my web
> > page in the sig.  Other than that, no one has come thru that setup
> > and gotten into one of my machines in close to 15 years.
>
> It seems like you read my original problem as slowness accessing the
> internet. That isn't the problem, I'm concerned about intra-LAN
> speeds. Haven't even got the length of worrying about internet speeds
> yet, since there are so many variables that can impact that, I have to
> be sure my end is in tip-top shape before I start poking at that.
>
> Mark

I see.  That lashup I've described has not exhibited any such speed 
problems. I have a so-called 10 megabit cable pipe that I quite often 
see 1.2 megabyte download speeds on any of the 7 machines currently 
powered up. Intra-net speeds, from machine to machine rather handily 
exceed that, but I do not have any samba shares, nor any flavor of NFS, 
all intranet data movement is by sshfs mounts.  That has the added 
advantage of being encrypted on the cat5 interconnection.

Regardless of the local net speeds, security starts by posting a guard 
dog that never sleeps between you and the internet, in the form of a 
router with enough flash memory that it can be reflashed with dd-wrt, 
and have it setup to NAT the internet address to a local address, which 
gives you, in 254 address blocks, just short of 65535 addresses that are 
not forwarded out of your local network, ever.  That reduces your 
exposure to the script kiddies to about .000000000000001% of what it 
would be if connected directly to the  network. dd-wrt has no NSA back 
doors that we've found. The only one who has come thru it in the 1.5 
decades I've been using it, was a friend and co-worker whose help  I 
needed and I gave him the ssh logins to do that.  Yet to me, from here, 
its absolutely transparent.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#181508

On 2017-05-26, Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
> It seems like you read my original problem as slowness accessing the 
> internet. That isn't the problem, I'm concerned about intra-LAN speeds. 
> Haven't even got the length of worrying about internet speeds yet, since 
> there are so many variables that can impact that, I have to be sure my 
> end is in tip-top shape before I start poking at that.

Intra-LAN speeds; I thought you were speaking of transferring a movie file(?)
between two computers on your LAN, which couldn't proceed any faster than the
receiving end could write that file to disk? I mean, would that not be a
limiting factor, even with a quantum link?


> Mark
>
>


-- 
"It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdom on the
far side of the hedge; or it might be the glory of speed; no one knew." --Mrs.
Ramsay, speculating on why her little daughter might be dashing about, in "To
the Lighthouse," by Virginia Woolf.

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

#181637

Curt wrote:
> On 2017-05-26, Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>> It seems like you read my original problem as slowness accessing the 
>> internet. That isn't the problem, I'm concerned about intra-LAN speeds. 
>> Haven't even got the length of worrying about internet speeds yet, since 
>> there are so many variables that can impact that, I have to be sure my 
>> end is in tip-top shape before I start poking at that.
>
> Intra-LAN speeds; I thought you were speaking of transferring a movie
> file(?) between two computers on your LAN [...]

Think he goofed the word, but intranet ("LAN") speeds would affect
transferring a movie.

> [...] which couldn't proceed any faster than the receiving end could
> write that file to disk? I mean, would that not be a limiting factor,
> even with a quantum link?

I/O speeds of the drives are definitely a factor -- but pretty much
anything relatively decent (i.e. not those godawful 5400 RPM laptop
drives) can read fast enough to saturate a wifi link.  On the "writing"
side, it's buffered to RAM first, so that'll help (even with a godawful
slow 5400 RPM laptop drive).

SSD's shouldn't have much trouble (though, does kind of depend on the
SATA bus).



>
>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web