Help! Linksys 4 port wireless G
Don Harvey
WEP Key. I had not set WEP (probably should) on this home computer so at a
loss why it is asking.
How do I clear/reset - unplugging router didn't help.
Thanks for any info.
RAH
wrote:
WEP is probably set in your router. Turn if off it you don't want it,
but not recommended.
Duane Arnold
for the machine to connect to the router. If you don't want the WEP key,
then do a hard reset of the router hold the *Reset* button for 30
seconds. That will set the router back to its default out of the box
state and there will be no WEP-key in the router. It's a blank field on
the router at that point. You can blank out the WEP-key on the wireless
card setup too. You should be able to connect.
The install of the card has nothing to do with the router. The install
has no way of knowing if you're using a WEP-key or not, so if you're not
using a WEP-key, then you don't give it one when it ask.
Duane :)
Don Harvey
I set a WEP key and everything working great. In doing this it found 2
other wireless connections (also open) and I thought no need since I live in
the suburbs. So I think it is a wise thought to set security no matter
where you live.
Thanks for the help.
"Don Harvey" <moa...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:LPc1g.69814$Jd.5...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Jeff Liebermann
Others have answered the key question of how to enable/disable WEP
(i.e in the router setup). However, if you're absolutely sure you did
NOT enable WEP in your router, then there's a very good chance you're
connecting to someone elses wireless router. (Especially if you
didn't bother to change the SSID from the default "linksys").
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
John Navas
In <ea5b421su6tm3753t...@4ax.com> on Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:42:59
-0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>... (Especially if you
>didn't bother to change the SSID from the default "linksys").
Shame on wireless vendors for not making sure that all wireless routers and
access points have unique SSIDs!
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>
Don Harvey
son's computer) is that the upload/download slowed down to a crawl when he
was working on his web site. He might have inadvertently been logged on to
one of these open routers or one of those might have logged on here.
I have a lot to learn about wireless. Three computers here but his is the
only one that uses wireless, the other 2 are hard wired. From reading the
newsgroup wondering if WEP will be strong enough for this location.
"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:ea5b421su6tm3753t...@4ax.com...
Jeff Liebermann
>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <ea5b421su6tm3753t...@4ax.com> on Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:42:59
>-0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>... (Especially if you
>>didn't bother to change the SSID from the default "linksys").
>Shame on wireless vendors for not making sure that all wireless routers and
>access points have unique SSIDs!
To the best of my knowledge, only 2wire wireless routers have unique
SSID's and are shipped secure by default. Every time I try to make
case for shipping secure by default, I get told that "it's too
difficult".
Jeff Liebermann
>I have a lot to learn about wireless. Three computers here but his is the
>only one that uses wireless, the other 2 are hard wired. From reading the
>newsgroup wondering if WEP will be strong enough for this location.
Cracking WEP is currently trivial with commonly available tools.
Search Google for "wep crack":
http://www.google.com/search?q=wep+crack
and you'll find some of these tools. WEP is much better than nothing,
especially to prevent accidental connections from other wireless
users, but for security, WEP is a lost cause. WPA is the right
answer.
John Navas
In <f0qd4292qqsrc6k86...@4ax.com> on Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:48:26
-0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>
>>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>>In <ea5b421su6tm3753t...@4ax.com> on Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:42:59
>>-0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>>>... (Especially if you
>>>didn't bother to change the SSID from the default "linksys").
>
>>Shame on wireless vendors for not making sure that all wireless routers and
>>access points have unique SSIDs!
>
>To the best of my knowledge, only 2wire wireless routers have unique
>SSID's and are shipped secure by default. Every time I try to make
>case for shipping secure by default, I get told that "it's too
>difficult".
Which is, of course, utter nonsense.
David Taylor
> case for shipping secure by default, I get told that "it's too
> difficult".
This is in no way a go at you Jeff but out of curiosity, if you buy a
car, do you get asked for proof that you are entitled to drive?
Certainly there are things that could be done but I guess the
manufacturers just consider it an end user training issue (or read the
instructions issue), just like when you buy a car, hand over the money
and there's your car, it's your problem if you don't know how or are
legally denied permission to drive.
David.
Mark McIntyre
Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>
>>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>>In <ea5b421su6tm3753t...@4ax.com> on Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:42:59
>>-0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>>>... (Especially if you
>>>didn't bother to change the SSID from the default "linksys").
>
>>Shame on wireless vendors for not making sure that all wireless routers and
>>access points have unique SSIDs!
>
>To the best of my knowledge, only 2wire wireless routers have unique
>SSID's and are shipped secure by default. Every time I try to make
>case for shipping secure by default, I get told that "it's too
>difficult".
The only way I could see it being consumer proof would be if mfrs
insisted you bought only their kit throughout (as per IBM's old
rules). Otherwise you'd be into the usual mess of ascii vs hex, wep vs
wpa vs wpa2 etc etc and there'd be way too many returns. 2wire don't
sell to consumers in Europe that I know of, perhaps there's a reason.
Mark McIntyre
--
John Navas
In <dr4f42hbffnrc1f02...@4ax.com> on Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:00:46
+0100, Mark McIntyre <markmc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:48:26 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , Jeff
>Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>>
>>>In <ea5b421su6tm3753t...@4ax.com> on Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:42:59
>>>-0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>... (Especially if you
>>>>didn't bother to change the SSID from the default "linksys").
>>
>>>Shame on wireless vendors for not making sure that all wireless routers and
>>>access points have unique SSIDs!
>>
>>To the best of my knowledge, only 2wire wireless routers have unique
>>SSID's and are shipped secure by default. Every time I try to make
>>case for shipping secure by default, I get told that "it's too
>>difficult".
>
>The only way I could see it being consumer proof would be if mfrs
>insisted you bought only their kit throughout (as per IBM's old
>rules). Otherwise you'd be into the usual mess of ascii vs hex, wep vs
>wpa vs wpa2 etc etc and there'd be way too many returns.
We're just talking unique SSIDs here, which is dead easy to implement. For
example, the router could simply use its MAC address as (at least part of) the
SSID.
Regardless, even unique security isn't all that hard to implement. For
example, the router vendor could generate and pre-configure a unique good
pseudo-random word-based pass phrase, print it out on a label, and stick the
label to the bottom of the router. It could also provide an optional utility
to configure WZC with that pass phrase.
>2wire don't
>sell to consumers in Europe that I know of, perhaps there's a reason.
There undoubtedly is, but nothing that's relevant to this discussion.
Jeff Liebermann
>> SSID's and are shipped secure by default. Every time I try to make
>> case for shipping secure by default, I get told that "it's too
>> difficult".
>
>This is in no way a go at you Jeff but out of curiosity, if you buy a
>car, do you get asked for proof that you are entitled to drive?
It's a fair question but I don't think it covers the situation. In
the People's Republic of California, there is no need for the dealer
to require that the owner know how to drive or even if they have a
drivers license. That's handled by the registration process run by
the Dept of Motor Vehicles which both demands a valid drivers license
and substantial fees. The DMV also demands proof of residency, smog
certificates, insurance, and some mechanical inspections. It's quite
an ordeal process. By coincidence, I did blunder into one situation
where the vehicle owner need not have a drivers license. Many senior
citizens are no longer able to drive effectively and hire a driver to
do the driving. However, they still retain ownership of the vehicle.
The problem with "secure by default" is that the buyer has a perceived
assumption that all the acronyms and security features listed on the
gaudy packaging are functional and operational on installation. A bad
analogy would be if you purchased a vehicle with a sophisticated air
bag system, and later discovered that it has to "personalized" in
order to function correctly. (This was actually the case on one early
driver side air bag system which required knowing the weight of the
driver).
In the US, it is legal actionable to sue on the basis of "fitness of
function" and "perceived utility". If I purchase a product that an
average person or jury perceives as having a specific function, one
can be sued for failure to provide that utility or function. If you
look at the packaging of many wireless routers, I would tend to think
I'm purchasing a security appliance or device to protect me from evil
hackers. "Buy me and you'll be safe" is the common mantra. To the
best of my knowledge, wireless routers are the only such safety
devices that arrive will almost all the safety features disabled by
default.
Even competent ISP's often don't have a clue. One local DSL ISP is
selling and recommending DLink DI-624 wireless routers. They use DHCP
to assign IP's. It's possible to punch the reset button and be
instantly online without any subsequent configuration. If there's a
possible router issue, punching reset is what support has the customer
do, because it's soooooo easy. However, that also resets the wireless
section to defaults, leaving the customer with a wide open wireless
access point and zero security. I've been snarling at their support
people for about 2 years trying to get them to cease and desist this
habit. For the most part, it has been successful, but last week, it
happened again.
I've covered my problems and adventures with trying to convince
manufacturers to ship secure by default some time in the past. Just
search for the phrase "secure by default".
>Certainly there are things that could be done but I guess the
>manufacturers just consider it an end user training issue (or read the
>instructions issue), just like when you buy a car, hand over the money
>and there's your car, it's your problem if you don't know how or are
>legally denied permission to drive.
Again, methinks that driving is a bad example. Also, the
manufacturers are well within their rights to claim that security is
the responsibility of the customer, not the manufacturer. Usually
security is not an issue until something goes awry. Then the customer
goes on a rampage demanding that the manufacturer, system provider
(i.e. Dell), their ISP, or their computer guru, assume responsibility.
I've heard the line "I thought this product was safe" which
underscores the problem. If the responsibility was clearly and
obvious defined, I would not have a problem.
However, it's not and I don't expect it to ever be, even in legalese.
My answer is simple. When you punch the reset button, the router
should be functionally useless and greet every port 80 request with a
sign on page to setup a password. Sonicwall and Cayman/Netopia
already do this. Next, the wireless will be turned off by default
until a unique SSID is setup and a WEP/WPA key is set. This can also
be done on the initial sign-on page. If a user wants to setup an open
access point, they get to click "OK" to page or repudiation of
responsibility legalese. That's literally a trivial firmware change.
I won't go into the amazing responses I've gotten from manufacturers.
Anyway, if you follow my pitch line, just use the mantra "secure by
default" when talking to the manufacturers or their support
department. They're not stupid and eventually will get the clue.
Jeff Liebermann
>The only way I could see it being consumer proof would be if mfrs
>insisted you bought only their kit throughout (as per IBM's old
>rules). Otherwise you'd be into the usual mess of ascii vs hex, wep vs
>wpa vs wpa2 etc etc and there'd be way too many returns. 2wire don't
>sell to consumers in Europe that I know of, perhaps there's a reason.
>Mark McIntyre
2wire currently only sells to large ISP's.
http://www.2wire.com/?p=2
Alcatel recently purchased 25% of 2wire which may change their
distribution picture in Europe.
http://www.2wire.com/?p=95&pid=136
As for making the router customer proof, I don't think that's
possible. I'm only proposing that it be either secure or
non-operation by default. See my reply to Dave Taylor on the subject.
All I want is that upon reset, the initial web page demands:
1. A configuration password.
2. SSID
3. WEP/WPA key
The wireless part will not work until these conditions are met.
This is not the way 2wire does it. They pre-assign all of these and
inscribe them on the serial number tag. The router arrives
pre-configured and secure from the ISP. If you reset to default, the
pre-assigned values remain. For a while, I was proposing that this
method, but was eventually convinced that it was too much of a burden
on the manufacturing process and support department (raising costs
perhaps a few cents). So, I settled for the previously described
method, where the wireless was non-functional until configured.
Mark McIntyre
Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>David Taylor <djta...@bigfoot.com> hath wroth:
>
>>> SSID's and are shipped secure by default. Every time I try to make
>>> case for shipping secure by default, I get told that "it's too
>>> difficult".
>>
>>This is in no way a go at you Jeff but out of curiosity, if you buy a
>>car, do you get asked for proof that you are entitled to drive?
>
>It's a fair question but I don't think it covers the situation. In
>the People's Republic of California, there is no need for the dealer
>to require that the owner know how to drive or even if they have a
>drivers license. That's handled by the registration process run by
>the Dept of Motor Vehicles which both demands a valid drivers license
>and substantial fees.
So what you'd like to see is state regulation of WAN security... :-)
Mark McIntyre
--
Mark McIntyre
Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>Mark McIntyre <markmc...@spamcop.net> hath wroth:
>
>>The only way I could see it being consumer proof would be if mfrs
>>insisted you bought only their kit throughout (as per IBM's old
>>rules). Otherwise you'd be into the usual mess of ascii vs hex, wep vs
>>wpa vs wpa2 etc etc and there'd be way too many returns. 2wire don't
>>sell to consumers in Europe that I know of, perhaps there's a reason.
>>Mark McIntyre
>
>2wire currently only sells to large ISP's.
> http://www.2wire.com/?p=2
... who can guarantee a single-supplier install.
>As for making the router customer proof, I don't think that's
>possible. I'm only proposing that it be either secure or
>non-operation by default.
Yes, I understand and I'd like it too, if only I could work out a fool
proof way to do it.
>All I want is that upon reset, the initial web page demands:
> 1. A configuration password.
> 2. SSID
> 3. WEP/WPA key
>The wireless part will not work until these conditions are met.
I'd go along with this.
But bear in mind that this is not providing security by default, its
just improving the chances that it will get enabled. You'd have to put
in yet more effort to stop someone typing "password" three times, or
his own name, or his bank pin number, or any of the other common codes
people use.
Mark McIntyre
--
Jeff Liebermann
>>It's a fair question but I don't think it covers the situation. In
>>the People's Republic of California, there is no need for the dealer
>>to require that the owner know how to drive or even if they have a
>>drivers license. That's handled by the registration process run by
>>the Dept of Motor Vehicles which both demands a valid drivers license
>>and substantial fees.
>So what you'd like to see is state regulation of WAN security... :-)
>Mark McIntyre
I don't know how you extracted that from my explanation of California
vehicle registration, but methinks that it would be possible for
wireless router manufacturers to impliment security by default without
government interference errrr... assistance. Try reading what I wrote
before twisting my meaning. I think I was rather clear about what is
needed, why it's needed, how it should be implimented, and how it's
not going to cost anything. Did I miss something?
Incidentally, turning wireless off by default has an interesting side
issue. I've been watching whether Universal Plug and Play is on or
off by default. First it was on, but that created "unexpected
results" and some security issues. So, it got turned off. So, since
MSN needs it to function, Microsoft applied some corrective pressure,
and it was back on by default. Then, there was another security
advisory, and off it went again. I think this is the current
situation but I haven't checked recently. My guess(tm) is that
shipping wireless off by default will go through a similar exercise.
Indecision is the key to flexibility.
Jeff Liebermann
>>2wire currently only sells to large ISP's.
>> http://www.2wire.com/?p=2
>
>... who can guarantee a single-supplier install.
Yep. A captive customer is a happy customer.
>Yes, I understand and I'd like it too, if only I could work out a fool
>proof way to do it.
Not to worry. The worlds supply of fools is in no danger of
diminishing and may actually present a suitable market segment
suitable for exploitation. The basic 3 questions I propose required
to setup a wireless router are just the beginning. Having them
available when the user sets up their client is a major problem. I
don't have an easy answer for this. The various AOS magic setup
utilities are suppose to address this. I think they only address part
of the problem and are more difficult than setting up each part of the
puzzle independently.
>>All I want is that upon reset, the initial web page demands:
>> 1. A configuration password.
>> 2. SSID
>> 3. WEP/WPA key
>>The wireless part will not work until these conditions are met.
>I'd go along with this.
Ummm... thanks.
>But bear in mind that this is not providing security by default, its
>just improving the chances that it will get enabled. You'd have to put
>in yet more effort to stop someone typing "password" three times, or
>his own name, or his bank pin number, or any of the other common codes
>people use.
Of course. My fix is NOT a 100% solution. I don't think there will
ever be a 100% security solution. I think you've read my rants on
eliminating passwords as they are the absolute worst security problem
I could think of. My list of passwords is now 380 entries long. To
remain sane, I've re-used the same password a few times too many. If
my list is compromised or stolen, I'm in BIG trouble. Passwords,
shared pass phrases, and such are terrible security. They also do
nothing for authentication, where someone else uses my password to
impersonate me. If I had my way, I would shove X.509 certificates
with an independent certificate authority down the customers throats,
but even that's not perfect. I rather liked the idea of the
manufacturers running an online RADIUS server such as:
www.linksys.com/wirelessguard/
but find my customers balking at the cost and administrative overhead.
Anyway, I don't think my 3 questions is going to be 100% security
solution. My guess is about 63.9%. However, that's much better than
the current implimentation which is zero wireless security.
John Navas
In <7jaf421jtpjm54mpj...@4ax.com> on Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:10:16
-0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>David Taylor <djta...@bigfoot.com> hath wroth:
>
>>> SSID's and are shipped secure by default. Every time I try to make
>>> case for shipping secure by default, I get told that "it's too
>>> difficult".
>>
>>This is in no way a go at you Jeff but out of curiosity, if you buy a
>>car, do you get asked for proof that you are entitled to drive?
>
>It's a fair question but I don't think it covers the situation. In
>the People's Republic of California, there is no need for the dealer
>to require that the owner know how to drive or even if they have a
>drivers license. That's handled by the registration process run by
>the Dept of Motor Vehicles which both demands a valid drivers license
>and substantial fees. The DMV also demands proof of residency, smog
>certificates, insurance, and some mechanical inspections. It's quite
>an ordeal process. ...
Dealers will actually sell you a car with a temporary registration that
involves none of that ordeal.
Mark McIntyre
Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>That's handled by the registration process run by
>>>the Dept of Motor Vehicles which both demands a valid drivers license
>>>and substantial fees.
>
>>So what you'd like to see is state regulation of WAN security... :-)
>>Mark McIntyre
>
>I don't know how you extracted that from my explanation of California
>vehicle registration,
From the above quotation.
>Try reading what I wrote
Someone said "drivers aren't expected to prove to dealers the're
competent to drive, so why should router buyers be expected to prove
competency?" to which you replied "ah, but the state regulates
drivers". The inference seems obvious to me.
Don't get me wrong - I personally think you're right that more
security rigour should be applied by hardware vendors and makers.
We're at long last starting to see software makers taking it
seriously, hopefully the same will start to happen in the consumer hw
business soon.
And for what its worth, one perfectly sensible way to ensure this /is/
to regulate for it. I'm in favour of this, by and large - corporations
are not in it for consumer protection, they're in it to make money, so
will invariably take the route of least resistance. Nothing wrong with
that, but sometimes it leads to Bad Results.
Mark McIntyre
--
John Navas
In <ntrf429qmu6evuabg...@4ax.com> on Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:41:02
+0100, Mark McIntyre <markmc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>... I personally think ... that more
>security rigour should be applied by hardware vendors and makers.
>We're at long last starting to see software makers taking it
>seriously, hopefully the same will start to happen in the consumer hw
>business soon.
>
>And for what its worth, one perfectly sensible way to ensure this /is/
>to regulate for it. I'm in favour of this, by and large - corporations
>are not in it for consumer protection, they're in it to make money, so
>will invariably take the route of least resistance. Nothing wrong with
>that, but sometimes it leads to Bad Results.
Regulation is the surest way to Bad Results. The market works(c), even though
it's often messy, and we'll get better security when the market demands it.
The Good Thing about all these security problems is that people are finally be
woken up to the importance of good security. Vendors that respond to that
need will succeed; those that don't will fall by the wayside. It's a natural
process that doesn't need regulation. What might help are clearer laws
holding vendors liable for the financial consequences of their negligence.
Rico
>Mark McIntyre <markmc...@spamcop.net> hath wroth:
>
>>The only way I could see it being consumer proof would be if mfrs
>>insisted you bought only their kit throughout (as per IBM's old
>>rules). Otherwise you'd be into the usual mess of ascii vs hex, wep vs
>>wpa vs wpa2 etc etc and there'd be way too many returns. 2wire don't
>>sell to consumers in Europe that I know of, perhaps there's a reason.
>>Mark McIntyre
>
>2wire currently only sells to large ISP's.
> http://www.2wire.com/?p=2
>
>Alcatel recently purchased 25% of 2wire which may change their
>distribution picture in Europe.
> http://www.2wire.com/?p=95&pid=136
>
>As for making the router customer proof, I don't think that's
>possible. I'm only proposing that it be either secure or
>non-operation by default. See my reply to Dave Taylor on the subject.
>All I want is that upon reset, the initial web page demands:
> 1. A configuration password.
> 2. SSID
> 3. WEP/WPA key
>The wireless part will not work until these conditions are met.
Suppose I want to run an open wireless AP?
>
>This is not the way 2wire does it. They pre-assign all of these and
>inscribe them on the serial number tag. The router arrives
>pre-configured and secure from the ISP. If you reset to default, the
>pre-assigned values remain. For a while, I was proposing that this
>method, but was eventually convinced that it was too much of a burden
>on the manufacturing process and support department (raising costs
>perhaps a few cents). So, I settled for the previously described
>method, where the wireless was non-functional until configured.
>
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Jeff Liebermann
>Suppose I want to run an open wireless AP?
No problem. First you get to read a web page with a wholesale
repudiation of responsibility in legalese, combined with a detailed
lecture on wireless security, followed by the usual [I agree] button.
There's no intent to prevent you from sharing your connection. I just
don't want the wireless to be wide open by default.
How's this?
W A R N I N G !
You have chosen to configure your wireless to be open access without
any security or encryption. The means that anyone with a compatible
wireless device can access your network and any network devices on
your network. If this is your intent, then please continue. If you
want to setup a secure wireless system, please read this article
[click here] on wireless security and use the following wizard.
[Yeah] I wanna run a wide open insecure system.
[Oops] I really want a secure system.
[Duh ] Run the Wizard.
Welcome to the super easy wireless security Wizard.
Pick one:
[ ] Just generate the most secure settings and print
the list of settings and passwords.
[ ] I have ancient junk for client radios and can't do WPA.
[ ] I'm a network guru and want to pick my own settings
and passwords.
etc...
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
Rico
Hmm, what brand can I get that avoids this... <wink/>
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Mark McIntyre
Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:43:45 GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>
>>Suppose I want to run an open wireless AP?
>
>No problem. First you get to read a web page with a wholesale
>repudiation of responsibility in legalese, combined with a detailed
>lecture on wireless security, followed by
"We are the borg, resistance is useless, you will be assimilated"
Mark McIntyre
--
Jeff Liebermann
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 23:56:07 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , Jeff
"Strength is irrelevant, resistance is futile. We wish to improve
ourselves. We will add your biological and technological
distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours."
-The Borg
I'm missing the connection here. Are you perhaps suggesting that this
would somehow join the global wireless mesh network, that once it
grows past a critical size, develops self-awareness followed by the
inevitable destructive rampage against mankind? I've always suspected
that mesh networks were dangerous. However, I'm protected. I have a
tin foil hat.
Incidentally, my suggestions do not involve adding or removing any
features or functions. You can still do everything and anything you
want including run a wide open wireless network. I'm just changing
the way they are enabled, the default state, and how things are
Mark McIntyre
Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>I'm missing the connection here.
A sense of humour, I suspect. :-(
>Are you perhaps suggesting that this
>would somehow join the global wireless mesh network,
No, I'm just suggesting that your post sounded like a cross between
the borg and something from HHG2G. The bit where Arthur says "ford,
what happens if I press this button... oh" "what happened" "a sign lit
up saying, don't press this button again". :-)
>However, I'm protected. I have a
>tin foil hat.
Ah, but is it tin or aluminium? Different wavelength absorbtion
characteristics, see...
Mark McIntyre
--
Jeff Liebermann
>On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:08:48 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , Jeff
>Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>I'm missing the connection here.
>A sense of humour, I suspect. :-(
Sorry. I just write humor, not read it.
>No, I'm just suggesting that your post sounded like a cross between
>the borg and something from HHG2G. The bit where Arthur says "ford,
>what happens if I press this button... oh" "what happened" "a sign lit
>up saying, don't press this button again". :-)
Yes. That was intentional. I resisted the temptation to add:
There is nothing wrong with your wireless router. Do not attempt
to adjust the settings. We are controlling setup page. If we
wish to make it more powerful, we will bring up the transmit power.
If we wish to generate less interference, we will crank it down.
We can trash the error rate to a uselessness, or tune it to
perfection. We will control the modulation. We will control the
encryption. For the next key exchange interval, sit quietly and
we will control all that you send and receive. You are about to
experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the antenna
to... The Outer Limits.
>>However, I'm protected. I have a
>>tin foil hat.
>
>Ah, but is it tin or aluminium? Different wavelength absorbtion
>characteristics, see...
Three layers. Mu Metal, aluminium, and plastic. Protects against
magnetic fields, RF, and rain.