Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac
814 views
Skip to first unread message
Horace Algier
Sep 11, 2016, 9:34:04 PM9/11/16
to
What is the best way, nowadays, to scan for wireless frequencies given an
entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook Pros, and an iMac?
An Apple-only friend (who lives in the boonies) called just now from
another state with Comcast Internet problems at home.
They're on the $56.95 25Mbps "Performance Internet" plan which advertises
25 Mbps down & 5 Mbps up. They own their own Motorola Docsys 3.0 modem from
Costco.
They have iPads, iPhones, Macbook Pros, and an iMac.
(Also they have Vonage.)
With an iMac wired to the modem, they're getting 29 down and 6 up
(sometimes 1 up) at around 38ms ping times, but at the various wireless
devices they're only getting half that.
They haven't told me what they get wired to the router (a WRT54G, which
only has channels 1 through 11) but I told them to scan for WiFi signals
(to see if they are clashing with their neighbors).
They don't know how.
They are on iOS with iPhones and iPads & they have a couple of MacBook Pros
which apparently don't have an Ethernet port (nor do they have the adapter)
but they do have an iMac which does have an Ethernet port.
So they're running the *wired* tests using the iMac but I'm trying to get
them to run wireless tests and they're not technical people.
My only question is how do I get them to run a test of the WiFi frequencies
in use where they are.
Googling, I found this which explains for them how to run a WiFi scan on
the iPads and iPhones that they own:
- TIP: Choosing the best WiFi channel using iPad
-
http://forum.music-group.com/showthread.php?6603-TIP-Choosing-the-best-WiFi-channel-using-iPad
But looking for how to run the same test on the iMac or MacBook Pros, I'm
not sure because I don't know what operating system they're on.
For example, here is information for OSX but I don't know how good it is as
I have no Apple computers:
- Any free good software wireless analyzers, like Windows' Netstumbler and
inSSIDer, for Mac OS X 10.8.3?
- https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5073997?tstart=0
What is the best way, nowadays, for this older couple to scan for wireless
frequencies given an entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook
Pros, and an iMac?
entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook Pros, and an iMac?
An Apple-only friend (who lives in the boonies) called just now from
another state with Comcast Internet problems at home.
They're on the $56.95 25Mbps "Performance Internet" plan which advertises
25 Mbps down & 5 Mbps up. They own their own Motorola Docsys 3.0 modem from
Costco.
They have iPads, iPhones, Macbook Pros, and an iMac.
(Also they have Vonage.)
With an iMac wired to the modem, they're getting 29 down and 6 up
(sometimes 1 up) at around 38ms ping times, but at the various wireless
devices they're only getting half that.
They haven't told me what they get wired to the router (a WRT54G, which
only has channels 1 through 11) but I told them to scan for WiFi signals
(to see if they are clashing with their neighbors).
They don't know how.
They are on iOS with iPhones and iPads & they have a couple of MacBook Pros
which apparently don't have an Ethernet port (nor do they have the adapter)
but they do have an iMac which does have an Ethernet port.
So they're running the *wired* tests using the iMac but I'm trying to get
them to run wireless tests and they're not technical people.
My only question is how do I get them to run a test of the WiFi frequencies
in use where they are.
Googling, I found this which explains for them how to run a WiFi scan on
the iPads and iPhones that they own:
- TIP: Choosing the best WiFi channel using iPad
-
http://forum.music-group.com/showthread.php?6603-TIP-Choosing-the-best-WiFi-channel-using-iPad
But looking for how to run the same test on the iMac or MacBook Pros, I'm
not sure because I don't know what operating system they're on.
For example, here is information for OSX but I don't know how good it is as
I have no Apple computers:
- Any free good software wireless analyzers, like Windows' Netstumbler and
inSSIDer, for Mac OS X 10.8.3?
- https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5073997?tstart=0
What is the best way, nowadays, for this older couple to scan for wireless
frequencies given an entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook
Pros, and an iMac?
nospam
Sep 11, 2016, 9:45:16 PM9/11/16
to
In article <nr50m6$125u$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
> An Apple-only friend (who lives in the boonies) called just now from
> another state with Comcast Internet problems at home.
he's correct in that comcast is a problem.
> They're on the $56.95 25Mbps "Performance Internet" plan which advertises
> 25 Mbps down & 5 Mbps up. They own their own Motorola Docsys 3.0 modem from
> Costco.
spendy for those speeds.
> They have iPads, iPhones, Macbook Pros, and an iMac.
> (Also they have Vonage.)
>
> With an iMac wired to the modem, they're getting 29 down and 6 up
> (sometimes 1 up) at around 38ms ping times, but at the various wireless
> devices they're only getting half that.
>
> They haven't told me what they get wired to the router (a WRT54G, which
> only has channels 1 through 11) but I told them to scan for WiFi signals
> (to see if they are clashing with their neighbors).
interference is unlikely to be the problem, a wrt54g is too old to
handle 25mbit, plus it lacks 802.11ac and 802.11n.
replace it with something new and faster.
<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> What is the best way, nowadays, to scan for wireless frequencies given an
> entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook Pros, and an iMac?
with one of numerous wifi scanner apps.
> What is the best way, nowadays, to scan for wireless frequencies given an
> entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook Pros, and an iMac?
> An Apple-only friend (who lives in the boonies) called just now from
> another state with Comcast Internet problems at home.
> They're on the $56.95 25Mbps "Performance Internet" plan which advertises
> 25 Mbps down & 5 Mbps up. They own their own Motorola Docsys 3.0 modem from
> Costco.
> They have iPads, iPhones, Macbook Pros, and an iMac.
> (Also they have Vonage.)
>
> With an iMac wired to the modem, they're getting 29 down and 6 up
> (sometimes 1 up) at around 38ms ping times, but at the various wireless
> devices they're only getting half that.
>
> They haven't told me what they get wired to the router (a WRT54G, which
> only has channels 1 through 11) but I told them to scan for WiFi signals
> (to see if they are clashing with their neighbors).
handle 25mbit, plus it lacks 802.11ac and 802.11n.
replace it with something new and faster.
Jolly Roger
Sep 11, 2016, 10:25:09 PM9/11/16
to
On 2016-09-12, Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> What is the best way, nowadays, to scan for wireless frequencies given an
> entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook Pros, and an iMac?
Numerous GUI and command-line tools exist to do that on a Mac. I often
> What is the best way, nowadays, to scan for wireless frequencies given an
> entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook Pros, and an iMac?
use NetSpot to diagnose potential WiFi reception issues for instance,
but there are others:
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/netspot-wifi-survey-wireless/id514951692?mt=12>
[needless troll ramblings omitted]
--
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
AL
Sep 11, 2016, 11:17:30 PM9/11/16
to
>> They haven't told me what they get wired to the router (a WRT54G, which
>> only has channels 1 through 11) but I told them to scan for WiFi signals
>> (to see if they are clashing with their neighbors).
>
> interference is unlikely to be the problem, a wrt54g is too old to
> handle 25mbit, plus it lacks 802.11ac and 802.11n.
>
> replace it with something new and faster.
And dual-band. In my area I see umpteen signals on the 2.4GHz band but
>> only has channels 1 through 11) but I told them to scan for WiFi signals
>> (to see if they are clashing with their neighbors).
>
> interference is unlikely to be the problem, a wrt54g is too old to
> handle 25mbit, plus it lacks 802.11ac and 802.11n.
>
> replace it with something new and faster.
only one other on the 5GHz band. (And that makes it very easy to avoid
him. I'm on ch36 and he's on ch157.)
David Taylor
Sep 12, 2016, 4:47:09 AM9/12/16
to
On 12/09/2016 02:34, Horace Algier wrote:
> What is the best way, nowadays, to scan for wireless frequencies given an
> entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook Pros, and an iMac?
[]
> What is the best way, nowadays, to scan for wireless frequencies given an
> entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook Pros, and an iMac?
> What is the best way, nowadays, for this older couple to scan for wireless
> frequencies given an entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook
> Pros, and an iMac?
A cheap Android phone and inSSIDer, WiFi Analyzer, FRITZ!App WLAN etc.
> frequencies given an entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook
> Pros, and an iMac?
etc.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
nospam
Sep 12, 2016, 5:25:56 AM9/12/16
to
In article <nr5q29$m9q$1...@dont-email.me>, David Taylor
there's no need to buy *anything*. what they currently have is more
than adequate to scan for wifi networks, which isn't even the problem.
<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> > What is the best way, nowadays, to scan for wireless frequencies given an
> > entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook Pros, and an iMac?
> []
> > What is the best way, nowadays, for this older couple to scan for wireless
> > frequencies given an entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook
> > Pros, and an iMac?
>
> A cheap Android phone and inSSIDer, WiFi Analyzer, FRITZ!App WLAN etc.
> etc.
what part of entirely apple household was not clear?
> > What is the best way, nowadays, to scan for wireless frequencies given an
> > entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook Pros, and an iMac?
> []
> > What is the best way, nowadays, for this older couple to scan for wireless
> > frequencies given an entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook
> > Pros, and an iMac?
>
> A cheap Android phone and inSSIDer, WiFi Analyzer, FRITZ!App WLAN etc.
> etc.
there's no need to buy *anything*. what they currently have is more
than adequate to scan for wifi networks, which isn't even the problem.
Wade Garrett
Sep 12, 2016, 9:00:20 AM9/12/16
to
On 9/11/16 9:34 PM, Horace Algier wrote:
>
> What is the best way, nowadays, for this older couple to scan for wireless
> frequencies given an entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook
> Pros, and an iMac?
>
If all you want is a list of available networks:
>
> What is the best way, nowadays, for this older couple to scan for wireless
> frequencies given an entirely Apple household of iPhones, iPads, Macbook
> Pros, and an iMac?
>
:
On iOS devices, go to Settings/WiFi and look at the list of networks in
range.
On Macs, right click the WiFi icon on the top right of your screen on
the menu bar- - or go to System Preferences/Network and click the
Network Name drop-down.
--
With all this “gun control” talk, I haven’t heard one politician say how
they plan to take guns away from criminals and terrorists— just from law
abiding citizens…
Horace Algier
Sep 12, 2016, 4:11:36 PM9/12/16
to
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 20:17:28 -0700, AL wrote:
> And dual-band. In my area I see umpteen signals on the 2.4GHz band but
> only one other on the 5GHz band. (And that makes it very easy to avoid
> him. I'm on ch36 and he's on ch157.)
I have kids in graduate school and there I see so many access points on my
> And dual-band. In my area I see umpteen signals on the 2.4GHz band but
> only one other on the 5GHz band. (And that makes it very easy to avoid
> him. I'm on ch36 and he's on ch157.)
Android phone (using inSSIDer or WiFi Analyzer or WiFi SNR or Fritz WLAN)
that I'm shocked how utterly filled the frequencies are.
Where "I" live, there are extremely few people on *any* frequency, so, an
old WRT54G would work just fine since nobody's router can spill onto
another house purely because of distance (although we all have rooftop
radios since that's how "we" get our Internet, and they *can* easily spill
- but they're on specific horizontal and vertical channels to match the
access point protocols).
Where these people are, it should be somewhere in between, in that any
nearby neighbor can easily step on their frequency (they're in an old
factory warehouse style building from the 1800s that was renovated into
condos probably within the past 10 years).
But, remember, the *wired* signal at the router is half the wired signal at
the modem (which is strange). The wired signal is not affected by the WiFi
bands.
The main thing I need to ask you guys is *how* to check for WiFi
interference from the neighbors on an all-Apple household.
On "my" iPad, I know to do this:
http://forum.music-group.com/showthread.php?6603-TIP-Choosing-the-best-WiFi-channel-using-iPad
I just tried AirPort
(https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/airport-utility/id427276530?mt=8)
1. I already have the AirPort utility from the Appstore
2. I went to Settings and found the "AirPort Utility" on the left
3. I have version "1.3.4 (134.22)& I turned on the "WiFi Scanner" switch
4. On my desktop, I clicked on the "Airport utility" which said:
"No AirPort base stations have been found", and it also said
"AirPort Utility will continue searching"
WORLD:
5. I tapped the "World" icon which showed 3 pieces of information:
a. Connection = connected
b. Router Address = 192.168.1.1
c. DNS Server = 192.168.1.1
INFO:
6. On the top right, I taped on the blue "Wi-Fi Scan"
7. A white form titled "All Networks" came up
8. On the white "All Networks" form I tapped the (i) on the bottom right
That summarized the 2.4GHz and 5 GHz devices as follows:
2.4GHZ - 4 Devices
a. channel 1 = 1 device
b. channel 6 = 1 device
c. channel 7 = 1 device
d. channel 11 = 1 device
5.0GHz - 1 Device
channel 156 = 1 device
WIFI SCAN:
9. I hit the "Back" & "Done" buttons on the "All Networks" form
10. That brought me to the AirPort Utility "World" screen.
11. On the top right of the "World" screen, I tapped the blue "WiFi Scan"
12. On the top right of a white "All Networks" form, I tapped "Scan"
13. That showed me four lines for each WiFi signal it found:
a. SSID (e.g., FOOBAR_nomap)
b. BSSID (e.g., DE:AD:BE:EF:CA:FE)
c. RSSI (e.g., 36dBm)
d. Channel (e.g., 7 for 2.4GHz or channel 150 for 5GHz)
NOTE: For a description of the relative difference in signal strength, see:
http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/2004broadbandforum/comments/YDI_understandingdb.pdf
This works, so my only question is whether there is a better way on iOS
than AirPort, and, for the Mac, my question is whether it's better to run
this test on the Mac? (For example, maybe the Mac utility gives a graphical
display?)
Q1: Is AirPort the best WiFi Scanning freeware app for iOS?
Q2: What utility do you use on the Mac for WiFi scanning?
Horace Algier
Sep 12, 2016, 4:12:02 PM9/12/16
to
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 21:45:16 -0400, nospam wrote:
> with one of numerous wifi scanner apps.
Fundamentally, *that* is the question.
> with one of numerous wifi scanner apps.
Specifically, *what* numerous wifi scanner app would people use in an
all-apple household.
I don't have an Apple computer so mostly I'm asking about the Apple
computer apps.
If they had any other platform (Windows, Linux, or Android), I'd be all
over it - but I know less about Macs than anyone here.
So that's why I ask.
Just saying there are "numerous" apps tells me nothing useful.
Which of those numerous wifi scanning apps do you suggest for their laptop?
Would you suggest the Mac app that I found for their Macbook Pros?
Or is there something better for the Mac?
>> An Apple-only friend (who lives in the boonies) called just now from
>> another state with Comcast Internet problems at home.
>
> he's correct in that comcast is a problem.
Comcast tested the system and while Comcast said they can't tell what speed
they're getting, they can see "all green lights" from their side.
Apparently the throttling to 25/5Mbps happens with a file that they say is
on the Docsys modem that seems to be working properly.
So, *at* the modem, they're getting what they pay for; but with the iMac
wired to the Linksys WRT54G, they're not getting half that (it fluctuates
from 12 down and 1 up to a variety of numbers in between, they tell me).
So, they are buying a Netgear Nighthawk $200 ac1900 router from Best Buys
as we speak, but I don't see how the *wired* part of the router can be the
problem since the wired speeds are slower at the router (by a lot!) than
they are at the modem.
>> They're on the $56.95 25Mbps "Performance Internet" plan which advertises
>> 25 Mbps down & 5 Mbps up. They own their own Motorola Docsys 3.0 modem from
>> Costco.
>
> spendy for those speeds.
They're in a state that has fewer voters than my county probably.
>> They have iPads, iPhones, Macbook Pros, and an iMac.
>> (Also they have Vonage.)
>>
>> With an iMac wired to the modem, they're getting 29 down and 6 up
>> (sometimes 1 up) at around 38ms ping times, but at the various wireless
>> devices they're only getting half that.
>>
>> They haven't told me what they get wired to the router (a WRT54G, which
>> only has channels 1 through 11) but I told them to scan for WiFi signals
>> (to see if they are clashing with their neighbors).
>
> interference is unlikely to be the problem, a wrt54g is too old to
> handle 25mbit, plus it lacks 802.11ac and 802.11n.
>
> replace it with something new and faster.
how the router is the problem, per se, anyway - at least not for the
*wired* portion of the network.
Sure, the WRT54G is ancient - but I just looked up the specs and it's
10/100 at the four ports. I forget what 10/100 means (why not just 100?)
but I think it means that it can do 10Mbps wired or it can do 100Mbps
wired, and since the input from the modem is 29 Mbps, that's less than a
100.
Right?
nospam
Sep 12, 2016, 4:26:13 PM9/12/16
to
In article <nr726c$fgi$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
> I don't have an Apple computer so mostly I'm asking about the Apple
> computer apps.
you don't need an apple computer to find such an app.
> If they had any other platform (Windows, Linux, or Android), I'd be all
> over it - but I know less about Macs than anyone here.
you know less about a *lot* of stuff than anyone here.
> So that's why I ask.
> Just saying there are "numerous" apps tells me nothing useful.
it tells you to search.
you do know how to search, do you not?
> Which of those numerous wifi scanning apps do you suggest for their laptop?
> Would you suggest the Mac app that I found for their Macbook Pros?
i don't suggest any, since the problem is almost certainly the linksys
wrt54g.
> Or is there something better for the Mac?
>
> >> An Apple-only friend (who lives in the boonies) called just now from
> >> another state with Comcast Internet problems at home.
> >
> > he's correct in that comcast is a problem.
>
> I'm not so sure *where* the problem lies yet.
i am.
> Comcast tested the system and while Comcast said they can't tell what speed
> they're getting, they can see "all green lights" from their side.
they were looking at the traffic light outside their office.
> Apparently the throttling to 25/5Mbps happens with a file that they say is
> on the Docsys modem that seems to be working properly.
>
> So, *at* the modem, they're getting what they pay for; but with the iMac
> wired to the Linksys WRT54G, they're not getting half that (it fluctuates
> from 12 down and 1 up to a variety of numbers in between, they tell me).
then it's the linksys.
> So, they are buying a Netgear Nighthawk $200 ac1900 router from Best Buys
> as we speak, but I don't see how the *wired* part of the router can be the
> problem since the wired speeds are slower at the router (by a lot!) than
> they are at the modem.
the linksys can't handle broadband speeds.
it was a cool router in its day, but not anymore.
> >> They're on the $56.95 25Mbps "Performance Internet" plan which advertises
> >> 25 Mbps down & 5 Mbps up. They own their own Motorola Docsys 3.0 modem from
> >> Costco.
> >
> > spendy for those speeds.
>
> I don't disagree.
> They're in a state that has fewer voters than my county probably.
the number of voters isn't the issue.
> >> They have iPads, iPhones, Macbook Pros, and an iMac.
> >> (Also they have Vonage.)
> >>
> >> With an iMac wired to the modem, they're getting 29 down and 6 up
> >> (sometimes 1 up) at around 38ms ping times, but at the various wireless
> >> devices they're only getting half that.
> >>
> >> They haven't told me what they get wired to the router (a WRT54G, which
> >> only has channels 1 through 11) but I told them to scan for WiFi signals
> >> (to see if they are clashing with their neighbors).
> >
> > interference is unlikely to be the problem, a wrt54g is too old to
> > handle 25mbit, plus it lacks 802.11ac and 802.11n.
> >
> > replace it with something new and faster.
>
> They're in the store as we speak, buying the AC 1900 router but I don't see
> how the router is the problem, per se, anyway - at least not for the
> *wired* portion of the network.
>
> Sure, the WRT54G is ancient - but I just looked up the specs and it's
> 10/100 at the four ports. I forget what 10/100 means (why not just 100?)
> but I think it means that it can do 10Mbps wired or it can do 100Mbps
> wired, and since the input from the modem is 29 Mbps, that's less than a
> 100.
the ports aren't the issue, it's how much throughput it can manage over
wifi or wan-lan if it's used as a router.
the wrt54g hails from an era when 1.5mbit was 'fast'. today, 25-50 is
common and gigabit is 'fast'.
<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
>
> > with one of numerous wifi scanner apps.
>
> Fundamentally, *that* is the question.
> Specifically, *what* numerous wifi scanner app would people use in an
> all-apple household.
do a search on the app store or use google.
>
> > with one of numerous wifi scanner apps.
>
> Fundamentally, *that* is the question.
> Specifically, *what* numerous wifi scanner app would people use in an
> all-apple household.
> I don't have an Apple computer so mostly I'm asking about the Apple
> computer apps.
> If they had any other platform (Windows, Linux, or Android), I'd be all
> over it - but I know less about Macs than anyone here.
> So that's why I ask.
> Just saying there are "numerous" apps tells me nothing useful.
you do know how to search, do you not?
> Which of those numerous wifi scanning apps do you suggest for their laptop?
> Would you suggest the Mac app that I found for their Macbook Pros?
wrt54g.
> Or is there something better for the Mac?
>
> >> An Apple-only friend (who lives in the boonies) called just now from
> >> another state with Comcast Internet problems at home.
> >
> > he's correct in that comcast is a problem.
>
> I'm not so sure *where* the problem lies yet.
> Comcast tested the system and while Comcast said they can't tell what speed
> they're getting, they can see "all green lights" from their side.
> Apparently the throttling to 25/5Mbps happens with a file that they say is
> on the Docsys modem that seems to be working properly.
>
> So, *at* the modem, they're getting what they pay for; but with the iMac
> wired to the Linksys WRT54G, they're not getting half that (it fluctuates
> from 12 down and 1 up to a variety of numbers in between, they tell me).
> So, they are buying a Netgear Nighthawk $200 ac1900 router from Best Buys
> as we speak, but I don't see how the *wired* part of the router can be the
> problem since the wired speeds are slower at the router (by a lot!) than
> they are at the modem.
it was a cool router in its day, but not anymore.
> >> They're on the $56.95 25Mbps "Performance Internet" plan which advertises
> >> 25 Mbps down & 5 Mbps up. They own their own Motorola Docsys 3.0 modem from
> >> Costco.
> >
> > spendy for those speeds.
>
> I don't disagree.
> They're in a state that has fewer voters than my county probably.
> >> They have iPads, iPhones, Macbook Pros, and an iMac.
> >> (Also they have Vonage.)
> >>
> >> With an iMac wired to the modem, they're getting 29 down and 6 up
> >> (sometimes 1 up) at around 38ms ping times, but at the various wireless
> >> devices they're only getting half that.
> >>
> >> They haven't told me what they get wired to the router (a WRT54G, which
> >> only has channels 1 through 11) but I told them to scan for WiFi signals
> >> (to see if they are clashing with their neighbors).
> >
> > interference is unlikely to be the problem, a wrt54g is too old to
> > handle 25mbit, plus it lacks 802.11ac and 802.11n.
> >
> > replace it with something new and faster.
>
> They're in the store as we speak, buying the AC 1900 router but I don't see
> how the router is the problem, per se, anyway - at least not for the
> *wired* portion of the network.
>
> Sure, the WRT54G is ancient - but I just looked up the specs and it's
> 10/100 at the four ports. I forget what 10/100 means (why not just 100?)
> but I think it means that it can do 10Mbps wired or it can do 100Mbps
> wired, and since the input from the modem is 29 Mbps, that's less than a
> 100.
wifi or wan-lan if it's used as a router.
the wrt54g hails from an era when 1.5mbit was 'fast'. today, 25-50 is
common and gigabit is 'fast'.
Horace Algier
Sep 12, 2016, 4:38:44 PM9/12/16
to
On 12 Sep 2016 02:25:07 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Numerous GUI and command-line tools exist to do that on a Mac. I often
> use NetSpot to diagnose potential WiFi reception issues for instance,
> but there are others:
>
> <https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/netspot-wifi-survey-wireless/id514951692?mt=12>
Thank you for suggesting a Mac app since I have no way of testing them but
> Numerous GUI and command-line tools exist to do that on a Mac. I often
> use NetSpot to diagnose potential WiFi reception issues for instance,
> but there are others:
>
> <https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/netspot-wifi-survey-wireless/id514951692?mt=12>
the user has an old iMac (which they had to charge up so I doubt they use
it all that often - but it had an Ethernet port) and two Macbook Pros
(which didn't have RJ45 ports).
I will suggest *that* freeware app for them.
- NetSpot: WiFi survey & wireless scanner, By Etwok LLC
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/netspot-wifi-survey-wireless/id514951692
The heatmap in the app description is *gorgeous*, but I wonder who is going
to have a house plan "on" their computer.
http://a2.mzstatic.com/us/r30/Purple4/v4/41/27/b3/4127b302-d96e-3ef0-fe14-fbded3d0f261/screen800x500.jpeg
Nonetheless, all we need are the first few bullet items in the description:
* NetSpot collects and visualizes 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac WiFi data
* support for 2.4GHz and 5GHz channel bands
* lots of data collected on every network: AP name (SSID), MAC address
(BSSID), vendor, channel, signal levels, encryption and more
Thanks for suggesting what seems to be a great freeware app for the Mac
that supplements what iOS does with the AirPort Utility for this all-Apple
household.
nospam
Sep 12, 2016, 4:41:45 PM9/12/16
to
In article <nr73oa$ig1$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
> - but it had an Ethernet port) and two Macbook Pros
> (which didn't have RJ45 ports).
use wireless.
<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> Thank you for suggesting a Mac app since I have no way of testing them but
> the user has an old iMac (which they had to charge up so I doubt they use
> it all that often
imacs do not require charging.
> Thank you for suggesting a Mac app since I have no way of testing them but
> the user has an old iMac (which they had to charge up so I doubt they use
> it all that often
> - but it had an Ethernet port) and two Macbook Pros
> (which didn't have RJ45 ports).
Jolly Roger
Sep 12, 2016, 5:02:17 PM9/12/16
to
Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2016 02:25:07 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Numerous GUI and command-line tools exist to do that on a Mac. I often
>> use NetSpot to diagnose potential WiFi reception issues for instance,
>> but there are others:
>>
>> <https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/netspot-wifi-survey-wireless/id514951692?mt=12>
>
> On 12 Sep 2016 02:25:07 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Numerous GUI and command-line tools exist to do that on a Mac. I often
>> use NetSpot to diagnose potential WiFi reception issues for instance,
>> but there are others:
>>
>> <https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/netspot-wifi-survey-wireless/id514951692?mt=12>
>
> I will suggest *that* freeware app for them.
>
>
> The heatmap in the app description is *gorgeous*, but I wonder who is going
> to have a house plan "on" their computer.
> http://a2.mzstatic.com/us/r30/Purple4/v4/41/27/b3/4127b302-d96e-3ef0-fe14-fbded3d0f261/screen800x500.jpeg
As if creating a drawing of your own floor plan at all hard to do. Take
> to have a house plan "on" their computer.
> http://a2.mzstatic.com/us/r30/Purple4/v4/41/27/b3/4127b302-d96e-3ef0-fe14-fbded3d0f261/screen800x500.jpeg
some measurements and open your favorite drawing app; done deal. Took me
less than five minutes. And you call yourself a "power user" who knows more
than most "idiot" Apple users... : )
Horace Algier
Sep 12, 2016, 5:14:17 PM9/12/16
to
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 05:25:55 -0400, nospam wrote:
> there's no need to buy *anything*. what they currently have is more
> than adequate to scan for wifi networks, which isn't even the problem.
I agree there's no need to buy anything, and inSSIDer is no longer freeware
> there's no need to buy *anything*. what they currently have is more
> than adequate to scan for wifi networks, which isn't even the problem.
anyway. Luckily, I still have inSSIDer freeware on Android because I back
up the APKs automatically and I manually back up my zip/exe files on
Windows but that's not an option here, as nospam accurately noted.
Here, we will be using the Mac and iOS tools.
So far, they're:
1. iOS = AirPort Utility
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/airport-utility/id427276530
2. MAC = Netspot
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/netspot-wifi-survey-wireless/id514951692
3. MAC =
1. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/netspot-wifi-survey-wireless/id514951692
3. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202663
Rod Speed
Sep 12, 2016, 5:14:29 PM9/12/16
to
"Horace Algier" <hor...@horatio.net> wrote in message
news:nr726c$fgi$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
> and since the input from the modem is 29 Mbps, that's less than a 100.
> Right?
simultaneously.
Horace Algier
Sep 12, 2016, 5:14:31 PM9/12/16
to
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 16:26:14 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> Fundamentally, *that* is the question.
>> Specifically, *what* numerous wifi scanner app would people use in an
>> all-apple household.
>
> do a search on the app store or use google.
Nevermind.
>> Fundamentally, *that* is the question.
>> Specifically, *what* numerous wifi scanner app would people use in an
>> all-apple household.
>
> do a search on the app store or use google.
As you can tell from the OP, I already ran a search.
In another thread, we discuss why simply spitting out search results is not
only nearly worthless, but often it's less useful than worthless.
As we've said, the cost in freeware is in *TESTING* each one and finding
the one that actually works well. Since Jolly Roger should know, I have
already suggested the app *he* suggested for these people to use on their
Macs.
I have no way of testing them, unless I try it on the library computer but
I suspect the library won't let me install it.
>> I don't have an Apple computer so mostly I'm asking about the Apple
>> computer apps.
>
> you don't need an apple computer to find such an app.
In another thread, we discuss why simply spitting out search results is not
only nearly worthless, but often it's less useful than worthless.
For example, I could have spit out this review:
7 free Wi-Fi stumbling and surveying tools for Windows and Mac
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2925081/wi-fi/7-free-wi-fi-stumbling-and-surveying-tools-for-windows-and-mac.html
But that review includes a Mac app that doesn't seem to exist, and, it
doesn't include the Mac app that Jolly Roger kindly suggested.
In the end, only a user who has *used the apps* would know which ones are
good or bad, as reviews almost invariably are wrong in that they test the
wrong things or they are fronts for software sales.
>> If they had any other platform (Windows, Linux, or Android), I'd be all
>> over it - but I know less about Macs than anyone here.
>
> you know less about a *lot* of stuff than anyone here.
The article I referenced above suggests 5 Windows and 2 Mac tools:
a. Acrylic WiFi (Windows)
b. AirGrab WiFi Radar (Mac OS X)
c. Cain & Abel (Windows)\
d. Homedale (Windows)
e. LizardSystems Wi-Fi Scanner (Windows)
f. WirelessNetView (Windows)
g. Wireless Diagnostics (Mac OS X Lion and later)
But, only one of the Mac tools seems to actually exist.
And it's not the tool that Jolly Roger kindly suggested, so, it's probably
not as good as the one that Jolly Roger suggested.
- NetSpot: WiFi survey & wireless scanner, By Etwok LLC
So it seems the two Mac WiFi scanning freeware tools to test are:
1. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/netspot-wifi-survey-wireless/id514951692
2. (The airgrab site seems to be for sale)
3. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202663
>> So that's why I ask.
>> Just saying there are "numerous" apps tells me nothing useful.
>
> it tells you to search.
>
> you do know how to search, do you not?
In another thread, we discuss why simply spitting out search results is not
only nearly worthless, but often it's less useful than worthless.
If you don't know the answer, you don't have to answer the question.
Luckily, Jolly Roger kindly supplied an answer of value which I provided to
the all-Apple household to test out when they get home from work.
>> Which of those numerous wifi scanning apps do you suggest for their laptop?
>> Would you suggest the Mac app that I found for their Macbook Pros?
>
> i don't suggest any, since the problem is almost certainly the linksys
> wrt54g.
the modem as it is at the router. That it's apparently *half* at the router
is odd, since this is a wired connection where the router spec is 10/100 so
25Mbps should be within the 100 Mbps spec.
>> Or is there something better for the Mac?
>>
>>>> An Apple-only friend (who lives in the boonies) called just now from
>>>> another state with Comcast Internet problems at home.
>>>
>>> he's correct in that comcast is a problem.
>>
>> I'm not so sure *where* the problem lies yet.
>
> i am.
ac1900 for about $200 at Best Buys, so tonight they will set it up and that
will tell them whether it was the linksys router or not.
>> Comcast tested the system and while Comcast said they can't tell what speed
>> they're getting, they can see "all green lights" from their side.
>
> they were looking at the traffic light outside their office.
The iMac hooked to the modem *did* show above 25/5 Mbps so, it doesn't seem
to be Comcast's problem (aka Xfinity).
>> Apparently the throttling to 25/5Mbps happens with a file that they say is
>> on the Docsys modem that seems to be working properly.
>>
>> So, *at* the modem, they're getting what they pay for; but with the iMac
>> wired to the Linksys WRT54G, they're not getting half that (it fluctuates
>> from 12 down and 1 up to a variety of numbers in between, they tell me).
>
> then it's the linksys.
>> So, they are buying a Netgear Nighthawk $200 ac1900 router from Best Buys
>> as we speak, but I don't see how the *wired* part of the router can be the
>> problem since the wired speeds are slower at the router (by a lot!) than
>> they are at the modem.
>
> the linksys can't handle broadband speeds.
> it was a cool router in its day, but not anymore.
I don't know what you mean by "broadband" speeds, in that they get 25/5
from Comcast and the router spec, wired, is 10/100 which is well within the
25 Mbps speed.
Likewise, the wifi on the Linksys WRT54G is apparengly 54Mbps, which is
also well within their input speeds of 25/5 Mbps.
So, the router *should* handle the speeds (AFAIK).
What the router can't do is give them an empty frequency for their WiFi.
That's why I'm asking about WiFi scanners.
They need to be on an unused frequency.
That should be less of a problem if they're on 5GHz than on 2.4 GHz.
Btw, do all the iMacs and Macbook Pros have 5GHz?
>>>> They're on the $56.95 25Mbps "Performance Internet" plan which advertises
>>>> 25 Mbps down & 5 Mbps up. They own their own Motorola Docsys 3.0 modem from
>>>> Costco.
>>>
>>> spendy for those speeds.
>>
>> I don't disagree.
>> They're in a state that has fewer voters than my county probably.
>
> the number of voters isn't the issue.
voters, who have a say in what price they charge.
>> Sure, the WRT54G is ancient - but I just looked up the specs and it's
>> 10/100 at the four ports. I forget what 10/100 means (why not just 100?)
>> but I think it means that it can do 10Mbps wired or it can do 100Mbps
>> wired, and since the input from the modem is 29 Mbps, that's less than a
>> 100.
>
> the ports aren't the issue, it's how much throughput it can manage over
> wifi or wan-lan if it's used as a router.
>
> the wrt54g hails from an era when 1.5mbit was 'fast'. today, 25-50 is
> common and gigabit is 'fast'.
it means that the WRT54G is 54Mbps wireless and 10/100 wired?
To me, 54Mbps wireless is double what their modem is giving them, so,
unless something else is interfering with their wifi signal, 54Mbps should
be well within the capabilities of the router.
Likewise, 10/100 means it can handle 100 Mbps (AFAIK - I'm not sure why the
10 is there since the 100 overrules it). If that's correct, then wired, the
router can handle 100Mbps and they're only getting 25 Mpbs at best.
So, looking at specs, I don't see that the Linksys can't handle the
throughput.
However, I do see that the Linksys WRT54G is using "g" and not "n" or "ac"
so *that* will limit their speeds, and, in addition, it's stuck on 11
channels, so, if there is interference on their channel, that will also
slow them down.
But their *wired* speeds are half at the router than at the modem, so,
something funny is going on - so they need tools to debug that work on iOS
or on Mac.
That's all I'm asking for.
Jolly Roger
Sep 12, 2016, 5:36:00 PM9/12/16
to
> So, they are buying a Netgear Nighthawk $200 ac1900 router from Best Buys
> as we speak
Bad move IMO, considering they could have gotten an Apple Airport
> as we speak
Extreme which is *far* easier to configure, much more secure due to its
design, updated for much longer during the life of the product, for the
same price.
> but I don't see how the *wired* part of the router can be the
> problem since the wired speeds are slower at the router (by a lot!) than
> they are at the modem.
nospam
Sep 12, 2016, 5:44:31 PM9/12/16
to
In article <nr75rb$lue$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
comcast.
the bottleneck is within the house, namely the linksys.
it's really very simple.
unless there's more to the story that you haven't disclosed.
> I don't know what you mean by "broadband" speeds, in that they get 25/5
> from Comcast and the router spec, wired, is 10/100 which is well within the
> 25 Mbps speed.
that's the port speed, not the router throughput.
> Likewise, the wifi on the Linksys WRT54G is apparengly 54Mbps, which is
> also well within their input speeds of 25/5 Mbps.
802.11g is 54mbps, but actual throughput is roughly half, about 25 mbit
or so, and that's *maximum*. in the real world, it will be less.
> So, the router *should* handle the speeds (AFAIK).
> What the router can't do is give them an empty frequency for their WiFi.
it doesn't an empty one, it only needs one that doesn't have much
interference.
> That's why I'm asking about WiFi scanners.
> They need to be on an unused frequency.
>
> That should be less of a problem if they're on 5GHz than on 2.4 GHz.
> Btw, do all the iMacs and Macbook Pros have 5GHz?
if it's about 8 years old or less it should.
option-click the wifi icon in the menubar for lots of geek info.
> >>>> They're on the $56.95 25Mbps "Performance Internet" plan which advertises
> >>>> 25 Mbps down & 5 Mbps up. They own their own Motorola Docsys 3.0 modem
> >>>> from
> >>>> Costco.
> >>>
> >>> spendy for those speeds.
> >>
> >> I don't disagree.
> >> They're in a state that has fewer voters than my county probably.
> >
> > the number of voters isn't the issue.
>
> Well, what I meant is that Comcast is a monopoly that is regulated by the
> voters, who have a say in what price they charge.
the voters have no say whatsoever what comcast does.
comcast does what it does because it can. they're almost always the
only game in town, so they can charge pretty much whatever they want
and you have to suck it up.
> >> Sure, the WRT54G is ancient - but I just looked up the specs and it's
> >> 10/100 at the four ports. I forget what 10/100 means (why not just 100?)
> >> but I think it means that it can do 10Mbps wired or it can do 100Mbps
> >> wired, and since the input from the modem is 29 Mbps, that's less than a
> >> 100.
> >
> > the ports aren't the issue, it's how much throughput it can manage over
> > wifi or wan-lan if it's used as a router.
> >
> > the wrt54g hails from an era when 1.5mbit was 'fast'. today, 25-50 is
> > common and gigabit is 'fast'.
>
> I don't disagree with most of your words, but maybe I don't understand what
> it means that the WRT54G is 54Mbps wireless and 10/100 wired?
one is wireless and the other is wired. duh.
> To me, 54Mbps wireless is double what their modem is giving them, so,
> unless something else is interfering with their wifi signal, 54Mbps should
> be well within the capabilities of the router.
>
> Likewise, 10/100 means it can handle 100 Mbps (AFAIK - I'm not sure why the
> 10 is there since the 100 overrules it). If that's correct, then wired, the
> router can handle 100Mbps and they're only getting 25 Mpbs at best.
the ports are 100bt, but that doesn't mean the electronics inside
support those speeds.
<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> The iMac hooked to the modem *did* show above 25/5 Mbps so, it doesn't seem
> to be Comcast's problem (aka Xfinity).
if they're getting 25/5 at the comcast modem, then the problem is not
> The iMac hooked to the modem *did* show above 25/5 Mbps so, it doesn't seem
> to be Comcast's problem (aka Xfinity).
comcast.
the bottleneck is within the house, namely the linksys.
it's really very simple.
unless there's more to the story that you haven't disclosed.
> I don't know what you mean by "broadband" speeds, in that they get 25/5
> from Comcast and the router spec, wired, is 10/100 which is well within the
> 25 Mbps speed.
> Likewise, the wifi on the Linksys WRT54G is apparengly 54Mbps, which is
> also well within their input speeds of 25/5 Mbps.
or so, and that's *maximum*. in the real world, it will be less.
> So, the router *should* handle the speeds (AFAIK).
> What the router can't do is give them an empty frequency for their WiFi.
interference.
> That's why I'm asking about WiFi scanners.
> They need to be on an unused frequency.
>
> That should be less of a problem if they're on 5GHz than on 2.4 GHz.
> Btw, do all the iMacs and Macbook Pros have 5GHz?
option-click the wifi icon in the menubar for lots of geek info.
> >>>> They're on the $56.95 25Mbps "Performance Internet" plan which advertises
> >>>> 25 Mbps down & 5 Mbps up. They own their own Motorola Docsys 3.0 modem
> >>>> from
> >>>> Costco.
> >>>
> >>> spendy for those speeds.
> >>
> >> I don't disagree.
> >> They're in a state that has fewer voters than my county probably.
> >
> > the number of voters isn't the issue.
>
> Well, what I meant is that Comcast is a monopoly that is regulated by the
> voters, who have a say in what price they charge.
comcast does what it does because it can. they're almost always the
only game in town, so they can charge pretty much whatever they want
and you have to suck it up.
> >> Sure, the WRT54G is ancient - but I just looked up the specs and it's
> >> 10/100 at the four ports. I forget what 10/100 means (why not just 100?)
> >> but I think it means that it can do 10Mbps wired or it can do 100Mbps
> >> wired, and since the input from the modem is 29 Mbps, that's less than a
> >> 100.
> >
> > the ports aren't the issue, it's how much throughput it can manage over
> > wifi or wan-lan if it's used as a router.
> >
> > the wrt54g hails from an era when 1.5mbit was 'fast'. today, 25-50 is
> > common and gigabit is 'fast'.
>
> I don't disagree with most of your words, but maybe I don't understand what
> it means that the WRT54G is 54Mbps wireless and 10/100 wired?
> To me, 54Mbps wireless is double what their modem is giving them, so,
> unless something else is interfering with their wifi signal, 54Mbps should
> be well within the capabilities of the router.
>
> Likewise, 10/100 means it can handle 100 Mbps (AFAIK - I'm not sure why the
> 10 is there since the 100 overrules it). If that's correct, then wired, the
> router can handle 100Mbps and they're only getting 25 Mpbs at best.
support those speeds.
ElfinArc
Sep 12, 2016, 5:44:53 PM9/12/16
to
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2016-09-12, Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
>>
>> So, they are buying a Netgear Nighthawk $200 ac1900 router from Best Buys
>> as we speak
>
> Bad move IMO, considering they could have gotten an Apple Airport
> Extreme which is *far* easier to configure, much more secure due to its
> design, updated for much longer during the life of the product, for the
> same price.
>
I firmly agree. In an Apple environment it is really the best choice.
> On 2016-09-12, Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
>>
>> So, they are buying a Netgear Nighthawk $200 ac1900 router from Best Buys
>> as we speak
>
> Bad move IMO, considering they could have gotten an Apple Airport
> Extreme which is *far* easier to configure, much more secure due to its
> design, updated for much longer during the life of the product, for the
> same price.
>
Rock solid and simple to configure. Mine has been sitting there for years
just working away. I might have reset it a couple times over the years,
probably when it got an update.
>> but I don't see how the *wired* part of the router can be the
>> problem since the wired speeds are slower at the router (by a lot!) than
>> they are at the modem.
>
> The simple explanation is the old, crusty router isn't able to keep up.
>
--
Elfin
Rod Speed
Sep 12, 2016, 8:20:11 PM9/12/16
to
news:nr75rb$lue$2...@gioia.aioe.org...
You're confusing the specs of the port with what thruput the router can
manage.
Not necessarily. Plenty of well designed routers share frequencys fine.
Again, you are confusing the basic wifi spec with what the router
can deliver thruput wise. Plenty can't manage anything like the
basic wifi spec, particularly with the lower priced routers.
> Likewise, 10/100 means it can handle 100 Mbps (AFAIK
> - I'm not sure why the 10 is there since the 100 overrules it).
Its there because some devices can only do 10 and that router
is happy to talk to those and works out what it is automatically.
> If that's correct, then wired, the router can handle
> 100Mbps and they're only getting 25 Mpbs at best.
Again, you are confusing the basic wifi spec with what the router
can deliver thruput wise. Plenty can't manage anything like the
basic wifi spec, particularly with the lower priced routers.
> So, looking at specs,
That’s where you are going wrong with thruput.
> I don't see that the Linksys can't handle the throughput.
> However, I do see that the Linksys WRT54G is using "g" and not "n" or "ac"
> so *that* will limit their speeds, and, in addition, it's stuck on 11
> channels, so, if there is interference on their channel, that will also
> slow them down.
Not necessarily. If the other users of a particular channel
are well away physically it will have no effect at all.
> But their *wired* speeds are half at the router than
> at the modem, so, something funny is going on
Not necessarily, it can be just a low performing router.
> - so they need tools to debug that work on iOS or on Mac.
Nope.
manage.
can deliver thruput wise. Plenty can't manage anything like the
basic wifi spec, particularly with the lower priced routers.
> Likewise, 10/100 means it can handle 100 Mbps (AFAIK
> - I'm not sure why the 10 is there since the 100 overrules it).
is happy to talk to those and works out what it is automatically.
> If that's correct, then wired, the router can handle
> 100Mbps and they're only getting 25 Mpbs at best.
can deliver thruput wise. Plenty can't manage anything like the
basic wifi spec, particularly with the lower priced routers.
> So, looking at specs,
That’s where you are going wrong with thruput.
> I don't see that the Linksys can't handle the throughput.
> However, I do see that the Linksys WRT54G is using "g" and not "n" or "ac"
> so *that* will limit their speeds, and, in addition, it's stuck on 11
> channels, so, if there is interference on their channel, that will also
> slow them down.
are well away physically it will have no effect at all.
> But their *wired* speeds are half at the router than
> at the modem, so, something funny is going on
> - so they need tools to debug that work on iOS or on Mac.
Horace Algier
Sep 12, 2016, 8:22:02 PM9/12/16
to
On 12 Sep 2016 21:35:59 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Bad move IMO, considering they could have gotten an Apple Airport
> Extreme which is *far* easier to configure, much more secure due to its
> design, updated for much longer during the life of the product, for the
> same price.
I will tell them when I call when they get back home from work.
> Bad move IMO, considering they could have gotten an Apple Airport
> Extreme which is *far* easier to configure, much more secure due to its
> design, updated for much longer during the life of the product, for the
> same price.
Looking up the AirMac Extreme, it's even *less* money than what they just
paid for their ac 19000 router, but the Apple AirMac Extreme web page is
frustratingly high on marketing BS and extremely low on real details.\
I *expect* the main page to be filled with Marketing bs...
http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/
But, when you click for "more information", you're actually supposed to get
"more information", not more of the same lack of information.
I mean, um, "With 802.11ac technology and a powerful beamforming antenna
array, AirPort Extreme gives you up to 3x faster Wi-Fi and a stronger,
clearer signal".
Yeah. Right. They have entire pages of nothingness there.
Total BS for a technical "description" if you ask me.
http://www.apple.com/shop/product/ME918LL/A/airport-extreme
Sure, it's marketing, but it's worthless to make a real comparison
decision.
The entire web site related to the airport extreme is filled with this
marketing "nothingness", for page, after page, after page:
http://www.apple.com/compare-wifi-models/
Digging deeper for a fact, any fact, any real fact that can be used to
*compare* the price:performance with the newly bought router, I'll have to
look on a non-Apple-Marketing-written site just to get *any* real
information about the thing...
https://www.tekrevue.com/802-11ac-routers-compared-apple-belkin-netgear-linksys/
http://www.cnet.com/products/apple-airport-extreme-base-station-802-11ac/
http://www.toptenreviews.com/computers/networking/best-premium-wireless-routers/airport-extreme-review/
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/review/wifi-routers/apple-airport-extreme-80211ac-6th-generation-review-3536034/
etc.
Horace Algier
Sep 12, 2016, 8:22:20 PM9/12/16
to
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 16:41:46 -0400, nospam wrote:
> In article <nr73oa$ig1$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
> <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for suggesting a Mac app since I have no way of testing them but
>> the user has an old iMac (which they had to charge up so I doubt they use
>> it all that often
>
> imacs do not require charging.
He says he has an iMac laptop.
> In article <nr73oa$ig1$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
> <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for suggesting a Mac app since I have no way of testing them but
>> the user has an old iMac (which they had to charge up so I doubt they use
>> it all that often
>
> imacs do not require charging.
It has a battery.
But I wouldn't know an iMac from a Big Mac.
I'll ask him.
>> - but it had an Ethernet port) and two Macbook Pros
>> (which didn't have RJ45 ports).
>
> use wireless.
And, if he didn't turn off the wireless login.
And if he didn't change the port.
I'm gonna call him at 5pm (oops. it's 5pm. I can call now).
Horace Algier
Sep 12, 2016, 8:22:40 PM9/12/16
to
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 17:44:31 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> The iMac hooked to the modem *did* show above 25/5 Mbps so, it doesn't seem
>> to be Comcast's problem (aka Xfinity).
>
> if they're getting 25/5 at the comcast modem, then the problem is not
> comcast.
I agree.
>> The iMac hooked to the modem *did* show above 25/5 Mbps so, it doesn't seem
>> to be Comcast's problem (aka Xfinity).
>
> if they're getting 25/5 at the comcast modem, then the problem is not
> comcast.
> the bottleneck is within the house, namely the linksys.
>
> it's really very simple.
>
> unless there's more to the story that you haven't disclosed.
called me asking how to figure out why they're getting horrid cellular
signal, even with the AT&T "M port" (or whatever they called it), and
whether they're on cellular or WiFi, and that Vonage call quality sucked.
Interestingly, they didn't mention that their Internet was slow.
So I conference called them to Comcast support and that's how we found out
that they 're paying for 25/5 Mbps and that, at their router, they were
getting half that.
The iMac wasn't charged up and they couldn't find any RJ45 ports on the
Macbook pro. I was incredulous, and I told them I hadn't seen a laptop in
decades that didn't have an RJ45 port but they confirmed it wasn't there.
So they started charging up the iMac and after the initial call to Comcast,
they hooked the iMac to the modem and that's when they saw good speeds for
the first time.
Comcast said that it as "all green lights" from their side anyway, so
that's when I told them we'd have to start debugging.
Horace Algier
Sep 12, 2016, 8:23:00 PM9/12/16
to
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 09:00:18 -0400, Wade Garrett wrote:
> If all you want is a list of available networks:
>:
> On iOS devices, go to Settings/WiFi and look at the list of networks in
> range.
Thanks for that idea, but more information is needed, e.g., the *channel*
> If all you want is a list of available networks:
>:
> On iOS devices, go to Settings/WiFi and look at the list of networks in
> range.
that each device is on.
The all-Apple house ran the iPad iOS app named "AirPort Utility" which
showed them that they were on channel 11 while there were 19 others on
channel 11 alone!
19!
OMG. I've never seen airwaves *that* congested outside a college dorm
atmosphere!
All three of the non-overlapping channels were filled with access points,
but, strangely, channel 5 was empty, so I told them to set the *new* router
to channel 5, and then give up on 2.4GHz wifi if they could.
I told them to set the iOS devices and computers to *only* use 5GHz if they
can (dunno if that's possible though).
They haven't set up the new ac 1900 router (the ac 1750 at Best Buys was
$130 and I told them that is just fine but they opted for the $200 ac 1900
just to be safe).
> On Macs, right click the WiFi icon on the top right of your screen on
> the menu bar- - or go to System Preferences/Network and click the
> Network Name drop-down.
instructions are always less detailed than mine (they skip steps), even
when it's a DIY for fixing a car - I never skip a bolt - but other people
assume a lot.
I sent them the reference though,
nospam
Sep 12, 2016, 8:34:00 PM9/12/16
to
In article <nr7grb$15q2$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
an imac is a desktop.
a macbook is a laptop.
> It has a battery.
> But I wouldn't know an iMac from a Big Mac.
no surprise there.
> >> - but it had an Ethernet port) and two Macbook Pros
> >> (which didn't have RJ45 ports).
> >
> > use wireless.
>
> That works "if" he remembers his login/password.
> And, if he didn't turn off the wireless login.
> And if he didn't change the port.
there's nothing to remember since he just bought a *new* wifi router.
it'll have whatever password he gives it when he sets it up.
<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> >> Thank you for suggesting a Mac app since I have no way of testing them but
> >> the user has an old iMac (which they had to charge up so I doubt they use
> >> it all that often
> >
> > imacs do not require charging.
>
> He says he has an iMac laptop.
he's confused, as are you.
> >> Thank you for suggesting a Mac app since I have no way of testing them but
> >> the user has an old iMac (which they had to charge up so I doubt they use
> >> it all that often
> >
> > imacs do not require charging.
>
> He says he has an iMac laptop.
an imac is a desktop.
a macbook is a laptop.
> It has a battery.
> But I wouldn't know an iMac from a Big Mac.
> >> - but it had an Ethernet port) and two Macbook Pros
> >> (which didn't have RJ45 ports).
> >
> > use wireless.
>
> That works "if" he remembers his login/password.
> And, if he didn't turn off the wireless login.
> And if he didn't change the port.
it'll have whatever password he gives it when he sets it up.
nospam
Sep 12, 2016, 8:34:01 PM9/12/16
to
In article <nr7grv$15q2$3...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
once again, an imac is a *desktop* computer that plugs into the wall.
there is nothing to charge.
> and they couldn't find any RJ45 ports on the
> Macbook pro.
then it's very recent and likely has 802.11ac.
> I was incredulous, and I told them I hadn't seen a laptop in
> decades that didn't have an RJ45 port but they confirmed it wasn't there.
a lot of laptops don't because wireless is far more convenient and just
as fast (or even faster) in real world use.
laptops are *mobile* and people don't want to be tethered, so having an
ethernet port frequently goes unused.
once again, an imac is a *desktop* computer that plugs into the wall.
there is nothing to charge.
> and they couldn't find any RJ45 ports on the
> Macbook pro.
> I was incredulous, and I told them I hadn't seen a laptop in
> decades that didn't have an RJ45 port but they confirmed it wasn't there.
as fast (or even faster) in real world use.
laptops are *mobile* and people don't want to be tethered, so having an
ethernet port frequently goes unused.
Jolly Roger
Sep 12, 2016, 8:48:57 PM9/12/16
to
Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2016 21:35:59 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Bad move IMO, considering they could have gotten an Apple Airport
>> Extreme which is *far* easier to configure, much more secure due to its
>> design, updated for much longer during the life of the product, for the
>> same price.
>
> I will tell them when I call when they get back home from work.
Sure you will...
> On 12 Sep 2016 21:35:59 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Bad move IMO, considering they could have gotten an Apple Airport
>> Extreme which is *far* easier to configure, much more secure due to its
>> design, updated for much longer during the life of the product, for the
>> same price.
>
> I will tell them when I call when they get back home from work.
> Looking up the AirMac Extreme, it's even *less* money than what they just
> paid for their ac 19000 router, but the Apple AirMac Extreme web page is
> frustratingly high on marketing BS and extremely low on real details.\
misguided and trollish spec comparisons since those of us who aren't here
purely to troll realize spec comparisons aren't the only or best method of
determining actual value.
> I *expect* the main page to be filled with Marketing bs...
> http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/
>
> But, when you click for "more information", you're actually supposed to get
> "more information", not more of the same lack of information.
Apple news groups, you sure seem to have a hard time with basic things like
clicking the Tech Specs link on that very page:
<http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/specs/>
nospam
Sep 12, 2016, 8:50:20 PM9/12/16
to
In article <e3p0no...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Looking up the AirMac Extreme, it's even *less* money than what they just
> > paid for their ac 19000 router, but the Apple AirMac Extreme web page is
> > frustratingly high on marketing BS and extremely low on real details.\
>
> I'll save you some time. Nobody here is interested in yet another of your
> misguided and trollish spec comparisons since those of us who aren't here
> purely to troll realize spec comparisons aren't the only or best method of
> determining actual value.
>
> > I *expect* the main page to be filled with Marketing bs...
> > http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/
> >
> > But, when you click for "more information", you're actually supposed to get
> > "more information", not more of the same lack of information.
>
> For someone who constantly claims he is smarter than everyone else in the
> Apple news groups, you sure seem to have a hard time with basic things like
> clicking the Tech Specs link on that very page:
>
> <http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/specs/>
and even getting the product name correct:
>
> > Looking up the AirMac Extreme, it's even *less* money than what they just
> > paid for their ac 19000 router, but the Apple AirMac Extreme web page is
> > frustratingly high on marketing BS and extremely low on real details.\
>
> I'll save you some time. Nobody here is interested in yet another of your
> misguided and trollish spec comparisons since those of us who aren't here
> purely to troll realize spec comparisons aren't the only or best method of
> determining actual value.
>
> > I *expect* the main page to be filled with Marketing bs...
> > http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/
> >
> > But, when you click for "more information", you're actually supposed to get
> > "more information", not more of the same lack of information.
>
> For someone who constantly claims he is smarter than everyone else in the
> Apple news groups, you sure seem to have a hard time with basic things like
> clicking the Tech Specs link on that very page:
>
> <http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/specs/>
Jolly Roger
Sep 12, 2016, 10:07:40 PM9/12/16
to
Horace Algier
Sep 12, 2016, 11:31:58 PM9/12/16
to
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 18:45:22 -0700, AL wrote:
> I have 50Mbps cable service. I'm lucky in that it usually runs in the
> high 50s to middle 60s. At the device end I usually measure 10 to 15
> Mbps faster when using 5GHz than 2.4GHz. Whatever the reason, crowded
> band or not, it's a no-brainer as to which band I set my devices to.
I have a couple of kids in graduate school and where they live they have
tons of others nearby.
One has 50Mbps service from Comcast, as I recall, and she gets almost
90Mbps.
BTW, a trick I learned the hard way is that after 1 year of the
"introductory rate" from Comcast, they raise your bill - and it used to be
that if you called them, they'd automatically give you the introductory
rate again.
I was told recently that they *stopped* doing that in October of last year.
If that's true, then they said they don't lower your rates back to the
original rates.
However ....
I looked up on Zillow a house for sale in the nearby area of the kid and
called Comcast as a new owner of that house, giving them a bogus phone
number at that address and they told me that the house I chose hasn't had
Internet for two years (lucky me).
Then they gave me an *introductory rate*, which was *lower* (by a lot!)
than the rate they had just told us they couldn't give us.
I wrote *everything* down (that's where an automatic call recorder excels,
because you can play back all their crazy package names!) and then we
called back on the original Comcast account and argued with them until they
gave us *those* introductory rates.
So, yeah, it took *multiple* phone calls, where Comcast effectively lied to
us (where is Rod Speed when I need him to proclaim a lie?) but we got the
"introductory rate".
> I have 50Mbps cable service. I'm lucky in that it usually runs in the
> high 50s to middle 60s. At the device end I usually measure 10 to 15
> Mbps faster when using 5GHz than 2.4GHz. Whatever the reason, crowded
> band or not, it's a no-brainer as to which band I set my devices to.
I have a couple of kids in graduate school and where they live they have
tons of others nearby.
One has 50Mbps service from Comcast, as I recall, and she gets almost
90Mbps.
BTW, a trick I learned the hard way is that after 1 year of the
"introductory rate" from Comcast, they raise your bill - and it used to be
that if you called them, they'd automatically give you the introductory
rate again.
I was told recently that they *stopped* doing that in October of last year.
If that's true, then they said they don't lower your rates back to the
original rates.
However ....
I looked up on Zillow a house for sale in the nearby area of the kid and
called Comcast as a new owner of that house, giving them a bogus phone
number at that address and they told me that the house I chose hasn't had
Internet for two years (lucky me).
Then they gave me an *introductory rate*, which was *lower* (by a lot!)
than the rate they had just told us they couldn't give us.
I wrote *everything* down (that's where an automatic call recorder excels,
because you can play back all their crazy package names!) and then we
called back on the original Comcast account and argued with them until they
gave us *those* introductory rates.
So, yeah, it took *multiple* phone calls, where Comcast effectively lied to
us (where is Rod Speed when I need him to proclaim a lie?) but we got the
"introductory rate".
Horace Algier
Sep 12, 2016, 11:32:06 PM9/12/16
to
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 10:10:34 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>> 25Mbps should be within the 100 Mbps spec.
>
> You're confusing the specs of the port with what thruput the router can
> manage.
You're definitely correct that I'm confused.
>> 25Mbps should be within the 100 Mbps spec.
>
> You're confusing the specs of the port with what thruput the router can
> manage.
And you're almost certainly correct that I'm confusing what you call the
"specs of the port" with the throughput of the router.
I guess it doesn't matter though, since the WRT54G is history.
He's already replaced the linksys with the Netgear ac 1900 router.
On a vonage phone call, things seemed better - but - I'm on Ooma over a
WISP connection, so he really needs to test with a landline friend.
I told him to first get the Internet working.
Then we will worry about the Vonage QOS.
And lastly we'd worry about the AT&T Microcell (which they call an mcell).
>> They need to be on an unused frequency.
>
> Not necessarily. Plenty of well designed routers share frequencys fine.
found two devices on the 2.5GHz network, one of which he recognized but the
other he didn't recognize.
He's gonna use Fing on the mobile device to figure out what that other
device is, over time.
>> To me, 54Mbps wireless is double what their modem is giving them, so,
>> unless something else is interfering with their wifi signal, 54Mbps should
>> be well within the capabilities of the router.
>
> Again, you are confusing the basic wifi spec with what the router
> can deliver thruput wise. Plenty can't manage anything like the
> basic wifi spec, particularly with the lower priced routers.
comes to router specs.
I thought the 54Mbps meant that's what it can handle but if that's too
simplistic, then the simpler answer is that he no longer has the Linksys
WRT54G in service. He now has the Netgear ac 1900 so *that* should be fast
enough for Comcast 25/5 Mbps service. :)
>> Likewise, 10/100 means it can handle 100 Mbps (AFAIK
>> - I'm not sure why the 10 is there since the 100 overrules it).
>
> Its there because some devices can only do 10 and that router
> is happy to talk to those and works out what it is automatically.
"protocol" work fine while others on the 100 "Protocol" work fine too.
I was only pointing out that 100 is far greater than 25Mbps but again, I
never once said I understood those specs.
Suffice to say that the new router is in place, where I doubt a new ac 1900
router is slowing him down when his Internet feed from Comcast is only
25/5.
Thanks for the advice.
At this point, he has the necessary tools on the iOS device to debug:
a. AirPort Utility (to check for interference)
b. Fing (to check for intruders)
And if he needs it, he can install the necessary tools on the Macs:
a. NetSpot (to check for interference)
b. Wireless Diagnostics (to check for interference)
Here are the related URLs:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/airport-utility/id427276530
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/netspot-wifi-survey-wireless/id514951692
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202663
And to check for intruders on either platform:
- Fing
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fing-network-scanner/id430921107
Horace Algier
Sep 12, 2016, 11:32:17 PM9/12/16
to
On 13 Sep 2016 00:48:56 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> For someone who constantly claims he is smarter than everyone else in the
> Apple news groups, you sure seem to have a hard time with basic things like
> clicking the Tech Specs link on that very page:
>
> <http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/specs/>
Ah, that's more like it!
> For someone who constantly claims he is smarter than everyone else in the
> Apple news groups, you sure seem to have a hard time with basic things like
> clicking the Tech Specs link on that very page:
>
> <http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/specs/>
http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/specs/
Nice. That's what I was looking for.
BTW, I didn't suggest that router, someone else did.
So for you to claim that I *planned* a trollish behavior regarding that
router gives me far more credit for being clever than I can imagine you'd
give me.
I'm smart ... but I'm not *that* smart.
In this case, I think we're pretty much done with the original question.
The original question was how to scan for WiFi on Apple equipment.
The answer is fine with me, which is:
iOS:
- Airport Utility
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/airport-utility/id427276530
- Fing
Mac:
- NetSpot: WiFi survey & wireless scanner, By Etwok LLC
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/netspot-wifi-survey-wireless/id514951692
- Wireless Diagnostics
Horace Algier
Sep 12, 2016, 11:32:29 PM9/12/16
to
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 20:34:02 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> The iMac wasn't charged up
>
> once again, an imac is a *desktop* computer that plugs into the wall.
> there is nothing to charge.
Then he doesn't know what his machine is called.
>> The iMac wasn't charged up
>
> once again, an imac is a *desktop* computer that plugs into the wall.
> there is nothing to charge.
I asked him again and he said iMac again so I'm not gonna press the issue.
He knows if it has a battery or not.
>> and they couldn't find any RJ45 ports on the
>> Macbook pro.
>
> then it's very recent and likely has 802.11ac.
He has the new router up and running, and he found an "android-#####"
device on his network, so, he *already* has an intruder (within hours!)
because he himself has no Android devices (and neither does his wife), so,
that's interesting.
I told him to use "Fing" to keep track of intruders.
>> I was incredulous, and I told them I hadn't seen a laptop in
>> decades that didn't have an RJ45 port but they confirmed it wasn't there.
>
> a lot of laptops don't because wireless is far more convenient and just
> as fast (or even faster) in real world use.
Anyway, he still had oddities, as his download is now 29Mbps at both the
modem and the router, but his upload is 6Mbps at the modem but only 0.4Mbps
at the router using wireless (which is odd, indeed).
So his wired speeds are what one would expect.
And his wireless download is what one would expect.
But something is wrong with his wireless upload.
We did mess with Vonage QOS settings - but that shouldn't be a big factor.
> laptops are *mobile* and people don't want to be tethered, so having an
> ethernet port frequently goes unused.
Since I have Netgear equipment, I was able to walk him through most of the
setup. WPA2/PSK, easily remembered non-dictionary passphrase (name of
consecutive presidents), no guest setup, _nomap on the SSID, etc.
Wired is fine now at both the modem and router.
Wireless down is fine at both the modem and router.
But wireless up is dismal (at 0.4Mbps) at the router.
nospam
Sep 12, 2016, 11:38:47 PM9/12/16
to
nospam
Sep 12, 2016, 11:38:47 PM9/12/16
to
In article <nr7s04$1jcr$4...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
surprised someone joined it.
> I told him to use "Fing" to keep track of intruders.
no need.
set a good passphrase and it's for all intents impossible to crack it.
<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> He has the new router up and running, and he found an "android-#####"
> device on his network, so, he *already* has an intruder (within hours!)
> because he himself has no Android devices (and neither does his wife), so,
> that's interesting.
didn't he set a passphrase? if he left it wide open, then don't be
> He has the new router up and running, and he found an "android-#####"
> device on his network, so, he *already* has an intruder (within hours!)
> because he himself has no Android devices (and neither does his wife), so,
> that's interesting.
surprised someone joined it.
> I told him to use "Fing" to keep track of intruders.
set a good passphrase and it's for all intents impossible to crack it.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 12:05:26 AM9/13/16
to
On 13 Sep 2016 02:07:38 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Must be his pathetic aversion to the "evil M.A.R.K.E.T.I.N.G names"...
The nice thing in those specs is that it lists the "Radio Output Power" at
> Must be his pathetic aversion to the "evil M.A.R.K.E.T.I.N.G names"...
- Radio output power: 32.5 dBm maximum (varies by country)
Hmmm... is thtat EIRP?
Or is that just the radio sans antenna?
It doesn't say - but it's so high that it's probably EIRP.
Most home router antennas, AFAICR, are about 18dBi, so 32.5dBm seems pretty
high (yeah, I know one is isotropic and the other is compared against 50mW
but those are the figures that I have).
The maximum antenna and radio power and EIRP are listed here:
http://www.air802.com/fcc-rules-and-regulations.html
But, as noted, it varies by country:
https://w.wol.ph/2015/08/28/maximum-wifi-transmission-power-country/
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 12:05:43 AM9/13/16
to
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 23:38:49 -0400, nospam wrote:
> didn't he set a passphrase? if he left it wide open, then don't be
> surprised someone joined it.
Dunno what he did - as we only noticed the android intruder as I was
> didn't he set a passphrase? if he left it wide open, then don't be
> surprised someone joined it.
running through the setup with him showing him what was on 2.4GHz and what
was on 5GHz (since I had advised turning off the 2.4GHz if he could get
away with it).
>> I told him to use "Fing" to keep track of intruders.
>
> no need.
>
> set a good passphrase and it's for all intents impossible to crack it.
with WPA/PSK-AES which is:
a. Use a non-dictionary unique but non-identifying SSID (with _nomap)
b. Use a good pass phrase (e.g., two subsequent president's names)
Remember, the lousy choice for a default salt for the passphrase means that
every common SSID is *already* compromised in WPA2-PSK; so that's why I
told him to use *both* of the above.
nospam
Sep 13, 2016, 12:14:18 AM9/13/16
to
In article <nr7tud$1l29$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
just don't leave it as the default, e.g., 'linksys'.
> b. Use a good pass phrase (e.g., two subsequent president's names)
that's what i said.
<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> > set a good passphrase and it's for all intents impossible to crack it.
>
> Actually, there are rainbow tables so, there are two things you need to do
> with WPA/PSK-AES which is:
> a. Use a non-dictionary unique but non-identifying SSID (with _nomap)
not required, and certainly not the nomap silliness.
> > set a good passphrase and it's for all intents impossible to crack it.
>
> Actually, there are rainbow tables so, there are two things you need to do
> with WPA/PSK-AES which is:
> a. Use a non-dictionary unique but non-identifying SSID (with _nomap)
just don't leave it as the default, e.g., 'linksys'.
> b. Use a good pass phrase (e.g., two subsequent president's names)
Jolly Roger
Sep 13, 2016, 12:33:55 AM9/13/16
to
On 2016-09-13, Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2016 00:48:56 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> For someone who constantly claims he is smarter than everyone else in the
>> Apple news groups, you sure seem to have a hard time with basic things like
>> clicking the Tech Specs link on that very page:
>>
>> <http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/specs/>
>
> Ah, that's more like it!
> http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/specs/
Repeating a URL I already hand fed you doesn't add anything of value to
> On 13 Sep 2016 00:48:56 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> For someone who constantly claims he is smarter than everyone else in the
>> Apple news groups, you sure seem to have a hard time with basic things like
>> clicking the Tech Specs link on that very page:
>>
>> <http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/specs/>
>
> Ah, that's more like it!
> http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/specs/
the conversation.
> Nice. That's what I was looking for.
the page, titles "Tech Specs".
> BTW, I didn't suggest that router, someone else did.
Jolly Roger
Sep 13, 2016, 12:39:59 AM9/13/16
to
> He has the new router up and running, and he found an "android-#####"
> device on his network, so, he *already* has an intruder (within hours!)
> because he himself has no Android devices (and neither does his wife), so,
> that's interesting.
Then either he configured the router insecurely or he actually does have
> device on his network, so, he *already* has an intruder (within hours!)
> because he himself has no Android devices (and neither does his wife), so,
> that's interesting.
an Android device in his house unbeknownst to him. The fact that he
calls his laptop an "iMac" makes one wonder about his awareness. Anyhow,
this is a good example of how Apple's routers are more secure by design.
Apple's routers force you to set a strong pass phrase for WiFi access.
Not only that, but there is no default user name or password on Apple
routers (which many users fail to ever change, leaving them open for
attack), nor is there the standard web server-based configuration
facility to attack.
> I told him to use "Fing" to keep track of intruders.
better yet tell him to return that thing and get an Airport Extreme
instead.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 12:49:56 AM9/13/16
to
On 13 Sep 2016 02:08:39 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Easy enough to configure the router to use a different SSID for each
> band, then configure individual devices to connect to either one.
Folks may consider adding "optout" for Microsoft Windows 10, and "_nomap"
for Google.
Dunno if Apple respects these opt out keywords though...
Nobody seems to know the answer...
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3774886?tstart=0
Q: Does Apple adhere to Google's _nomap router location optout?
> Easy enough to configure the router to use a different SSID for each
> band, then configure individual devices to connect to either one.
Folks may consider adding "optout" for Microsoft Windows 10, and "_nomap"
for Google.
Dunno if Apple respects these opt out keywords though...
Nobody seems to know the answer...
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3774886?tstart=0
Q: Does Apple adhere to Google's _nomap router location optout?
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 12:50:16 AM9/13/16
to
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 20:50:21 -0400, nospam wrote:
> and even getting the product name correct:
Compare the quality and specificity of these Apple specs:
> and even getting the product name correct:
http://www.apple.com/airport-extreme/specs/
Against typical Ubuiquti specs for the radio that I have on my roof:
https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/rocketm/RocketM_DS.pdf
This is the Apple spec:
Radio output power: 32.5 dBm maximum (varies by country)
This is the Ubiquit spec for "my" radio:
Operating FrequencyWorldwide: 5170 - 5875 MHz
USA: 5725 - 5850 MHz*
Output Power27 dBm
TX Power Specifications
RX Power Specifications
ModulationData RateAvg. TXToleranceModulationData RateSensitivityTolerance
802.11a6 - 24 Mbps27 dBm± 2 dB
802.11a6 - 24 Mbps-94 dBm Min.± 2 dB
36 Mbps25 dBm± 2 dB
36 Mbps-80 dBm± 2 dB
48 Mbps23 dBm± 2 dB
48 Mbps-77 dBm± 2 dB
54 Mbps22 dBm± 2 dB
54 Mbps-75 dBm± 2 dB
802.11n/airMAXMCS027 dBm± 2 dB
802.11n/airMAXMCS0 -96 dBm± 2 dB
MCS127 dBm± 2 dBMCS1-95 dBm± 2 dB
MCS227 dBm± 2 dBMCS2-92 dBm± 2 dB
MCS327 dBm± 2 dBMCS3-90 dBm± 2 dB
MCS426 dBm± 2 dBMCS4-86 dBm± 2 dB
MCS524 dBm± 2 dBMCS5 -83 dBm± 2 dB
MCS622 dBm ± 2 dBMCS6-77 dBm± 2 dB
MCS721 dBm± 2 dBMCS7 -74 dBm± 2 dB
MCS827 dBm± 2 dBMCS8-95 dBm± 2 dB
MCS927 dBm± 2 dBMCS9 -93 dBm± 2 dB
MCS1027 dBm± 2 dBMCS10-90 dBm± 2 dB
MCS1127 dBm± 2 dBMCS11-87 dBm± 2 dB
MCS1226 dBm± 2 dBMCS12-84 dBm± 2 dB
MCS1324 dBm± 2 dBMCS13-79 dBm± 2 dB
MCS1422 dBm± 2 dBMCS14-78 dBm± 2 dB
MCS1521 dBm± 2 dBMCS15-75 dBm± 2 dB
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 12:50:36 AM9/13/16
to
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 00:14:19 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> a. Use a non-dictionary unique but non-identifying SSID (with _nomap)
>
> not required, and certainly not the nomap silliness.
The silliness is even worse than just "_nomap", since if you have Windows
>> a. Use a non-dictionary unique but non-identifying SSID (with _nomap)
>
> not required, and certainly not the nomap silliness.
10 nearby, you must also add "optout".
http://tourkick.com/advice-tips-howto/myth-busting-windows-10-wi-fi-sense-google-wireless-mapping/
So what is needed is SSID_optout_nomap, which, I agree, is ridiculous, but
that's what Microsoft and Google require for you to opt out.
The Microsoft-mandated "optout" can exist anywhere in the SSID; but the
Google-mandated "_nomap" must be at the end of the SSID.
> just don't leave it as the default, e.g., 'linksys'.
>
>> b. Use a good pass phrase (e.g., two subsequent president's names)
>
> that's what i said.
For example 1 million common passphrases for 1,000 common SSID is only
33GB of data.
You can get them by torrent here:
https://www.renderlab.net/projects/WPA-tables/
Basically, if both your WPA2/PSK SSID and passphrase aren't essentially
unique, then you're already hacked.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 12:51:21 AM9/13/16
to
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 00:14:19 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> a. Use a non-dictionary unique but non-identifying SSID (with _nomap)
>
> not required, and certainly not the nomap silliness.
>
> not required, and certainly not the nomap silliness.
The silliness is even worse than just "_nomap", since if you have Windows
10 nearby, you must also add "optout".
http://tourkick.com/advice-tips-howto/myth-busting-windows-10-wi-fi-sense-google-wireless-mapping/
So what is needed is SSID_optout_nomap, which, I agree, is ridiculous, but
that's what Microsoft and Google require for you to opt out.
The Microsoft-mandated "optout" can exist anywhere in the SSID; but the
Google-mandated "_nomap" must be at the end of the SSID.
10 nearby, you must also add "optout".
http://tourkick.com/advice-tips-howto/myth-busting-windows-10-wi-fi-sense-google-wireless-mapping/
So what is needed is SSID_optout_nomap, which, I agree, is ridiculous, but
that's what Microsoft and Google require for you to opt out.
The Microsoft-mandated "optout" can exist anywhere in the SSID; but the
Google-mandated "_nomap" must be at the end of the SSID.
> just don't leave it as the default, e.g., 'linksys'.
>
>> b. Use a good pass phrase (e.g., two subsequent president's names)
>
> that's what i said.
>
>> b. Use a good pass phrase (e.g., two subsequent president's names)
>
> that's what i said.
nospam
Sep 13, 2016, 1:07:16 AM9/13/16
to
In article <nr80id$1npn$3...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
> you must also add "optout".
no i don't.
> http://tourkick.com/advice-tips-howto/myth-busting-windows-10-wi-fi-sense-goog
> The Microsoft-mandated "optout" can exist anywhere in the SSID; but the
> Google-mandated "_nomap" must be at the end of the SSID.
>
> > just don't leave it as the default, e.g., 'linksys'.
> >
> >> b. Use a good pass phrase (e.g., two subsequent president's names)
> >
> > that's what i said.
>
> Rainbow tables are a real thing.
nobody said otherwise
> For example 1 million common passphrases for 1,000 common SSID is only
> 33GB of data.
so what.
> You can get them by torrent here:
> https://www.renderlab.net/projects/WPA-tables/
>
> Basically, if both your WPA2/PSK SSID and passphrase aren't essentially
> unique, then you're already hacked.
all that matters is the passphrase.
<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
>
> >> a. Use a non-dictionary unique but non-identifying SSID (with _nomap)
> >
> > not required, and certainly not the nomap silliness.
>
> The silliness is even worse than just "_nomap", since if you have Windows
> 10 nearby,
i do
>
> >> a. Use a non-dictionary unique but non-identifying SSID (with _nomap)
> >
> > not required, and certainly not the nomap silliness.
>
> The silliness is even worse than just "_nomap", since if you have Windows
> 10 nearby,
> you must also add "optout".
> http://tourkick.com/advice-tips-howto/myth-busting-windows-10-wi-fi-sense-goog
> le-wireless-mapping/
>
> So what is needed is SSID_optout_nomap, which, I agree, is ridiculous, but
> that's what Microsoft and Google require for you to opt out.
it's not 'needed'.
>
> So what is needed is SSID_optout_nomap, which, I agree, is ridiculous, but
> that's what Microsoft and Google require for you to opt out.
> The Microsoft-mandated "optout" can exist anywhere in the SSID; but the
> Google-mandated "_nomap" must be at the end of the SSID.
>
> > just don't leave it as the default, e.g., 'linksys'.
> >
> >> b. Use a good pass phrase (e.g., two subsequent president's names)
> >
> > that's what i said.
>
> Rainbow tables are a real thing.
> For example 1 million common passphrases for 1,000 common SSID is only
> 33GB of data.
> You can get them by torrent here:
> https://www.renderlab.net/projects/WPA-tables/
>
> Basically, if both your WPA2/PSK SSID and passphrase aren't essentially
> unique, then you're already hacked.
Jolly Roger
Sep 13, 2016, 1:08:04 AM9/13/16
to
On 2016-09-13, Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2016 02:08:39 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Easy enough to configure the router to use a different SSID for each
>> band, then configure individual devices to connect to either one.
>
> Folks may consider adding "optout" for Microsoft Windows 10, and "_nomap"
> for Google.
Nah. Those of us who understand security implications of them have no
>
>> Easy enough to configure the router to use a different SSID for each
>> band, then configure individual devices to connect to either one.
>
> Folks may consider adding "optout" for Microsoft Windows 10, and "_nomap"
> for Google.
need or desire to try to hide or otherwise obfuscate them.
> Dunno if Apple respects these opt out keywords though...
Apple respects the privacy of its customers enough not to bother doing
anything that would harm their privacy.
Jolly Roger
Sep 13, 2016, 1:11:30 AM9/13/16
to
On 2016-09-13, Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 20:50:21 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> and even getting the product name correct:
>
> Compare the quality and specificity of these Apple specs:
Nobody here cares for yet another of your silly public masturbation
>
>> and even getting the product name correct:
>
> Compare the quality and specificity of these Apple specs:
sessions about specifications.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 1:13:05 AM9/13/16
to
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 01:07:18 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> you must also add "optout".
>
> no i don't.
>
>> http://tourkick.com/advice-tips-howto/myth-busting-windows-10-wi-fi-sense-goog
>> le-wireless-mapping/
>>
>> So what is needed is SSID_optout_nomap, which, I agree, is ridiculous, but
>> that's what Microsoft and Google require for you to opt out.
>
> it's not 'needed'.
Fair enough.
>> you must also add "optout".
>
> no i don't.
>
>> http://tourkick.com/advice-tips-howto/myth-busting-windows-10-wi-fi-sense-goog
>> le-wireless-mapping/
>>
>> So what is needed is SSID_optout_nomap, which, I agree, is ridiculous, but
>> that's what Microsoft and Google require for you to opt out.
>
> it's not 'needed'.
The "optout" isn't needed.
But I agree with you that we have to even *think* about adding "optout" and
"_nomap" to our SSIDs in order to opt *out* of Microsoft and Google
silliness respectively.
It should be opt *in* only.
But it's not.
Sigh.
>> Basically, if both your WPA2/PSK SSID and passphrase aren't essentially
>> unique, then you're already hacked.
>
> all that matters is the passphrase.
So the SSID matters too.
But yes, if your passphrase is unique (truly unique, as in not one of a
million known passphrases!), then you're fine.
But is your passphrase *that* unique?
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 1:13:06 AM9/13/16
to
On 13 Sep 2016 04:33:54 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Repeating a URL I already hand fed you doesn't add anything of value to
> the conversation.
I never see quoted text.
> Repeating a URL I already hand fed you doesn't add anything of value to
> the conversation.
So, repeating the URL helps a person reading this who is hiding quoted
text.
Most newsreaders, of course, can easily flip between hiding quoted text and
not hiding it - but I repeat as a courtesy to the reader who hides quoted
text.
>> Nice. That's what I was looking for.
>
> You couldn't have been looking very hard since it's right at the top of
> the page, titles "Tech Specs".
realize that the spec you gave me *is* a purely M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G BS spec,
and, as such, is essentially useless, right?
I mean, just *compare* the spec you gave which was a single line for *all*
frequencies and *all* countries, against the spec for "my" radio on my
roof, which lists not only the spec at *each* frequency, but also the
transmit and receive spec, and the error range.
Your purely MARKETING spec (which is almost completely useless):
- Radio output power: 32.5 dBm maximum (varies by country)
A far more useful spec that is much closer to being "real":
- https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/rocketm/RocketM_DS.pdf
PS: They all lie. But boy oh boy, does Apple hide a *lot* more stuff than
Ubiquiti does.
What you gave is the best Apple has - but it's something nobody who really
cared about the output could actually use. Notice the difference in the
Ubiquiti spec *before* you respond.
>> BTW, I didn't suggest that router, someone else did.
>
> I don't care; and it had zero bearing on my response to you.
I always follow *your* lead & simply respond in kind.
You should have noticed that by now.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 1:13:09 AM9/13/16
to
On 13 Sep 2016 04:39:57 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Much better would be to advise him to set up his router securely, or
> better yet tell him to return that thing and get an Airport Extreme
> instead.
Since they're all Apple, the Airport Extreme makes sense.
> Much better would be to advise him to set up his router securely, or
> better yet tell him to return that thing and get an Airport Extreme
> instead.
It's hard to tell from the specs the power, but what they have for EIRP at
32dBm seems pretty good (it's maximum, of course, but, they all lie with
specs).
nospam
Sep 13, 2016, 1:18:13 AM9/13/16
to
In article <nr81su$1p9a$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
> >> Basically, if both your WPA2/PSK SSID and passphrase aren't essentially
> >> unique, then you're already hacked.
> >
> > all that matters is the passphrase.
>
> Remember, the SSID is the *salt* to the encryption.
> So the SSID matters too.
> But yes, if your passphrase is unique (truly unique, as in not one of a
> million known passphrases!), then you're fine.
that's what i've been saying.
> But is your passphrase *that* unique?
yes.
<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> But I agree with you that we have to even *think* about adding "optout" and
> "_nomap" to our SSIDs in order to opt *out* of Microsoft and Google
> silliness respectively.
>
> It should be opt *in* only.
no, because then few people would bother.
> But I agree with you that we have to even *think* about adding "optout" and
> "_nomap" to our SSIDs in order to opt *out* of Microsoft and Google
> silliness respectively.
>
> It should be opt *in* only.
> >> Basically, if both your WPA2/PSK SSID and passphrase aren't essentially
> >> unique, then you're already hacked.
> >
> > all that matters is the passphrase.
>
> Remember, the SSID is the *salt* to the encryption.
> So the SSID matters too.
> But yes, if your passphrase is unique (truly unique, as in not one of a
> million known passphrases!), then you're fine.
> But is your passphrase *that* unique?
nospam
Sep 13, 2016, 1:18:14 AM9/13/16
to
In article <nr81t1$1p9a$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> > Repeating a URL I already hand fed you doesn't add anything of value to
> > the conversation.
>
> I never see quoted text.
then your newsreader is broken
> > Repeating a URL I already hand fed you doesn't add anything of value to
> > the conversation.
>
> I never see quoted text.
Jolly Roger
Sep 13, 2016, 1:19:29 AM9/13/16
to
On 2016-09-13, Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> But yes, if your passphrase is unique (truly unique, as in not one of a
> million known passphrases!), then you're fine.
>
> But is your passphrase *that* unique?
If your pass phrase isn't unique, you're doing it wrong. Duh.
> million known passphrases!), then you're fine.
>
> But is your passphrase *that* unique?
Rod Speed
Sep 13, 2016, 1:20:11 AM9/13/16
to
Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote
> Jolly Roger wrote
> The nice thing in those specs is that it lists the "Radio Output Power"
> at - Radio output power: 32.5 dBm maximum (varies by country)
> Hmmm... is thtat EIRP?
Yep.
> Or is that just the radio sans antenna?
Nope, its never that.
> It doesn't say - but it's so high that it's probably EIRP.
Nope, it will be with the antenna(s) it has.
> Jolly Roger wrote
> The nice thing in those specs is that it lists the "Radio Output Power"
> at - Radio output power: 32.5 dBm maximum (varies by country)
> Hmmm... is thtat EIRP?
> Or is that just the radio sans antenna?
> It doesn't say - but it's so high that it's probably EIRP.
Jolly Roger
Sep 13, 2016, 1:24:35 AM9/13/16
to
On 2016-09-13, Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2016 04:33:54 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Repeating a URL I already hand fed you doesn't add anything of value to
>> the conversation.
>
> I never see quoted text.
Sounds like a personal problem.
>
>> Repeating a URL I already hand fed you doesn't add anything of value to
>> the conversation.
>
> I never see quoted text.
> So, repeating the URL helps a person reading this who is hiding quoted
> text.
>
> Most newsreaders, of course, can easily flip between hiding quoted text and
> not hiding it - but I repeat as a courtesy to the reader who hides quoted
> text.
experience. You seem to believe the more verbose your posts the better.
Fortunately, people are smart enough to see right through your silly
games.
[useless trollish verbosity omitted]
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 1:26:12 AM9/13/16
to
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 01:18:16 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> I never see quoted text.
>
> then your newsreader is broken
I think my newsreaders work just like most newsreaders.
>> I never see quoted text.
>
> then your newsreader is broken
In all mine, I can hit "q" to toggle quoted text, just as I can hit "h" to
toggle the header lines.
I almost never do.
I'm sure I'm not unique in that regard.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 1:26:13 AM9/13/16
to
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:20:05 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>> It doesn't say - but it's so high that it's probably EIRP.
>
> Nope, it will be with the antenna(s) it has.
Thanks. I was being nice to JR because he was nice enough to show me the
>> It doesn't say - but it's so high that it's probably EIRP.
>
> Nope, it will be with the antenna(s) it has.
specs.
I *always* respond in kind.
Thanks for clarifying the spec was a maximum EIRP.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 1:26:15 AM9/13/16
to
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 01:18:15 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> Remember, the SSID is the *salt* to the encryption.
>> So the SSID matters too.
>> But yes, if your passphrase is unique (truly unique, as in not one of a
>> million known passphrases!), then you're fine.
>
> that's what i've been saying.
>
>> But is your passphrase *that* unique?
>
> yes.
Fair enough.
>> Remember, the SSID is the *salt* to the encryption.
>> So the SSID matters too.
>> But yes, if your passphrase is unique (truly unique, as in not one of a
>> million known passphrases!), then you're fine.
>
> that's what i've been saying.
>
>> But is your passphrase *that* unique?
>
> yes.
We agree.
I just hope *everyone* with a WPA2/PSK passphrase uses a unique one.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 1:26:17 AM9/13/16
to
On 13 Sep 2016 05:08:03 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Nah. Those of us who understand security implications of them have no
> need or desire to try to hide or otherwise obfuscate them.
1. You do realize that Google's is a *public* database, right?
> Nah. Those of us who understand security implications of them have no
> need or desire to try to hide or otherwise obfuscate them.
2. And that the db is updated every moment of every day, right?
3. Therefore, if someone drives by your house with an Android phone in
their pocket, not set up like mine is, and they drive by close enough to
pick up your WiFi signals, they automatically send your BSSID (aka your
unique MAC address) to Google's public database.
Given that, what happens, if you broadcast your SSID (e.g., if your phone
is a hotspot), then anyone in the world who knows your BSSID can tell if
you're at a particular home, if they happen to know the BSSID of that
particular home.
You do know this, right?
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 1:26:19 AM9/13/16
to
On 13 Sep 2016 05:11:29 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Nobody here cares for yet another of your silly public masturbation
> sessions about specifications.
Classic.
> Nobody here cares for yet another of your silly public masturbation
> sessions about specifications.
Jolly Roger
Sep 13, 2016, 1:26:43 AM9/13/16
to
On 2016-09-13, Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2016 04:39:57 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Much better would be to advise him to set up his router securely, or
>> better yet tell him to return that thing and get an Airport Extreme
>> instead.
>
> Since they're all Apple, the Airport Extreme makes sense.
Apple routers work with devices of any make. And they are more secure,
>
>> Much better would be to advise him to set up his router securely, or
>> better yet tell him to return that thing and get an Airport Extreme
>> instead.
>
> Since they're all Apple, the Airport Extreme makes sense.
easier to configure, and get updated far longer in the product life
cycle than most routers. Those are all good reasons.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 1:29:28 AM9/13/16
to
On 13 Sep 2016 05:24:33 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> No, you do it to stroke your ego as part of your public masturbatory
> experience. You seem to believe the more verbose your posts the better.
> Fortunately, people are smart enough to see right through your silly
> games.
Classic.
> No, you do it to stroke your ego as part of your public masturbatory
> experience. You seem to believe the more verbose your posts the better.
> Fortunately, people are smart enough to see right through your silly
> games.
Jolly Roger
Sep 13, 2016, 1:30:10 AM9/13/16
to
On 2016-09-13, Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2016 05:08:03 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Nah. Those of us who understand security implications of them have no
>> need or desire to try to hide or otherwise obfuscate them.
>
> 1. You do realize that Google's is a *public* database, right?
>
> 2. And that the db is updated every moment of every day, right?
>
> 3. Therefore, if someone drives by your house with an Android phone in
> their pocket, not set up like mine is, and they drive by close enough to
> pick up your WiFi signals, they automatically send your BSSID (aka your
> unique MAC address) to Google's public database.
So what? It's certainly not a problem for me.
>
>> Nah. Those of us who understand security implications of them have no
>> need or desire to try to hide or otherwise obfuscate them.
>
> 1. You do realize that Google's is a *public* database, right?
>
> 2. And that the db is updated every moment of every day, right?
>
> 3. Therefore, if someone drives by your house with an Android phone in
> their pocket, not set up like mine is, and they drive by close enough to
> pick up your WiFi signals, they automatically send your BSSID (aka your
> unique MAC address) to Google's public database.
> Given that, what happens, if you broadcast your SSID (e.g., if your phone
> is a hotspot), then anyone in the world who knows your BSSID can tell if
> you're at a particular home, if they happen to know the BSSID of that
> particular home.
extremely confused.
Rod Speed
Sep 13, 2016, 1:38:47 AM9/13/16
to
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
passcode for the new router. Quite likely that he has done that tho.
> Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote
>> He has the new router up and running, and he found an
>> "android-#####" device on his network, so, he *already* has
>> an intruder (within hours!) because he himself has no Android
>> devices (and neither does his wife), so, that's interesting.
> Then either he configured the router insecurely or he actually does have
> an Android device in his house unbeknownst to him. The fact that he
> calls his laptop an "iMac" makes one wonder about his awareness.
The only way that could happen is if he has reused the old SSID and
>> He has the new router up and running, and he found an
>> "android-#####" device on his network, so, he *already* has
>> an intruder (within hours!) because he himself has no Android
>> devices (and neither does his wife), so, that's interesting.
> Then either he configured the router insecurely or he actually does have
> an Android device in his house unbeknownst to him. The fact that he
> calls his laptop an "iMac" makes one wonder about his awareness.
passcode for the new router. Quite likely that he has done that tho.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 1:42:16 AM9/13/16
to
On 13 Sep 2016 05:30:09 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> So what? It's certainly not a problem for me.
Fair enough.
> So what? It's certainly not a problem for me.
>> Given that, what happens, if you broadcast your SSID (e.g., if your phone
>> is a hotspot), then anyone in the world who knows your BSSID can tell if
>> you're at a particular home, if they happen to know the BSSID of that
>> particular home.
>
> Bullshit. The SSID doesn't give them any such information. You're
> extremely confused.
Google gets a *lot* more information than your SSID.
>> is a hotspot), then anyone in the world who knows your BSSID can tell if
>> you're at a particular home, if they happen to know the BSSID of that
>> particular home.
>
> Bullshit. The SSID doesn't give them any such information. You're
> extremely confused.
1. They get your GPS location.
2. They get your BSSID (which is your unique MAC address!)
NOTE: This is the address that is nearly impossible to change, not the one
that is trivial to clone!
They get more than that (e.g., they get your SSID) but those two are
unique.
The lookup is free and is an open public database updated constantly:
https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geolocation/intro
Most of the parameters are optional, but essentially if you know the MAC
address of the person you are tracking, and you know the MAC address of the
location you want to check if they're nearby, then you just make up a
signal strength, and Voila!
You can geolocate anyone!
Here is a sample request with very many *optional* parameters:
{
"homeMobileCountryCode": 310,
"homeMobileNetworkCode": 260,
"radioType": "gsm",
"carrier": "T-Mobile",
"cellTowers": [
{
"cellId": 39627456,
"locationAreaCode": 40495,
"mobileCountryCode": 310,
"mobileNetworkCode": 260,
"age": 0,
"signalStrength": -95
}
],
"wifiAccessPoints": [
{
"macAddress": "01:23:45:67:89:AB",
"signalStrength": 8,
"age": 0,
"signalToNoiseRatio": -65,
"channel": 8
},
{
"macAddress": "01:23:45:67:89:AC",
"signalStrength": 4,
"age": 0
}
]
}
Here are the only mandatory parameters:
{
"macAddress": "01:23:45:67:89:AB",
"signalStrength": 8,
},
{
"macAddress": "01:23:45:67:89:AC",
"signalStrength": 8,
}
That is, all you need are two real MAC addresses and one (fabricated)
signal strength, and you can find out if two people are in the same
location at any point in time from anywhere in the world.
nospam
Sep 13, 2016, 1:49:37 AM9/13/16
to
In article <nr82ln$1q19$4...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
> 2. And that the db is updated every moment of every day, right?
no it isn't.
> 3. Therefore, if someone drives by your house with an Android phone in
> their pocket, not set up like mine is, and they drive by close enough to
> pick up your WiFi signals, they automatically send your BSSID (aka your
> unique MAC address) to Google's public database.
that's how the wifi location database is populated, which *helps*
determine location *without* needing power-hungry gps or falling back
to cellular which is not very accurate.
> Given that, what happens, if you broadcast your SSID (e.g., if your phone
> is a hotspot), then anyone in the world who knows your BSSID can tell if
> you're at a particular home, if they happen to know the BSSID of that
> particular home.
no they can't.
<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
>
> > Nah. Those of us who understand security implications of them have no
> > need or desire to try to hide or otherwise obfuscate them.
>
> 1. You do realize that Google's is a *public* database, right?
which is good, so everyone benefits.
>
> > Nah. Those of us who understand security implications of them have no
> > need or desire to try to hide or otherwise obfuscate them.
>
> 1. You do realize that Google's is a *public* database, right?
> 2. And that the db is updated every moment of every day, right?
> 3. Therefore, if someone drives by your house with an Android phone in
> their pocket, not set up like mine is, and they drive by close enough to
> pick up your WiFi signals, they automatically send your BSSID (aka your
> unique MAC address) to Google's public database.
determine location *without* needing power-hungry gps or falling back
to cellular which is not very accurate.
> Given that, what happens, if you broadcast your SSID (e.g., if your phone
> is a hotspot), then anyone in the world who knows your BSSID can tell if
> you're at a particular home, if they happen to know the BSSID of that
> particular home.
nospam
Sep 13, 2016, 1:49:39 AM9/13/16
to
In article <nr83jm$1r6e$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
> NOTE: This is the address that is nearly impossible to change, not the one
> that is trivial to clone!
changing a mac address is not that hard.
> They get more than that (e.g., they get your SSID) but those two are
> unique.
>
> The lookup is free and is an open public database updated constantly:
> https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geolocation/intro
>
> Most of the parameters are optional, but essentially if you know the MAC
> address of the person you are tracking, and you know the MAC address of the
> location you want to check if they're nearby, then you just make up a
> signal strength, and Voila!
>
> You can geolocate anyone!
no.
<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> >> Given that, what happens, if you broadcast your SSID (e.g., if your phone
> >> is a hotspot), then anyone in the world who knows your BSSID can tell if
> >> you're at a particular home, if they happen to know the BSSID of that
> >> particular home.
> >
> > Bullshit. The SSID doesn't give them any such information. You're
> > extremely confused.
>
> Google gets a *lot* more information than your SSID.
> 1. They get your GPS location.
> 2. They get your BSSID (which is your unique MAC address!)
without that, location would not work as well.
> >> Given that, what happens, if you broadcast your SSID (e.g., if your phone
> >> is a hotspot), then anyone in the world who knows your BSSID can tell if
> >> you're at a particular home, if they happen to know the BSSID of that
> >> particular home.
> >
> > Bullshit. The SSID doesn't give them any such information. You're
> > extremely confused.
>
> Google gets a *lot* more information than your SSID.
> 1. They get your GPS location.
> 2. They get your BSSID (which is your unique MAC address!)
> NOTE: This is the address that is nearly impossible to change, not the one
> that is trivial to clone!
> They get more than that (e.g., they get your SSID) but those two are
> unique.
>
> The lookup is free and is an open public database updated constantly:
> https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geolocation/intro
>
> Most of the parameters are optional, but essentially if you know the MAC
> address of the person you are tracking, and you know the MAC address of the
> location you want to check if they're nearby, then you just make up a
> signal strength, and Voila!
>
> You can geolocate anyone!
Jolly Roger
Sep 13, 2016, 1:51:01 AM9/13/16
to
> You can geolocate anyone!
Anyone who drives by my home will see 30+ routers in the area -
all of which are geographically located in this same area. Big fucking
deal.
Anyone who drives by my home will see 30+ routers in the area -
all of which are geographically located in this same area. Big fucking
deal.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 2:10:08 AM9/13/16
to
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 01:49:39 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> Given that, what happens, if you broadcast your SSID (e.g., if your phone
>> is a hotspot), then anyone in the world who knows your BSSID can tell if
>> you're at a particular home, if they happen to know the BSSID of that
>> particular home.
>
> no they can't.
Tell me that it's not true that all you need is:
>> Given that, what happens, if you broadcast your SSID (e.g., if your phone
>> is a hotspot), then anyone in the world who knows your BSSID can tell if
>> you're at a particular home, if they happen to know the BSSID of that
>> particular home.
>
> no they can't.
1. MAC ADDRESS #1
2. MAC ADDRESS #2
3. WiFi Signal Strength
And Google will tell you if those two are next to each other.
C'mon.
Tell me it can't be done with just that information.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 2:10:10 AM9/13/16
to
On 13 Sep 2016 05:51:00 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Anyone who drives by my home will see 30+ routers in the area -
> all of which are geographically located in this same area. Big fucking
> deal.
You can even geolocate car beacons.
> Anyone who drives by my home will see 30+ routers in the area -
> all of which are geographically located in this same area. Big fucking
> deal.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 2:10:12 AM9/13/16
to
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 01:49:41 -0400, nospam wrote:
> changing a mac address is not that hard.
This one is.
> changing a mac address is not that hard.
It's not the "clone" MAC address.
It's on the other side of the radio.
You have to desolder the chip.
Who is gonna do that?
Jeff Liebermann explained the entire thing in gory detail on
alt.intenet.wireless in the past.
Suffice to summarize that it's not easy to change the BSSID that Google and
WiGLe save to their public databases.
Jolly Roger
Sep 13, 2016, 2:14:54 AM9/13/16
to
nospam
Sep 13, 2016, 2:19:35 AM9/13/16
to
In article <nr8582$1t68$3...@gioia.aioe.org>, Horace Algier
having that database is a *good thing*.
<hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> Suffice to summarize that it's not easy to change the BSSID that Google and
> WiGLe save to their public databases.
who cares
> Suffice to summarize that it's not easy to change the BSSID that Google and
> WiGLe save to their public databases.
having that database is a *good thing*.
Horace Algier
Sep 14, 2016, 12:40:48 AM9/14/16
to
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 23:48:32 -0700, AL wrote:
>> Google gets a *lot* more information than your SSID.
>> 1. They get your GPS location.
>
> Since Google already has my name, address, and credit card number it may
>> Google gets a *lot* more information than your SSID.
>> 1. They get your GPS location.
>
> be a bit late to worry about this, huh.
Well, your wife also has those things, but she can *track* your whereabouts
using the free public API, even if you told her you were working late at
the office.
All she needs to track you is ...
a. Your MAC address
b. The MAC address at your girlfriend's house
c. A fake signal strength reading
Horace Algier
Sep 14, 2016, 12:41:04 AM9/14/16
to
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 02:19:38 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> Suffice to summarize that it's not easy to change the BSSID that Google and
>> WiGLe save to their public databases.
>
> who cares
>
> having that database is a *good thing*.
A friend asked me to consider working with him to write a program to track
>> Suffice to summarize that it's not easy to change the BSSID that Google and
>> WiGLe save to their public databases.
>
> who cares
>
> having that database is a *good thing*.
spouses. I don't have the skills, so I declined, but, under FriendDA, we
discussed...
The program would be used by spouse 1.
Spouse 1 would enter the phone MAC address of spouse 2.
Spouse 1 would also enter the MAC address(es) of suspected lovers' homes
which spouse 1 would get by driving by the suspected homes.
Lastly, spouse 1 would ensure the spouse 2 was broadcasting the SSID.
That's it for what Spouse 1 has to do.
Any lookup to the Google database will tell spouse 1 "if" and "when" spouse
2 was at location1, or location2, or location3, etc.
These locations can be *any* MAC address, e.g.,
location1 = MAC address of starbucks on 100 main street
location2 = MAC address of spouse2's boss
location3 = MAC address of pretty neighbor across town
etc.
This would be *easy* to write for anyone who can code, since the Google
public API only needs three things:
1. Two MAC addresses
2. A (fabricated is fine) signal strength
That's all it needs.
Horace Algier
Sep 16, 2016, 2:12:27 PM9/16/16
to
On 13 Sep 2016 05:26:41 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Apple routers work with devices of any make. And they are more secure,
> easier to configure, and get updated far longer in the product life
> cycle than most routers. Those are all good reasons.
While I *understand* what *you* mean by:
> Apple routers work with devices of any make. And they are more secure,
> easier to configure, and get updated far longer in the product life
> cycle than most routers. Those are all good reasons.
- More secure
- Easier to configure
You're really just echoing Apple MARKETING mantra.
I'm sure you *believe* this Apple MARKETING mantra, so, to you, actually
"more secure" and "easier to configure".
I doubt that, for anyone who knows how to configure a router, that it's
"more secure" in any sense of the word though.
And, while I don't doubt that it's *easier to configure*, I also don't
doubt that there are limitations becuase of that (there almost always are).
So, what you're saying, in reality, is:
- It's just as secure as any other router (when propertly configured)
- It's easier to configure but likely has fewer user options
In the end, I think the recommendation is correct that, for *these*
particular people, who already have an all-Apple household, my advice to go
to Best Buys to just buy the fastest $100 name-brand AC router they can
find was probably not as good as your advice.
To me, the suggested Apple router would be the wrong purchase; but for them
(an all-Apple household already), it's probably a good idea.
Too bad I hadn't thought of it sooner as they don't want to change what is
already set up and working nicely for them (I haven't checked in two days
though so I'm due to check as I told them to fix things in this order...
1. Internet with Comcast
2. Vonage VOIP
3. Microcell with AT&T
Horace Algier
Sep 16, 2016, 2:12:31 PM9/16/16
to
On 13 Sep 2016 05:26:41 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Apple routers work with devices of any make. And they are more secure,
> easier to configure, and get updated far longer in the product life
> cycle than most routers. Those are all good reasons.
> easier to configure, and get updated far longer in the product life
> cycle than most routers. Those are all good reasons.
Rod Speed
Sep 16, 2016, 3:28:31 PM9/16/16
to
Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote
allow very simple and easy to guess passphrases.
> - Easier to configure
Defaults to the configs that most should be using.
Although that certainly does conflict with the first one a bit.
> You're really just echoing Apple MARKETING mantra.
Nope, stating facts.
> I'm sure you *believe* this Apple MARKETING mantra, so,
> to you, actually "more secure" and "easier to configure".
In fact they are both. That is a fact.
> I doubt that, for anyone who knows how to configure a router,
Plenty don’t.
> that it's "more secure" in any sense of the word though.
It is anyway, most obviously with no default passphrase
that can be left as the default and because it doesn’t
allow you to use very easy to guess passphrases.
> And, while I don't doubt that it's *easier to configure*, I also don't
> doubt
> that there are limitations becuase of that (there almost always are).
Irrelevant to whether it is easier to configure than some routers.
> So, what you're saying, in reality, is:
> - It's just as secure as any other router (when propertly configured)
You're lying thru your fucking teeth, as always.
> - It's easier to configure but likely has fewer user options
You're pig ignorantly lying, as always.
> In the end, I think the recommendation is correct that, for *these*
> particular people, who already have an all-Apple household, my
> advice to go to Best Buys to just buy the fastest $100 name-brand
> AC router they can find was probably not as good as your advice.
No probably about it, it was.
> To me, the suggested Apple router would be the wrong purchase; but
> for them (an all-Apple household already), it's probably a good idea.
I havent compared it with the best routers available.
> Jolly Roger wrote
>> Apple routers work with devices of any make. And they are more
>> secure, easier to configure, and get updated far longer in the
>> product life cycle than most routers. Those are all good reasons.
> While I *understand* what *you* mean by:
> - More secure
Don’t have a default passphrase for example and don’t
>> Apple routers work with devices of any make. And they are more
>> secure, easier to configure, and get updated far longer in the
>> product life cycle than most routers. Those are all good reasons.
> While I *understand* what *you* mean by:
> - More secure
allow very simple and easy to guess passphrases.
> - Easier to configure
Defaults to the configs that most should be using.
Although that certainly does conflict with the first one a bit.
> You're really just echoing Apple MARKETING mantra.
> I'm sure you *believe* this Apple MARKETING mantra, so,
> to you, actually "more secure" and "easier to configure".
> I doubt that, for anyone who knows how to configure a router,
> that it's "more secure" in any sense of the word though.
that can be left as the default and because it doesn’t
allow you to use very easy to guess passphrases.
> And, while I don't doubt that it's *easier to configure*, I also don't
> doubt
> that there are limitations becuase of that (there almost always are).
> So, what you're saying, in reality, is:
> - It's just as secure as any other router (when propertly configured)
> - It's easier to configure but likely has fewer user options
> In the end, I think the recommendation is correct that, for *these*
> particular people, who already have an all-Apple household, my
> advice to go to Best Buys to just buy the fastest $100 name-brand
> AC router they can find was probably not as good as your advice.
> To me, the suggested Apple router would be the wrong purchase; but
> for them (an all-Apple household already), it's probably a good idea.
Jolly Roger
Sep 16, 2016, 4:34:47 PM9/16/16
to
On 2016-09-16, Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2016 05:26:41 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Apple routers work with devices of any make. And they are more secure,
>> easier to configure, and get updated far longer in the product life
>> cycle than most routers. Those are all good reasons.
>
> While I *understand* what *you* mean by:
> - More secure
> - Easier to configure
>
> You're really just echoing Apple MARKETING mantra.
Nope, you clearly *don't* understand, which is typical for you. There is
> On 13 Sep 2016 05:26:41 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Apple routers work with devices of any make. And they are more secure,
>> easier to configure, and get updated far longer in the product life
>> cycle than most routers. Those are all good reasons.
>
> While I *understand* what *you* mean by:
> - More secure
> - Easier to configure
>
> You're really just echoing Apple MARKETING mantra.
no "Apple marketing mantra" involved. Your puke green troll glasses are
blinding you, as usual.
Apple's routers are more secure then most routers because:
• Apple routers do not ship with *any* default user name or password. As
anyone knows, most routers on the market ship with default user names
and passwords for the administrator account, which means out of the box
they are configured to allow *anyone* with an internet connection to log
into the configuration interface to change the router configuration.
• Since configuration of Apple routers does not use or require a user
name or password, the standard brute force attacks that work for most
other routers on the market *cannot* work for Apple routers. As anyone
knows, routers are constantly hit with such attacks once they are
connected to the internet.
• The Apple router configuration interface is *not* based on the typical
open source web server setup that most routers on the market use. As
such, standard attacks that try to exploit vulnerabilities in open
source web servers used in most routers *cannot* work against Apple
routers.
Apple's routers are easier to configure than most routers because:
• Rather than configuring Apple routers with clunky web pages served by
an open source web server on the router, you use a bone fide macOS, iOS,
or Windows application that is written explicitly for the purpose of
configuring Apple routers. Anyone who knows anything knows that native
applications give you a must more simple, robust, and feature-rich user
experience than the typical clunky web-based configuration pages offered
by most web browser.
• For instance, rather than using a web browser and typing in the router
address to view a web page on the router and log in with default user
name and password, you simply open the native application and it
automatically discovers the router on the network and connects to it,
prompting you to set the administration password.
• The default configuration options are set up to do what most people
want. So most people needn't futz around changing too many things to get
one up and running with a secure configuration that does what they want.
None of this is "marketing mantra"; it's all based on factual details of
the difference between Apple's routers and typical routers made by the
rest of the market.
> I doubt that, for anyone who knows how to configure a router, that it's
> "more secure" in any sense of the word though.
doubt anyway. So your entire position is one of pure ignorance, with a
good measure of troll mindset sprinkled throughout. Color us "shocked".
You can doubt all you want and it won't change reality.
[remainder of useless trollish babbling omitted]
Jolly Roger
Sep 16, 2016, 4:36:53 PM9/16/16
to
On 2016-09-16, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote
>> Jolly Roger wrote
>
>>> Apple routers work with devices of any make. And they are more
>>> secure, easier to configure, and get updated far longer in the
>>> product life cycle than most routers. Those are all good reasons.
>
>> While I *understand* what *you* mean by:
>> - More secure
>
> Don’t have a default passphrase for example and don’t
> allow very simple and easy to guess passphrases.
Also there is no web server interface to attack with brute force. Both
> Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote
>> Jolly Roger wrote
>
>>> Apple routers work with devices of any make. And they are more
>>> secure, easier to configure, and get updated far longer in the
>>> product life cycle than most routers. Those are all good reasons.
>
>> While I *understand* what *you* mean by:
>> - More secure
>
> Don’t have a default passphrase for example and don’t
> allow very simple and easy to guess passphrases.
of these make Apple's routers far more secure right out of the box than
most other routers.
>> - Easier to configure
>
> Defaults to the configs that most should be using.
for that purpose, as opposed to a clunky set of web pages with arcane
descriptions and options.
Rod Speed
Sep 16, 2016, 8:46:41 PM9/16/16
to
"Jolly Roger" <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:e433b5...@mid.individual.net...
> than the typical clunky web-based configuration
> pages offered by most web browser.
And I prefer to be able to use my phone to configure the router anyway.
> • For instance, rather than using a web browser and typing in the router
Horace Algier
Sep 16, 2016, 11:09:57 PM9/16/16
to
On 16 Sep 2016 20:34:45 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Apple's routers are more secure then most routers because:
>
> • Apple routers do not ship with *any* default user name or password. As
> anyone knows, most routers on the market ship with default user names
> and passwords for the administrator account, which means out of the box
> they are configured to allow *anyone* with an internet connection to log
> into the configuration interface to change the router configuration.
I agree with you that, for morons (which this all-Apple household is),
> Apple's routers are more secure then most routers because:
>
> • Apple routers do not ship with *any* default user name or password. As
> anyone knows, most routers on the market ship with default user names
> and passwords for the administrator account, which means out of the box
> they are configured to allow *anyone* with an internet connection to log
> into the configuration interface to change the router configuration.
having no default password & admin name can be useful.
It's useless for someone who is intelligent.
So, for morons - it works fine.
> • Since configuration of Apple routers does not use or require a user
> name or password, the standard brute force attacks that work for most
> other routers on the market *cannot* work for Apple routers. As anyone
> knows, routers are constantly hit with such attacks once they are
> connected to the internet.
login requests.
But that doesn't change what we both agree upon, which is that for
*intelligent* people, they'd be changing the username and password anyway.
So, it's only more secure "for morons" (which this all-Apple household is).
> • The Apple router configuration interface is *not* based on the typical
> open source web server setup that most routers on the market use. As
> such, standard attacks that try to exploit vulnerabilities in open
> source web servers used in most routers *cannot* work against Apple
> routers.
All your statement means is that you move from open-source vulnerabilities
to security-by-obscurity proprietary-software vulnerabilities.
No change there - you just move the attack direction from the front door to
the back door, literally.
> Apple's routers are easier to configure than most routers because:
>
> • Rather than configuring Apple routers with clunky web pages served by
> an open source web server on the router, you use a bone fide macOS, iOS,
> or Windows application that is written explicitly for the purpose of
> configuring Apple routers. Anyone who knows anything knows that native
> applications give you a must more simple, robust, and feature-rich user
> experience than the typical clunky web-based configuration pages offered
> by most web browser.
applications from Apple (e.g., bonjour, Quicktime, iTunes, etc.), you've
got to be kidding.
Comparing an Apple app to most open-source apps is like comparing Apple
Maps to Google Maps.
I mean, compare the atrocious Apple Video player on the iPad to VLC on the
iPad.
Geezus. You really do think an Apple app is *better* than an open-source
app such as Firefox. You're entitled to that opinion, as I'll never shake
you from that mountain you live on - but I will say that your vaunted Apple
apps suck when compared, one on one, to open-source similar apps.
> • For instance, rather than using a web browser and typing in the router
> address to view a web page on the router and log in with default user
> name and password, you simply open the native application and it
> automatically discovers the router on the network and connects to it,
> prompting you to set the administration password.
to configure. Since this all-Apple household contains morons, the Apple
router might have been the way to go.
But it's also *limited* like you can't believe - and it's no better in the
end than what an *intelligent* person could set up.
So, it's:
a. More secure when used by morons
b. Easier to configure when configured by morons
c. Extremely limited - which the morons won't even notice
Horace Algier
Sep 16, 2016, 11:10:17 PM9/16/16
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 05:28:22 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>> While I *understand* what *you* mean by:
>> - More secure
>
> Don┤ have a default passphrase for example and don┤
>> While I *understand* what *you* mean by:
>> - More secure
>
> allow very simple and easy to guess passphrases.
As I said, for an all-Apple household, the router may be
a. More secure
b. Easier to configure
However, it's not "more secure" in the hands of someone who knows what he's
doing; it's just maybe more secure in the hands of morons (which, I agree,
this all-Apple household is).
But what you're really saying is that, *for morons*, it's more secure and
easier to configure.
I'm not going to disagree.
I'm only saying that for *intelligent* people, it's not only *not* more
secure, but it almost certainly is limited (as *all* Apple devices are
limited in huge ways, when compared to their more modern counterparts).
Horace Algier
Sep 16, 2016, 11:13:37 PM9/16/16
to
On 16 Sep 2016 20:36:51 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Also there is no web server interface to attack with brute force.
Which means it's more limited.
> Also there is no web server interface to attack with brute force.
So, it's really THREE things:
a. More secure (for morons, which this all-Apple household is)
b. Easier to configure (for morons, see above)
c. More limited (but the morons will never know)
> Both
> of these make Apple's routers far more secure right out of the box than
> most other routers.
a. More secure and MORE limited
So it's great for morons (as this all-Apple household happens to be).
>>> - Easier to configure
>>
>> Defaults to the configs that most should be using.
>
> It's also configured using a native application designed specifically
> for that purpose, as opposed to a clunky set of web pages with arcane
> descriptions and options.
a. Easier to configure (for morons)
b. Also far more limited (so it prevents intelligent people from using it)
It's the same with iOS.
Horace Algier
Sep 16, 2016, 11:13:38 PM9/16/16
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 10:38:39 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>> ĄE Rather than configuring Apple routers with clunky web pages served by
thinks iTunes is a wondrous set of efficient software.
>> ĄE Rather than configuring Apple routers with clunky web pages served by
>> an open source web server on the router, you use a bone fide macOS, iOS,
>> or Windows application that is written explicitly for the purpose of
>> configuring Apple routers. Anyone who knows anything knows that native
>> applications give you a must more simple, robust, and feature-rich user
>> experience
>
> Like you get with iTunes eh ? Yeah, right.
Jolly Roger actually thinks Apple Maps is better than Google Maps, and, he
>> or Windows application that is written explicitly for the purpose of
>> configuring Apple routers. Anyone who knows anything knows that native
>> applications give you a must more simple, robust, and feature-rich user
>> experience
>
> Like you get with iTunes eh ? Yeah, right.
thinks iTunes is a wondrous set of efficient software.
Rod Speed
Sep 17, 2016, 1:11:00 AM9/17/16
to
Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote
the technical detail, it forces them to do what is most secure.
> It's useless for someone who is intelligent.
Even sillier than you usually manage.
> So, for morons - it works fine.
And for those who don’t bother to keep up with the technical
detail and who just expect things to be designed properly so
that it isnt possible to fuck things up security wise.
>> Since configuration of Apple routers does not use or
>> require a user name or password, the standard brute force
>> attacks that work for most other routers on the market *cannot*
>> work for Apple routers. As anyone knows, routers are constantly
>> hit with such attacks once they are connected to the internet.
> I can look at my router logs and see thousands
> upon thousands of these login requests.
And the average user doesn’t bother to do that.
> But that doesn't change what we both agree
> upon, which is that for *intelligent* people, they'd
> be changing the username and password anyway.
Much better to design the router so no one needs to
even consider something like that, it just happens.
> So, it's only more secure "for morons"
Wrong, as always.
> (which this all-Apple household is).
Even sillier than you usually manage. They clearly have enough
sense to have all apple products until some fool with a hundred
names was actually stupid enough to tell them to buy a non
apple product that isnt as useful for them and required him
to get involved in setting it up, which wouldn’t have been
necessary if they had just go the apple product.
>> The Apple router configuration interface is *not* based on
>> the typical open source web server setup that most routers
>> on the market use. As such, standard attacks that try to
>> exploit vulnerabilities in open source web servers used
>> in most routers *cannot* work against Apple routers.
> You don't understand a thing about proprietary software vulnerabilities.
You don’t have a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> All your statement means is that you move from
> open-source vulnerabilitiesto security-by-obscurity
> proprietary-software vulnerabilities.
Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.
There is no security by obscurity involved at all.
> No change there - you just move the attack direction
> from the front door to the back door, literally.
Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.
There is no back door when you need physical access.
More of your lies/pathetic excuse for a troll.
> Since this all-Apple household contains morons,
Who were actually stupid enough to ask you...
You're right.
> the Apple router might have been the way to go.
No might have been about it, and for plenty of others too.
> But it's also *limited* like you can't believe - and it's no better
> in the end than what an *intelligent* person could set up.
Wrong with the lack of a web access page.
> So, it's:
> a. More secure when used by morons
Even sillier than you usually manage.
> b. Easier to configure when configured by morons
Even sillier than you usually manage.
> c. Extremely limited
More of your bare faced lies. The apple router is more
limited than that steaming turd you recommended they get.
> Jolly Roger wrote
>> Apple's routers are more secure then most routers because:
>> • Apple routers do not ship with *any* default user name or password.
>> Apple's routers are more secure then most routers because:
>> As anyone knows, most routers on the market ship with default user names
>> and passwords for the administrator account, which means out of the box
>> they are configured to allow *anyone* with an internet connection to log
>> into the configuration interface to change the router configuration.
> I agree with you that, for morons (which this all-Apple household is),
> having no default password & admin name can be useful.
Not just for morons, for those who don’t bother to keep up with
>> and passwords for the administrator account, which means out of the box
>> they are configured to allow *anyone* with an internet connection to log
>> into the configuration interface to change the router configuration.
> I agree with you that, for morons (which this all-Apple household is),
> having no default password & admin name can be useful.
the technical detail, it forces them to do what is most secure.
> It's useless for someone who is intelligent.
> So, for morons - it works fine.
detail and who just expect things to be designed properly so
that it isnt possible to fuck things up security wise.
>> Since configuration of Apple routers does not use or
>> require a user name or password, the standard brute force
>> attacks that work for most other routers on the market *cannot*
>> work for Apple routers. As anyone knows, routers are constantly
>> hit with such attacks once they are connected to the internet.
> I can look at my router logs and see thousands
> upon thousands of these login requests.
> But that doesn't change what we both agree
> upon, which is that for *intelligent* people, they'd
> be changing the username and password anyway.
even consider something like that, it just happens.
> So, it's only more secure "for morons"
> (which this all-Apple household is).
sense to have all apple products until some fool with a hundred
names was actually stupid enough to tell them to buy a non
apple product that isnt as useful for them and required him
to get involved in setting it up, which wouldn’t have been
necessary if they had just go the apple product.
>> The Apple router configuration interface is *not* based on
>> the typical open source web server setup that most routers
>> on the market use. As such, standard attacks that try to
>> exploit vulnerabilities in open source web servers used
>> in most routers *cannot* work against Apple routers.
> You don't understand a thing about proprietary software vulnerabilities.
> All your statement means is that you move from
> open-source vulnerabilitiesto security-by-obscurity
> proprietary-software vulnerabilities.
There is no security by obscurity involved at all.
> No change there - you just move the attack direction
> from the front door to the back door, literally.
There is no back door when you need physical access.
> Since this all-Apple household contains morons,
You're right.
> the Apple router might have been the way to go.
> But it's also *limited* like you can't believe - and it's no better
> in the end than what an *intelligent* person could set up.
> So, it's:
> a. More secure when used by morons
> b. Easier to configure when configured by morons
> c. Extremely limited
More of your bare faced lies. The apple router is more
limited than that steaming turd you recommended they get.
Rod Speed
Sep 17, 2016, 1:23:56 AM9/17/16
to
Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote
> for an all-Apple household, the router may be
No maybe about it.
> a. More secure
> b. Easier to configure
And it is for plenty of not all apple households too.
> However, it's not "more secure" in the hands
> of someone who knows what he's doing;
Wrong, as always with the need for physical access alone.
> it's just maybe more secure in the hands of morons
More of your pig ignorant lies.
> (which, I agree, this all-Apple household is).
Yes, only a moron would actually be stupid enough
to ask you what to do and actually stupid enough to
do what you told them to do, and get a much worse
result at a higher cost than they would have got doing
what they had previously done, get an apple router.
> But what you're really saying is that, *for morons*,
> it's more secure and easier to configure.
I said nothing of the sort, you silly little pathological liar.
> I'm not going to disagree.
Having fun thrashing yet another straw man
/lying thru your fucking teeth, as always ?
> I'm only saying that for *intelligent*
> people, it's not only *not* more secure,
And you are just plain wrong about that, as always.
> but it almost certainly is limited
It is no more limited than that steaming
turd you told the morons to get instead.
> (as *all* Apple devices are limited in huge ways, when
> compared to their more modern counterparts).
More of your bare faced lies/pathetic excuse for a troll.
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> While I *understand* what *you* mean by:
>>> - More secure
>> Don't have a default passphrase for example and don't
>>> While I *understand* what *you* mean by:
>>> - More secure
>> allow very simple and easy to guess passphrases.
> As I said,
As you lied, as always.
> As I said,
> for an all-Apple household, the router may be
> a. More secure
> b. Easier to configure
> However, it's not "more secure" in the hands
> of someone who knows what he's doing;
> it's just maybe more secure in the hands of morons
> (which, I agree, this all-Apple household is).
to ask you what to do and actually stupid enough to
do what you told them to do, and get a much worse
result at a higher cost than they would have got doing
what they had previously done, get an apple router.
> But what you're really saying is that, *for morons*,
> it's more secure and easier to configure.
> I'm not going to disagree.
/lying thru your fucking teeth, as always ?
> I'm only saying that for *intelligent*
> people, it's not only *not* more secure,
> but it almost certainly is limited
turd you told the morons to get instead.
> (as *all* Apple devices are limited in huge ways, when
> compared to their more modern counterparts).
Rod Speed
Sep 17, 2016, 3:02:32 AM9/17/16
to
Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote
anything the web server interface can do, it isnt, liar.
> So, it's really THREE things:
> a. More secure (for morons, which this all-Apple household is)
> b. Easier to configure (for morons, see above)
> c. More limited (but the morons will never know)
More of your lies.
>> Both of these make Apple's routers far more secure
>> right out of the box than most other routers.
> Yup. For once we agree:
> a. More secure and MORE limited
More of your lies.
> So it's great for morons
More of your lies.
> (as this all-Apple household happens to be).
Yes, they are certainly complete and utter morons
to have actually asked a fool like you what to do.
>>>> - Easier to configure
>>> Defaults to the configs that most should be using.
>> It's also configured using a native application designed
>> specifically for that purpose, as opposed to a clunky set
>> of web pages with arcane descriptions and options.
> Heh heh ... again ...
> a. Easier to configure (for morons)
More of your lies.
> b. Also far more limited
More of your lies.
> (so it prevents intelligent people from using it)
More of your lies.
> It's the same with iOS.
More of your lies.
> Jolly Roger wrote
>> Also there is no web server interface to attack with brute force.
> Which means it's more limited.
More of your pig ignorant lies. When the app can do
>> Also there is no web server interface to attack with brute force.
> Which means it's more limited.
anything the web server interface can do, it isnt, liar.
> So, it's really THREE things:
> a. More secure (for morons, which this all-Apple household is)
> b. Easier to configure (for morons, see above)
> c. More limited (but the morons will never know)
>> Both of these make Apple's routers far more secure
>> right out of the box than most other routers.
> Yup. For once we agree:
> a. More secure and MORE limited
> So it's great for morons
> (as this all-Apple household happens to be).
to have actually asked a fool like you what to do.
>>>> - Easier to configure
>>> Defaults to the configs that most should be using.
>> It's also configured using a native application designed
>> specifically for that purpose, as opposed to a clunky set
>> of web pages with arcane descriptions and options.
> Heh heh ... again ...
> a. Easier to configure (for morons)
> b. Also far more limited
> (so it prevents intelligent people from using it)
> It's the same with iOS.
Rod Speed
Sep 17, 2016, 3:10:56 AM9/17/16
to
>>> Rather than configuring Apple routers with clunky web pages served by
>>> an open source web server on the router, you use a bone fide macOS,
>>> iOS, or Windows application that is written explicitly for the purpose
>>> of
>>> configuring Apple routers. Anyone who knows anything knows that native
>>> applications give you a must more simple, robust, and feature-rich user
>>> experience
>> Like you get with iTunes eh ? Yeah, right.
> Jolly Roger actually thinks Apple Maps is better than Google Maps,
In a couple of areas it is. MUCH more secure about what you look at and
>>> an open source web server on the router, you use a bone fide macOS,
>>> iOS, or Windows application that is written explicitly for the purpose
>>> of
>>> configuring Apple routers. Anyone who knows anything knows that native
>>> applications give you a must more simple, robust, and feature-rich user
>>> experience
>> Like you get with iTunes eh ? Yeah, right.
> Jolly Roger actually thinks Apple Maps is better than Google Maps,
never flogs your data to anyone and apple never uses that themselves either.
> and, he thinks iTunes is a wondrous set of efficient software.
Jolly Roger
Sep 17, 2016, 3:13:03 AM9/17/16
to
On 2016-09-17, Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2016 20:36:51 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Also there is no web server interface to attack with brute force.
>
> Which means it's more limited.
No it doesn't. In fact any software developer knows native applications
> On 16 Sep 2016 20:36:51 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Also there is no web server interface to attack with brute force.
>
> Which means it's more limited.
have access to system resources and APIs that a web browser connected to
a web server cannot have access to. So in a lot of respects, it's more
functional. For instance the Apple router configuration app is able to
automatically discover the router through the WiFi interface of the
computer. Other routers can't do that. And because there is no web
server to attack, and no default user name and password to brute force,
Apple's solution is inherently more secure. It's the opposite of limited
- it's empowering.
> So, it's really THREE things: a. More secure (for morons, which this
> all-Apple household is)
into it. Obvious and lame troll.
> b. Easier to configure (for morons, see above)
> c. More limited (but the morons will never know)
more limited" that cannot be substantiated and do not reflect reality
due to your ignorance on the subject.
>> Both of these make Apple's routers far more secure right out of the
>> box than most other routers.
>
> Yup. For once we agree: a. More secure and MORE limited
You're lying and trolling as usual. You refuse to accept that *anything*
Apple does can be good due to your irrational hatred; so you knee jerk
and troll what you do not understand our of pure ignorance. You're just
lame.
> So it's great for morons (as this all-Apple household happens to be).
Make mommy proud!
Jolly Roger
Sep 17, 2016, 3:25:06 AM9/17/16
to
On 2016-09-17, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Jolly Roger" <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:e433b5...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Jolly Roger" <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:e433b5...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> Apple's routers are easier to configure than most routers because:
>
>> • Rather than configuring Apple routers with clunky web pages served by
>> an open source web server on the router, you use a bone fide macOS, iOS,
>> or Windows application that is written explicitly for the purpose of
>> configuring Apple routers. Anyone who knows anything knows that native
>> applications give you a must more simple, robust, and feature-rich user
>> experience
>
> Like you get with iTunes eh ? Yeah, right.
Yes, like router configuration options, the native iTunes app provides
>
>> • Rather than configuring Apple routers with clunky web pages served by
>> an open source web server on the router, you use a bone fide macOS, iOS,
>> or Windows application that is written explicitly for the purpose of
>> configuring Apple routers. Anyone who knows anything knows that native
>> applications give you a must more simple, robust, and feature-rich user
>> experience
>
> Like you get with iTunes eh ? Yeah, right.
*much* more functionality and is *far* more integrated with the system
than the iTunes web site.
> And I prefer to be able to use my phone to configure the router anyway.
configuration pages, Apple's native apps are available for iOS, macOS,
and Windows.
Jolly Roger
Sep 17, 2016, 3:26:25 AM9/17/16
to
On 2016-09-17, Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 10:38:39 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>> ¡E Rather than configuring Apple routers with clunky web pages served by
>
options, the native iTunes app provides *much* more functionality and is
*far* more integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.
Keep up the ignorant trolling though - it's *really* working for you. ; )
*far* more integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.
Jolly Roger
Sep 17, 2016, 3:46:21 AM9/17/16
to
> I agree with you that, for morons
Insults are the last refuge of the intellectual coward.
> It's useless for someone who is intelligent.
everything to do with security - something you clearly don't understand.
> So, for morons - it works fine.
>> • Since configuration of Apple routers does not use or require a user
>> name or password, the standard brute force attacks that work for most
>> other routers on the market *cannot* work for Apple routers. As
>> anyone knows, routers are constantly hit with such attacks once they
>> are connected to the internet.
>
> I can look at my router logs and see thousands upon thousands of these
> login requests.
>
> But that doesn't change what we both agree upon, which is that for
> *intelligent* people, they'd be changing the username and password
> anyway.
vector you admit exists on other routers with web-based configuration
does not exist on Apple routers since there is no user name and password
combo that even exists. You don't ever set a user name on Apple routers
since configuration doesn't authenticate against a local user account on
the router. That attack vector therefore does not exist on Apple's
routers. tl;dr: no brute force attacks for Apple routers. It's got
nothing to do with the intelligence of the person using the router -
unless you consider that an intelligent person would recognize that
Apple's offering is more secure by design.
> So, it's only more secure "for morons" (which this all-Apple household
> is).
>
>> • The Apple router configuration interface is *not* based on the
>> typical open source web server setup that most routers on the market
>> use. As such, standard attacks that try to exploit vulnerabilities in
>> open source web servers used in most routers *cannot* work against
>> Apple routers.
>
> You don't understand a thing about proprietary software
> vulnerabilities.
handsomely to do it for a living. You don't know what I understand.
> All your statement means is that you move from open-source
> vulnerabilities to security-by-obscurity proprietary-software
> vulnerabilities.
the user) on Apple's routers to brute force attack, in this particular
case, since more brute force attacks you admit show up in your logs are
designed to exploit those open source web browsers in other web browser,
obscurity is a good thing because it means those attacks cannot work.
It's good you are starting to realize Apple's router is more secure by
design.
>> Apple's routers are easier to configure than most routers because:
>>
>> • Rather than configuring Apple routers with clunky web pages served
>> by an open source web server on the router, you use a bone fide
>> macOS, iOS, or Windows application that is written explicitly for the
>> purpose of configuring Apple routers. Anyone who knows anything knows
>> that native applications give you a must more simple, robust, and
>> feature-rich user experience than the typical clunky web-based
>> configuration pages offered by most web browser.
>
> Well, as a user of those wondrous "bona fide MacOS, iOS, or Windows"
> applications from Apple (e.g., bonjour, Quicktime, iTunes, etc.),
> you've got to be kidding.
> Geezus. You really do think an Apple app is *better* than an
> open-source app such as Firefox.
page. Firefox happens to be a native app on macOS as well as on Linux.
Try harder to focus. iAnd try not to introduce red herrings like this in
the future, please. But since you mention it, I can easily list some
Apple applications that are *much* more functional that anything
available on Linux. Photoshop vs GIMP comes to mind. Most of the things
Linux excels at (mostly servers and so on) run on macOS as well though.
Not that this has anything to do with native versus web apps.
> Apple apps suck when compared, one on one, to open-source similar apps
>> • For instance, rather than using a web browser and typing in the
>> router address to view a web page on the router and log in with
>> default user name and password, you simply open the native
>> application and it automatically discovers the router on the network
>> and connects to it, prompting you to set the administration password.
>
> Again, what you're saying is that, for morons
Rod Speed
Sep 17, 2016, 6:02:13 AM9/17/16
to
Stupid Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Stupid Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>>> Apple's routers are easier to configure than most routers because:
>>> • Rather than configuring Apple routers with clunky web pages served
>>> by an open source web server on the router, you use a bone fide macOS,
>>> iOS, or Windows application that is written explicitly for the purpose
>>> of
>>> configuring Apple routers. Anyone who knows anything knows that native
>>> applications give you a must more simple, robust, and feature-rich user
>>> experience
>> Like you get with iTunes eh ? Yeah, right.
> Yes, like router configuration options, the native iTunes
> app provides *much* more functionality and is *far* more
> integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.
Even more pathetic than you usually manage.
idevices don’t actually have a web site, fuckwit.
>> And I prefer to be able to use my phone to configure the router anyway.
> That's neither here nor there
Wrong, as always.
> since like web browser-based router configuration pages, Apple's
> native apps are available for iOS, macOS, and Windows.
But can't actually be used to configure a router from scratch without any
physical access to the router, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Stupid Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>>> Apple's routers are easier to configure than most routers because:
>>> • Rather than configuring Apple routers with clunky web pages served
>>> by an open source web server on the router, you use a bone fide macOS,
>>> iOS, or Windows application that is written explicitly for the purpose
>>> of
>>> configuring Apple routers. Anyone who knows anything knows that native
>>> applications give you a must more simple, robust, and feature-rich user
>>> experience
>> Like you get with iTunes eh ? Yeah, right.
> Yes, like router configuration options, the native iTunes
> app provides *much* more functionality and is *far* more
> integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.
idevices don’t actually have a web site, fuckwit.
>> And I prefer to be able to use my phone to configure the router anyway.
> That's neither here nor there
> since like web browser-based router configuration pages, Apple's
> native apps are available for iOS, macOS, and Windows.
physical access to the router, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
Rod Speed
Sep 17, 2016, 6:04:45 AM9/17/16
to
Fuckwit Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
> Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote
>> I agree with you that, for morons
> Insults are the last refuge of the intellectual coward.
Yes, that is a very accurate description of you.
>> I agree with you that, for morons
> Insults are the last refuge of the intellectual coward.
nospam
Sep 17, 2016, 10:08:23 AM9/17/16
to
In article <e448ns...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
automatically finds the old airport router and asks if you want to
migrate the settings over.
but only morons would want that :)
<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Also there is no web server interface to attack with brute force.
> >
> > Which means it's more limited.
>
> No it doesn't. In fact any software developer knows native applications
> have access to system resources and APIs that a web browser connected to
> a web server cannot have access to. So in a lot of respects, it's more
> functional. For instance the Apple router configuration app is able to
> automatically discover the router through the WiFi interface of the
> computer. Other routers can't do that. And because there is no web
> server to attack, and no default user name and password to brute force,
> Apple's solution is inherently more secure. It's the opposite of limited
> - it's empowering.
one of the coolest features is if you buy a new airport router, it
> >
> >> Also there is no web server interface to attack with brute force.
> >
> > Which means it's more limited.
>
> No it doesn't. In fact any software developer knows native applications
> have access to system resources and APIs that a web browser connected to
> a web server cannot have access to. So in a lot of respects, it's more
> functional. For instance the Apple router configuration app is able to
> automatically discover the router through the WiFi interface of the
> computer. Other routers can't do that. And because there is no web
> server to attack, and no default user name and password to brute force,
> Apple's solution is inherently more secure. It's the opposite of limited
> - it's empowering.
automatically finds the old airport router and asks if you want to
migrate the settings over.
but only morons would want that :)
Jolly Roger
Sep 17, 2016, 1:31:17 PM9/17/16
to
Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
is available to any device, and the native iTunes app provides more
functionality than the web site viewed through a web browser because native
apps have access to native APIs that aren't available to web apps viewed
through a web browser. Naturally the same concept applies to router
configuration.
>>> And I prefer to be able to use my phone to configure the router anyway.
>
>> That's neither here nor there
regardless of whether you configure it with a web browser or a native app).
> you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
Insults mean you have nothing of value to add.
> Stupid Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, like router configuration options, the native iTunes
>> app provides *much* more functionality and is *far* more
>> integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.
>
>
>> Yes, like router configuration options, the native iTunes
>> app provides *much* more functionality and is *far* more
>> integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.
>
> idevices don’t actually have a web site, fuckwit.
Insults are the last refuge of an intellectual coward. The iTunes web site
is available to any device, and the native iTunes app provides more
functionality than the web site viewed through a web browser because native
apps have access to native APIs that aren't available to web apps viewed
through a web browser. Naturally the same concept applies to router
configuration.
>>> And I prefer to be able to use my phone to configure the router anyway.
>
>> That's neither here nor there
>> since like web browser-based router configuration pages, Apple's
>> native apps are available for iOS, macOS, and Windows.
>
> But can't actually be used to configure a router from scratch without any
> physical access to the router
Red herring (but you need access to any router you want to configure,
>> native apps are available for iOS, macOS, and Windows.
>
> But can't actually be used to configure a router from scratch without any
> physical access to the router
regardless of whether you configure it with a web browser or a native app).
> you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
Rod Speed
Sep 17, 2016, 4:05:45 PM9/17/16
to
Stupid Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
> The iTunes web site is available to any device,
IDEVICES don’t provide a web site, fool.
> and the native iTunes app provides more functionality than
> the web site viewed through a web browser because native
> apps have access to native APIs that aren't available to web
> apps viewed through a web browser. Naturally the same
> concept applies to router configuration.
But not to idevice configuration, fool.
>>>> And I prefer to be able to use my phone to configure the router anyway.
>>> That's neither here nor there since like web browser-based
>>> router configuration pages, Apple's native apps are
>>> available for iOS, macOS, and Windows.
>> But can't actually be used to configure a router from
>> scratch without any physical access to the router
> Red herring
More of your lies.
> (but you need access to any router you want to configure, regardless
> of whether you configure it with a web browser or a native app).
Wrong when the router is net accessible.
>> you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
> Insults
That isnt an insult, it’s a statement of fact.
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Stupid Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>>> Yes, like router configuration options, the native iTunes
>>> app provides *much* more functionality and is *far* more
>>> integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.
>> idevices don’t actually have a web site, fuckwit.
> Insults are the last refuge of an intellectual coward.
Yes, that describes you to a T.
>> Stupid Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>>> Yes, like router configuration options, the native iTunes
>>> app provides *much* more functionality and is *far* more
>>> integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.
>> idevices don’t actually have a web site, fuckwit.
> Insults are the last refuge of an intellectual coward.
> The iTunes web site is available to any device,
> and the native iTunes app provides more functionality than
> the web site viewed through a web browser because native
> apps have access to native APIs that aren't available to web
> apps viewed through a web browser. Naturally the same
> concept applies to router configuration.
>>>> And I prefer to be able to use my phone to configure the router anyway.
>>> That's neither here nor there since like web browser-based
>>> router configuration pages, Apple's native apps are
>>> available for iOS, macOS, and Windows.
>> But can't actually be used to configure a router from
>> scratch without any physical access to the router
> Red herring
> (but you need access to any router you want to configure, regardless
> of whether you configure it with a web browser or a native app).
>> you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
> Insults
Jolly Roger
Sep 17, 2016, 4:42:19 PM9/17/16
to
Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stupid Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Stupid Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>
>>>> Yes, like router configuration options, the native iTunes
>>>> app provides *much* more functionality and is *far* more
>>>> integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.
>
>>> idevices don’t actually have a web site, fuckwit.
>
> Stupid Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Stupid Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>
>>>> Yes, like router configuration options, the native iTunes
>>>> app provides *much* more functionality and is *far* more
>>>> integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.
>
>>> idevices don’t actually have a web site, fuckwit.
>
>> The iTunes web site is available to any device,
>
> IDEVICES don’t provide a web site, fool.
Not what I said. You're confused. I'm done here. You'll have to have your
>
> IDEVICES don’t provide a web site, fool.
little one-boy "last word" party without me. Bye now.
Rod Speed
Sep 17, 2016, 5:46:37 PM9/17/16
to
Stupid Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Stupid Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Stupid Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>>
>>>>> Yes, like router configuration options, the native iTunes
>>>>> app provides *much* more functionality and is *far* more
>>>>> integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.
>>
>>>> idevices don’t actually have a web site, fuckwit.
>>
>>> The iTunes web site is available to any device,
>>
>> IDEVICES don’t provide a web site, fool.
> Not what I said.
Yep, that's where you fucked up completely.
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Stupid Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Stupid Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>>
>>>>> Yes, like router configuration options, the native iTunes
>>>>> app provides *much* more functionality and is *far* more
>>>>> integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.
>>
>>>> idevices don’t actually have a web site, fuckwit.
>>
>>> The iTunes web site is available to any device,
>>
>> IDEVICES don’t provide a web site, fool.
> Not what I said.
0 new messages