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

Groups > misc.phone.mobile.iphone > #75643 > unrolled thread

Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi?

Back to article view | Back to misc.phone.mobile.iphone

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-07-11 23:58 -0400
    Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-12 04:22 +0000
      Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-07-12 15:51 +0000
        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-07-12 09:09 -0700
          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-07-12 16:37 +0000
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-07-12 10:14 -0700
              Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 11:51 -0700
              Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-07-13 00:03 +0000
          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-07-12 11:52 -0700
          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-12 21:37 +0000
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-12 18:07 -0400
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-07-12 15:09 -0700
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-07-12 15:50 -0700
              Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 21:19 -0700
              Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2015-07-17 18:16 -0500
          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-07-13 02:02 +0000
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-07-13 01:30 -0400
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 14:57 +0000
              Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-07-13 08:16 -0700
                Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 15:51 +0000
                Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 15:55 +0000
                  Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-07-13 09:57 -0700
                    Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 19:46 +0000
                      Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-07-13 14:17 -0700
                        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2015-07-14 10:53 +0100
                        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2015-07-17 18:46 -0500
                          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-07-18 09:03 -0700
                      Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2015-07-17 18:48 -0500
              Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-07-13 16:17 +0000
                Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 19:46 +0000
                  Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-13 16:00 -0400
                    Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 20:32 +0000
                      Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-07-13 21:21 +0000
                      Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-13 17:28 -0400
                        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 23:06 +0000
                          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-13 19:28 -0400
                        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 23:09 +0000
                          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-13 19:28 -0400
                            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-14 00:45 +0000
                            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-14 02:48 +0000
                        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 23:12 +0000
                        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-14 00:05 +0000
                        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-14 00:14 +0000
                        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-14 00:28 +0000
                          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-07-13 19:16 -0700
                            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2015-07-17 18:42 -0500
                              Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-07-17 18:05 -0700
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-07-13 16:13 +0000
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-07-13 16:15 +0000
              Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 20:23 +0000
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2015-07-17 18:19 -0500
        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-07-12 12:46 -0400
          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-07-12 16:57 +0000
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-07-12 13:20 -0400
      Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-07-12 12:42 -0400

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

#75760

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
itk7qalp4n7akjsl45ckph1o5lcki56v56@4ax.com

> 3.  Gigabit ethernet ports.
> 4.  802.11ac (optional).
> 5.  QoS router settings for VoIP.

I hadn't realized that Ethernet got that fast in a home router.
My boy has probably never hooked his computer to a "wire", but, that's a 
nice thing to have speed in Ethernet when it's there.

Thanks for that hint!

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

#75779

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:55:50 +0000 (UTC), "D. F. Manno"
<dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
>itk7qalp4n7akjsl45ckph1o5lcki56v56@4ax.com
>
>> 3.  Gigabit ethernet ports.
>> 4.  802.11ac (optional).
>> 5.  QoS router settings for VoIP.
>
>I hadn't realized that Ethernet got that fast in a home router.
>My boy has probably never hooked his computer to a "wire", but, that's a 
>nice thing to have speed in Ethernet when it's there.

Think about it.  When the wireless is advertised as "up to 600
Mbits/sec), it would be a good idea to have the ethernet interface go
at a similar rate.  A 10/100baseT ethernet is only really good up to
about 70 Mbits/sec.  Once wireless speeds exceeded that, gigabit
ethernet became a necessity.  Whether you'll actually see such speeds
is dubious, but the big numbers do look good on the advertising
literature.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

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

#75788

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
aar7qadnl0t9o1h149buvrja7f614kqlat@4ax.com

> A 10/100baseT ethernet is only really good up to about 70 Mbits/sec. 
> Once wireless speeds exceeded that, gigabit ethernet became a necessity.

Yes, but, other than at work, I haven't seen a "wire" from a router to a 
laptop in years! :)

Of course, the Ooma is wired, as is the printer, but, not the laptops.

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

#75803

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:46:05 +0000 (UTC), "D. F. Manno"
<dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
>aar7qadnl0t9o1h149buvrja7f614kqlat@4ax.com
>> A 10/100baseT ethernet is only really good up to about 70 Mbits/sec. 
>> Once wireless speeds exceeded that, gigabit ethernet became a necessity.

>Yes, but, other than at work, I haven't seen a "wire" from a router to a 
>laptop in years! :)

Wireless is a great idea, until everyone else also does it.  I haven't
done the Netstumbler thing for about a year, but the last time I
checked, my 12 mile mostly residential commute shows about 200+
wireless routers/access points.  In about 2003, it was maybe 30.  
The surest sign of success is pollution.

>Of course, the Ooma is wired, as is the printer, but, not the laptops.

In offices full of desktops and security consultants, wired ethernet
is a requirement.  It's also far more reliable than wireless.  At home
it is mostly wireless.  I can see using wireless for laptops,
Chromebooks, tablets, and smartphones.  Maybe printers.  However, I
get rather irritated at customers complaining that the wi-fi bands are
crowded, when they have their Roku or Apple TV box sitting 1 meter
away from their router, but are using wi-fi for the streaming video.
Same with customers that buy high power wireless routers, so they can
burn their way through several walls and floors, when a 2nd access
point at the other side of the house will do a much better job.  Lots
of other ways to do it wrong.

Then there's backing up the laptop over the network.  I use Acronis
True Image 2014/2015 over the LAN to an NAS box.  
<http://www.acronis.com>
It does a block by block image backup and therefore gets literally
everything.  It's also quite fast, but requires gigabit ethernet to
get any kind of real speed over the network.  (USB 3.0 for local
connections is also quite fast).  On a commodity dual core PC, I get
at least 2 Gbytes/minute.  However, there's always someone who wants
to run their backups over the wi-fi, which takes somewhat less than
forever, and sometimes brings everyone else's speed to a crawl.  When
both wi-fi and ethernet are connected, Windoze and OS/X are suppose to
use the "cheapest" route, which usually means the fastest.  That
actually works about 9 out of 10 times, but to be sure, I ask users to
turn off their wi-fi client radio before running a backup.

Oh yeah, add some intrusion detection to keep the neighbors and nosey
hackers like me out of your network:
<http://home.comcast.net/~jay.deboer/airsnare/>

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

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

#75855

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:17:52 +0100, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>  
wrote:

[]
> Oh yeah, add some intrusion detection to keep the neighbors and nosey
> hackers like me out of your network:
> <http://home.comcast.net/~jay.deboer/airsnare/>
>
Not if you have to get it from Download.com with its download wrapper prog.

-- 
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

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

#75929

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:17:52 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>Oh yeah, add some intrusion detection to keep the neighbors and nosey
>hackers like me out of your network:
><http://home.comcast.net/~jay.deboer/airsnare/>

Comcast is apparently doing away with personal web pages, so I assume that
link will die at some point in the not too distant future.

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

#75934

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 18:46:01 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:17:52 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Oh yeah, add some intrusion detection to keep the neighbors and nosey
>>hackers like me out of your network:
>><http://home.comcast.net/~jay.deboer/airsnare/>
>
>Comcast is apparently doing away with personal web pages, so I assume that
>link will die at some point in the not too distant future.

Then, use the wayback machine.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20150511155230/http://home.comcast.net/~jay.deboer/airsnare/>
It's also on download.com but be careful of the evil wrapper:
<http://download.cnet.com/AirSnare/3000-2092_4-10255195.html>

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

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

#75930

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:46:05 +0000 (UTC), "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com>
wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
>aar7qadnl0t9o1h149buvrja7f614kqlat@4ax.com
>
>> A 10/100baseT ethernet is only really good up to about 70 Mbits/sec. 
>> Once wireless speeds exceeded that, gigabit ethernet became a necessity.
>
>Yes, but, other than at work, I haven't seen a "wire" from a router to a 
>laptop in years! :)

All of my laptops are technically 'desktop replacements' and have always
been wired. If I want wireless, I pick up a tablet. IMHO, wireless is too
slow and unpredictable for everyday use.

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

#75766

On 2015-07-13, D. F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
> r2c6qahfdnknq0hjcc2skqad89348d4far@4ax.com
>
>> Make sure that it's a dual band router.  If y'er son is living in
>> student housing, the 2.4GHz band is very crowded and prone to
>> interference problems.  5GHz is much wider and less crowded.
>
> Yes, the router will be dual band, and as much power as I can get but 
> they don't usually even show the power. It will be n band also.
>
> Is there anything else of import (I'm not worried about 'easy setup').
>
> 1. Dual band (5Ghz & 2.4Ghz, with guest)
> 2. At least "n".
>
> Anything else nowadays (I haven't bought a router since 'n' came out).

Are you worried about router security updates? If so, Apple's routers
typically get updated automatically and far more frequently (and for a
longer time in their life span as well) than most third-party
Linux-based routers.

-- 
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]

#75789

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote in message
d0i6kqFmajjU5@mid.individual.net

> Are you worried about router security updates? If so, Apple's routers
> typically get updated automatically and far more frequently (and for a
> longer time in their life span as well) than most third-party
> Linux-based routers.

While I have updated the firmware on my routers over the years, it's not 
something I consciously think about day to day. I doubt the kids are 
doing anything so worrisome that they need to be extra cautious, so, no, 
to answer your question, I'm not much worried about the router updates.

Apple works a lot off of FUD, by making their customers *feel* secure, 
which is a great thing, and it's a service to their customers, but, in 
the end, nothing is even close to secure from a state-sponsored adversary.

Plus, I'm wary of backdoors purposefully left open by the manufacturers 
of all routers.

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

#75791

In article <mo14j8$tob$2@news.albasani.net>, D. F. Manno
<dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> > Are you worried about router security updates? If so, Apple's routers
> > typically get updated automatically and far more frequently (and for a
> > longer time in their life span as well) than most third-party
> > Linux-based routers.
> 
> While I have updated the firmware on my routers over the years, it's not 
> something I consciously think about day to day. I doubt the kids are 
> doing anything so worrisome that they need to be extra cautious, so, no, 
> to answer your question, I'm not much worried about the router updates.

anything accessible from the outside is vulnerable.

note that apple isn't listed:
<http://www.routerpwn.com>

> Apple works a lot off of FUD, by making their customers *feel* secure, 
> which is a great thing, and it's a service to their customers, but, in 
> the end, nothing is even close to secure from a state-sponsored adversary.

apple does not work off fud.

while nothing is impossible, it's a *lot* harder to compromise an apple
router than a generic off the shelf router, particularly when the user
doesn't update anything, which they don't normally do because they more
than likely have no idea there even is an update for their router. 

many people don't know what the admin password for their router is
because it was set up by the cable/dsl installer, which means they
can't update anything even if they wanted to.

> Plus, I'm wary of backdoors purposefully left open by the manufacturers 
> of all routers.

then you ought to not buy a generic router.

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

#75798

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
130720151600485726nospamospam@nospam.invalid

> apple does not work off fud.

I don't know how an apple router is any more or less secure than any 
other router. 

True, I don't know anything about how they "make" routers.

I just set them up at home so my experience is limited to about four 
routers in my entire life, but the setup nowadays is pretty simple.

Change admin password and login name (if possible)
WPA2/PSK on all 4 frequencies (guest + main 2.4GHz & 5GHz)
Broadcast SSID (it's actually counterproductive not to)
SSID doesn't name me or my family or pets or address, etc.
SSID isn't on a typical million-SSID-long butterfly hash lookup
I generally leave it at the firewall defaults (don't know better)
Static IP address (I have no choice)
Web login I change the port from 80 to something else (or disable)
SSH login I change the port from 443 (IIRC) to something else
Disable remote login
Allow factory reset switch to work (I have used it a few times)

That's all I can remember from memory.

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

#75805

On 2015-07-13, D. F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> 130720151600485726nospamospam@nospam.invalid
>
>> apple does not work off fud.
>
> I don't know how an apple router is any more or less secure than any 
> other router. 
>
> True, I don't know anything about how they "make" routers.
>
> I just set them up at home so my experience is limited to about four 
> routers in my entire life, but the setup nowadays is pretty simple.

Remain ignorant, my friend!! 

-- 
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]

#75807

In article <mo178i$svs$3@news.albasani.net>, D. F. Manno
<dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> > apple does not work off fud.
> 
> I don't know how an apple router is any more or less secure than any 
> other router. 

because apple writes their own firmware which requires apple's own
configuration app (available on multiple platforms) rather than use
generic firmware that is branded with a logo and uses a web browser to
configure.

if you look at different brands of consumer routers, you'll notice that
the firmware is often rather similar. 

that raises the bar by a *lot*.

> True, I don't know anything about how they "make" routers.
> 
> I just set them up at home so my experience is limited to about four 
> routers in my entire life, but the setup nowadays is pretty simple.

that depends on the router.

apparently you've never had the thrill of a verizon fios actiontec
router. configuring that is amazingly convoluted, and for no good
reason (verizon intentionally making it hard is not a 'good reason').

> Change admin password and login name (if possible)
> WPA2/PSK on all 4 frequencies (guest + main 2.4GHz & 5GHz)

both a good idea, although it's rare that each frequency has its own
password.

> Broadcast SSID (it's actually counterproductive not to)

nope. 

it won't stop a dedicated hacker who is intent on gaining access (and
if that's the case you have bigger problems), however, it will stop
random users who are looking for free wifi. they probably won't even
know there's a hidden network there.

since there's no downside to hiding it, you might as well do it.

> SSID doesn't name me or my family or pets or address, etc.
> SSID isn't on a typical million-SSID-long butterfly hash lookup

it's wise not to put identifying information in the ssid, but why would
being on a list matter?

> I generally leave it at the firewall defaults (don't know better)

sometimes that's ok and sometimes not.

i disable ping replies, which is usually enabled. offhand, i don't know
what else i change. 

> Static IP address (I have no choice)

that doesn't matter. even if you had dhcp, it doesn't change that often
anymore, even across a power outage (unless it's fairly widespread and
for a while). 

> Web login I change the port from 80 to something else (or disable)
> SSH login I change the port from 443 (IIRC) to something else
> Disable remote login

always disable remote login, but why do you need ssh access?

> Allow factory reset switch to work (I have used it a few times)

i've never seen a setting to enable or disable a hardware reset.

> That's all I can remember from memory.

ok

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

#75813

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
130720151728110307nospamospam@nospam.invalid

>> Broadcast SSID (it's actually counterproductive not to)
> since there's no downside to hiding it, you might as well do it.

Ah, but there *is* a (rather real) downside, at least on Windows laptops.
I do NOT know if that downside applies to iOS, Android, or Mac though.

On Windows laptops, if you've had to *tell* the OS what the name of 
the SSID is (which you have to do if it's not broadcasting), then 
Windows will *always* first search for that SSID forever 
(unless you reset it) at every connection.
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/28653/debunking-myths-is-hiding-your-wireless-ssid-really-more-secure/?PageSpeed=noscript

SITUATION 1:
So, for example, if your home router SSID is "John Doe", then 
*everywhere* you go, will *first* see your laptop scan for 
"John Doe", and only when that fails, will it try to connect 
to "Starbucks" or to "McDonalds" or "Library".

SITUATION 2:
Of course, you wouldn't put *identifying* information in your 
home SSID, so, more than likely you'll use something like NETGEAR 
as your home router name, but, if you do *that*, and use any of a 
*million* common router SSIDs, you're in the butterfly tables 
already hashed!

SITUATION 3:
Given what is said above, your only real choice is a *unique* but 
non-identifying SSID, right? Nope. If you give it a unique SSID, 
such as "spam123nospam", then *everywhere* you go can target you 
(because they always *see* what you connect to at home first.

Of course, this is only if the tin-foil hat is on tightly, but, 
you should at the very least be *aware* of this issue.

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

#75816

In article <mo1g94$nqf$1@news.albasani.net>, D. F. Manno
<dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> >> Broadcast SSID (it's actually counterproductive not to)
> > since there's no downside to hiding it, you might as well do it.
> 
> Ah, but there *is* a (rather real) downside, at least on Windows laptops.
> I do NOT know if that downside applies to iOS, Android, or Mac though.

that's an issue with windows, not with hiding an ssid.

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

#75814

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
130720151728110307nospamospam@nospam.invalid

>  however, it will stop
> random users who are looking for free wifi. they probably won't even
> know there's a hidden network there.

I understand that, if hidden, a nonchalant passwerby won't casually "see" 
your SSID, but, are you really worried about such a passive non-chalant 
user, especially if you're using WPA2-PSK encryption?

Since there decidedly *is* a security downside (at least for Windows 
PCs), I pretty much wouldn't recommend hiding it, unless you don't 
encrypt it, but who would do go to the trouble of hiding it but then not 
encrypting it?

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

#75817

In article <mo1gen$nqf$2@news.albasani.net>, D. F. Manno
<dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> >  however, it will stop
> > random users who are looking for free wifi. they probably won't even
> > know there's a hidden network there.
> 
> I understand that, if hidden, a nonchalant passwerby won't casually "see" 
> your SSID, but, are you really worried about such a passive non-chalant 
> user, especially if you're using WPA2-PSK encryption?

it's another layer to get past. 

while it might not be a big obstacle, it's yet another step someone
needs to do, which makes the other networks an easier target.

on the other hand, if someone is specifically targeting your network in
particular, then you have far bigger problems than using wpa or ssid
hiding.

> Since there decidedly *is* a security downside (at least for Windows 
> PCs), I pretty much wouldn't recommend hiding it, unless you don't 
> encrypt it, but who would do go to the trouble of hiding it but then not 
> encrypting it?

again, that's an issue with windows, not with hiding an ssid.

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

#75832

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
130720151928454313nospamospam@nospam.invalid

> again, that's an issue with windows, not with hiding an ssid.

It *might* be an issue with the other operating systems (I don't know). 

I guess I should ask if anyone here, on the iOS or Android newsgroups
knows if this known-Windows problem also affects us?

http://lifehacker.com/5636856/is-hiding-your-wireless-ssid-really-more-secure

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

#75843

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
130720151928454313nospamospam@nospam.invalid

>> Since there decidedly *is* a security downside (at least for Windows 
>> PCs), I pretty much wouldn't recommend hiding it, unless you don't 
>> encrypt it, but who would do go to the trouble of hiding it but then not 
>> encrypting it?
> 
> again, that's an issue with windows, not with hiding an ssid.

Apparently the problem is with iOS, Mac, and Linux also, according to 
this answer I received today on the linux newsgroup:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:49:01 -0400, D. F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> Does Linux suffer from the SSID unmasking at public hotspots?
> http://lifehacker.com/5636856/is-hiding-your-wireless-ssid-really-more-secure

> My question is only whether Linux similarly unmasks your home
> broadband router's SSID under similar circumstances?

Yes. It's part of the wifi protocol, so it doesn't matter what os is
being used. Don't ever use a hidden ssid.

Regards, 
Dave Hodgins

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

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

Back to top | Article view | misc.phone.mobile.iphone

csiph-web