wireless problem
LCC
problem, which is why I am seeking help on this newsgroup. My brother
set up a wireless network in the house using a Zonealarm Z100G
wireless router and with each (windows XP) computer using a D-Link
WDA-2320 desktop adapter. For a few days signal strength was very good/
good. Then overnight it dropped to very low/low with frequent
disconnects. We then purchased and installed 9 db gain antennas on all
the hardware. Once again we got vg/g but after a few days it dropped
overnight back down to low. Moving the antennas around sometimes
increases signal strength to good, but within a few minutes it drops
back to low. There is only one other network in the neighborhood
within detection range and it does not seem to be the problem because
it is only on part of the day. I doubt that other household appliances/
electronics are the problem because nothing changed to account for the
overnight drop in signal strength which has happened twice.
Data transfer rates while on youtube never exceed 1% load on the
network and cpu load is never greater than 50% yet it now takes 2-10
times as long to load a video as to play it. This is in contrast to
loading videos 2-3 times as fast as playing with signal strength of
'good'. The free network diagnostics fail the link due to lost
packets. I have no money to pay experts to come to the house and check
for problems. I am reluctant to toss more money into wireless but a
direct cable link would be even more expensive.
Please let me know if you have any suggestions on how to fix this
problem. Did we just buy lousy equipment, or what ? Thanks......
Lonnie Courtney Clay
Chuck
Lonnie,
Tell us about the "free network diagnostics", and the fact that they "fail the
link". What free network diagnostics have you run? What link do they fail?
Have you discussed the problem with ZoneLabs?
I would run NetStumbler from at least 2 computers, and watch to see when the
signal, or the signal to noise, drops. See if the problem is low signal level,
or high noise level.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/06/analyse-your-wifi-environment.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/06/analyse-your-wifi-environment.html
--
Cheers,
Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
My email is AT DOT
actual address pchuck mvps org.
LCC
> Lonnie,
>
> Tell us about the "free network diagnostics", and the fact that they "fail the
> link". What free network diagnostics have you run? What link do they fail?
>
After several hours of wandering through the system and on the
internet (a couple of weeks ago), I found something that ran some
diagnostics and presented a lengthy report. It sent a bunch of packets
from the computer and analyzed the response. It passed only one of
about six tests. It reported lost packets of 25-50% and gave delay
times, some of which it thought were excessive. Because I did not
think to write down how I got there, I have no idea of where I was
when I found it...... Unfortunately I am pretty stupid nowadays and I
did not think to save a bookmark.
> Have you discussed the problem with ZoneLabs?
>
No, but I will just in case their router is the problem. (see below)
> I would run NetStumbler from at least 2 computers, and watch to see when the
> signal, or the signal to noise, drops. See if the problem is low signal level,
> or high noise level.
> <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/06/analyse-your-wifi-environment.html>http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/06/analyse-your-wifi-environment.html
>
Unfortunately it seems that NetStumbler does not support D-link
Wda-2320.....
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
> Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
> My email is AT DOT
> actual address pchuck mvps org.
Thank you very much for the advice Chuck!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paranoia may be appropriate in this case. After downloading
NetStumbler and probing around the system for a few minutes, the
wireless network connection signal strength jumped from "low" to "very
good"! It has not been "very good" for a couple of weeks. So I
speculate that somebody is doing me dirt and feared discovery by the
network activity they saw. The problem may even be a keystroke logger
on the computer, though the security software which I have detects
nothing. I have no secrets to hide and can live with others lurking on
the machine so long as they do not interfere with normal operations,
which was the case. For the entertainment of others on this group I
will post on this thread if the problem is not solved. Who knows, you
too may become a target/infected by your participation. Back in April
just a few days after I started posting on the internet the entire
home network was hacked with a phishing (whatever that is) attack and
a bunch of email was sent out. The ISP shut off access and measures
were taken to purge the computers and prevent a recurrence. Perhaps
someone more subtle has invaded.....
Lonnie Courtney Clay
LCC
http://groups.google.com/group/lonnie-courtney-clay/browse_thread/thread/faf575237df0e038?hl=en
"I am pleased to report that I have finally exterminated the last pest
on the computer which I use. I found a dozen software packages to
uninstall. I deleted over 500 megabytes of .xml files. I deleted over
three gigabytes of tracking cookies. I upgraded to commercial grade
software for all security and performance tasks. The number of tasks
running has dropped from over 60 to about 30. The number of outgoing
connections blocked by the security software in the network router
dropped dramatically. Unfortunately the computer is too old to
effectively run both youtube downloads and all the security stuff at
the same time. So the first play of a video is still interrupted by
transferring files taking longer than playback. Once downloaded
completely the music plays well enough. I can live with it until I get
a modern computer..... "
-------------------------------------------------------------------
That purge cut anti-virus "files" from over 110,000 to about 36000.
According to the latest anti-virus scan the number of "files" has
crept back up to 40,719 in the past month. Since I regularly purge all
tracking history and temporary files, this creep up needs to be
investigated. The computer suffered an overnight jump in early May
from about 35,000 to over 110,000 (as I said) but it took about a week
for me to notice it. I was wrong about the computer being too old
(2003) because cpu and network loads were not excessive. The problem
is with the wireless link connection/hardware/software.
I used the link you gave :
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/essential-tools-for-desktop-and.html#NetStumbler
but as I said previously the D-link wda-2320 is not supported by
NetStumbler.
I downloaded the package HijackFree from :
http://www.hijackfree.com/en/
and looked over the bloatware reported by it. There was too much to
digest in a matter of hours, but I gave it a try anyway. I found
nothing to report. I suspect that whoever is hassling me is using
exploits built into the windows XP operating system itself and
therefor the problem will be untraceable.
I highly recommend using Spy Sweeper to anyone who lacks it. If you
know of a better product please mention it here. I have commercial
grade anti-virus but Spy Sweeper has revealed unsuspected misbehavior
on several occasions. See free download at :
http://www.webroot.com/land/freescan-3000.php?rc=5312&source=ppc
The latest spy sweeper scan reports memory 1482, registry 94,285, and
files 28567. What is going on with registry being 4x files ? Why are
1482 memory objects reported with only 34 processes running? The
biggest mystery is why the XP bloatware runs at all!
Link a farmer using a tractor to plow fields at planting time (and a
combine to harvest them later), I want the equipment which I use to
work properly. Like the farmer coping with storms and droughts, I am
subject to (and accept) "weather". I resent ***vandals*** messing with
the equipment and trashing the fields. Computers are 1000 times as
powerful and complex as when I worked at Datapoint (1983-86). I am
crazier, stupid, slow, forgetful, and finding it difficult to learn
compared to then. But one skill which I have honed to perfection over
the past 20 years is how to hold a grudge. The signal strength has
dropped from "very good" back down to "good" over the past several
hours. If it drops down to "low" again, then I will be extremely
annoyed rather than just disgruntled. Like a squeaky wheel which has
been oiled, I am content for the moment to fall silent. But if I get
sanded again, then it won't be pretty.....
Lonnie Courtney Clay
P.S. I composed this post off-line, and when I opened up the web
browser to post it something extremely peculiar happened which I
choose not to report. Apparently the keystroke logger theory is
correct.....
LCC
Al Dunbar
"LCC" <cla...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1182495478.5...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
In a previous post you said: "I have no secrets to hide and can live with
others lurking on the machine so long as they do not interfere with normal
operations, which was the case". If only it were that easy...
First, we all have secrets to hide, but there is no shame in that. The banks
tell us that the PINS we use to access bank machines or our accounts online
should not be shared. Those are secrets well worth keeping, along with all
kinds of personal information that, even though "innocent" in itself, could
be used for ill purposes, including harrassment and identity theft.
Second, if others are "lurking on your machine", then they *are* interfering
with normal operations. Would you allow a stranger to spend uninvited time
in your home because he did not seem to be interfering? In my opinion, if
there is no conceivable valid reason for an unknown person being on your
network or in your home, it must be considered interference.
/Al
LCC
>
> In a previous post you said: "I have no secrets to hide and can live with
> others lurking on the machine so long as they do not interfere with normal
> operations, which was the case". If only it were that easy...
>
> First, we all have secrets to hide, but there is no shame in that. The banks
> tell us that the PINS we use to access bank machines or our accounts online
> should not be shared. Those are secrets well worth keeping, along with all
> kinds of personal information that, even though "innocent" in itself, could
> be used for ill purposes, including harrassment and identity theft.
>
> Second, if others are "lurking on your machine", then they *are* interfering
> with normal operations. Would you allow a stranger to spend uninvited time
> in your home because he did not seem to be interfering? In my opinion, if
> there is no conceivable valid reason for an unknown person being on your
> network or in your home, it must be considered interference.
>
> /Al
SIR, you are absolutely right! See the latest post on thread :
Lonnie Courtney Clay