Kefka Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Anyone use 'em ??? Whats the better buy? NETGEAR, Linksys, Compaq... any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. L8r.<br /><br />Just ask this guy ----> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 The linksys is nice because its very easy to add an external antenna for crazy range. There's also a software hack that lets the radio boost its transmitting power, which also increases range. Did I mention that its easy to increase the range? <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kefka Posted January 22, 2002 Author Share Posted January 22, 2002 hmmm,intresting. just how far can you increase the range? hehe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 I don't know how geeky you want me to get, but it depends if you are using an omnidirectional antenna,or a directional one.<br /><br />Before I tell you this, let me say that I promise I'm not making it up.<br /><br />You can take a pringles can, and $2 worth of parts (washers, wire, etc), and make a highly directional 802.11b antenna out of it. Some people running tests across a valley (which means there was a clear line of sight) with a Pringles can on each end attached to a wireless card, successfully bridged a ten-mile gap. Line of sight is incredibly important. In any even, you can very easily triple or quadruple your typical range with a decent omnidirectional antenna. This is nice, because walls and pipes absolutely kill your signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 They say you learn something new every day. That has never been more true than today.<br /><br />Gotta run, my potato-chip can is ringing. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 We were using the Oronoco for a time, but as we discovered, there is a universal wireless hack that allows anyone who has moderate computer abilities to access your network. I'd avoid wireless for about six months. My understanding is the first 100 MB wireless system is nearly ready for deployment. If you get a standard 11 MB system today, you'll be awfully sorry seeing the big boy later this year, if all goes off without a hitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kefka Posted January 22, 2002 Author Share Posted January 22, 2002 thanx everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Kefka, <br /><br />Also look at the company who purchased the rights to Ricochet (Metricom). Depending on what city you live in, the network and antenna might already be available. <br /><br />Additionally, I had the pleasure of witnessing a test of a Cisco wireless access network. Two buildings, a couple of small antennae, and the system worked flawlessley with Cisco components. The wave of the future for companies needing a "bridge" to exchange data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 No one has bought those assets yet, and it's a damn shame. Metricom could have been a contender. When you can provide 128 wireless up to 70 miles per hour, you're on to something. But, they marketed themselves stupidly and to this day I defy you to find a person not in the industry that really understood their commercials or who knew how to buy the product.<br /><br />I'm in a city where they have coverage and I saw the unit as a friend has it. It is quality gear if someone steps up to purchase it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 side note....."war driving" is more common than one might imagine. wireless security protocols are generally pretty weak (WEP is a laugh, for instance) - if this is a concern for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We were using the Oronoco for a time, but as we discovered, there is a universal wireless hack that allows anyone who has moderate computer abilities to access your network. I'd avoid wireless for about six months. My understanding is the first 100 MB wireless system is nearly ready for deployment. If you get a standard 11 MB system today, you'll be awfully sorry seeing the big boy later this year, if all goes off without a hitch.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">While Art is factually correct (cept its not quite 100mbs unless you are talking about something other than what I am talking about), I don't really know that this is good advice. I'd assume that you have a cable modem connection that you want to distribute around the house. Those connections generally top out around 1 megabit/second, which hardly taps out an 802.11b card. Also, 802.11b hardware is cheap, and will probably be WAY cheaper than whatever comes out at the end of the year. <br /><br /> Besides the fact that 802.11b has very good market penetration. For example, my apartment (just moved up to NYC) has a cable modem connection that we share over wireless (I have an airport card in my ibook). My college campus (yeah, I went back to school), has an 802.11b network all over the place, and I can immediately hop onto that network, so I never have to worry about not being connected. It's quite nice.<br /><br />As far as security, forget about it. Unless you are doing crucially important stuff, I honestly say, who gives a damn? And it is certainly possible to conduct secure network connections conducted over a wireless access point, as long as you use secure protocols, like ssh, or set up a VPN.<br /><br />As far as the ricochet stuff, its very cool tech, and runs at a frequency that better penetrates things like foliage (always important around d.c.), but the data rate isnt that high. What many people may not know is that if you can get ahold of 2 richochet modems, you can have them talk to each other, and ignore the entire network. It will wind up being a hardier, but slower (128k) version of what you would get with 802.11b. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 TCO......good advice....with one small addition i feel compelled to throw in vis your attitude toward security: it is a big deal cuz I (meaning Joe Hacker, not me personally!) can use your system to attack other systems. don't believe for a moment that there aren't a lot of people who are very nervous (especially in the current terroriest environment) about the mathematics of cable bandwidth, unprotected/unsophisticated consumers, and denial-of-service scenarios as a threat to critical infrastructure. we dodged a very big bullet with code red/nimda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 802.11 is the standard at present and it is maxed at 11 mbs. What I was talking about was a 100 MB wireless networking system for the home that IS going to be available this year. Hell, we're testing it, though, there are bugs yet. It essentially is wireless CAT 5 for the house.<br /><br />And I'm with 62 here. Security is crucial. If the guy who lives next door to you can hack into your wireless network and steal your passwords or use your machines for spoofed attacks, you do not probably want to deploy a pretty wide open wireless system until those kinks are worked out better. My understanding of the hacking skill needed to accomplish this intrusion is that very limited hackers can do it, but, that could be incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 art....it doesn't take a lot of skill to hack wireless. and the internet is chock full of advice on how to do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 You guys are all correct, and of course, you know my feelings on this one, it doesnt really bother me <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> . There's a program called netstumbler that lets you drive around with a laptop, a wireless card, and a GPS device, and it maps out wireless access points it finds so you can take them out. It is very, very easy to hack default 802.11b installations. If you talk to a geeky sys admin, he'd tell you that a hard cable isn't secure either, and that all of your transactions need to be encrypted at the protocol level.<br /><br />One other thing you can do is to use directional antennas, and/or adjust your signal strength so that the propagation just barely extends to the parts of the house you want. For example, a directional antenna pointing straight down through the floor so you can use it in the room below will be far more difficult to pick up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Oh yah, btw, there are different versions of 802.11, and they are differentiated by letter. 802.11b is the current one used, which goes up to 11mb. People are working on versions that have throughput both 22 and 54 megabits, one of them is referred to as 802.11g, and I forget what the other one is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 TCO, one of the protocols is 802.11a. It is at 54.8 mbs, but, has a patented doubling techology that gets you to 110 mbs. It's actually being sold. It's just got some kinks still. It's more secure and operates on a 5.4 mhz bandwidth I think, so it has limited range and it won't interfere with outer wireless devices.<br /><br />I'll try to remember the company name and let you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 And, for the record, I think this product, or at least a version of it, is compatible with 802.11b and 802.11.g, as well as HyperLan/2 and Bluetooth protocols. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 Not to take this thread off topic, but that Marty Schottenheimer picture must be getting on your nerves by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 The Marty picture has become one with me <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> . We've got to find a good Spurrier one. Perhaps from Marty's yelling to Spurrier's exasperation would be good <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 25, 2002 Share Posted January 25, 2002 TCO...thanks for the update on where the technology is headed. as an addendum to my previous - i wouldn't be passing credit card numbers and the like over wireless either. i have seen some public key systems used with pdas using infrared technologies that have had reasonable performance. not 802.11, but extendable. there is, on the other hand, the whole mess of administering such a system. in the event, the press toward ubiquitous computing continues!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted January 25, 2002 Share Posted January 25, 2002 Ok, my last post because this is a football forum. Things like credit card transactions are protected anyway, as they use SSL. Whenever you see that little padlock at the bottom of your browser, and/or https instead of http in your url, you are using ssl, which encrypts the data before it sends and receives it. It's a perfect example of protocol level encryption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 25, 2002 Share Posted January 25, 2002 TCO......it's my job to work these issues. without falling for the bait, i'll just say that ssl is one option, that it is part of a system, and that there are all kinds of avenues for hacking a system. anywho, you're absolutely correct....ever onward Skins!<br /><br />fyi....https can use tls or ssl. and web-based ssl connections can be/have been manipulated with man-in-the-middle staretgies. but, way too much geek stuff.<br /> <br /> [ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: fansince62 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.