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 Historical content remains viewable.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
16 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, 9:00:21 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/>
AL
Sep 12, 2016, 9:45:20 PM9/12/16
to
On 9/12/2016 5:22 PM, Horace Algier wrote:
> I told them to set the iOS devices and computers to *only* use 5GHz if they
> can (dunno if that's possible though).
I have 50Mbps cable service. I'm lucky in that it usually runs in the
> I told them to set the iOS devices and computers to *only* use 5GHz if they
> can (dunno if that's possible though).
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.
Jolly Roger
Sep 12, 2016, 10:07:40 PM9/12/16
to
Jolly Roger
Sep 12, 2016, 10:08:40 PM9/12/16
to
band, then configure individual devices to connect to either one.
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
> 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.
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.
AL
Sep 12, 2016, 11:53:15 PM9/12/16
to
On 9/12/2016 7:08 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2016-09-13, AL <noe...@none.invalid.com> 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.
>
> Easy enough to configure the router to use a different SSID for each
> band,
I do.
> On 2016-09-13, AL <noe...@none.invalid.com> 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.
>
> Easy enough to configure the router to use a different SSID for each
> band,
That's the way I've always configured a 2 band router. Else how would I
know which band I was connecting to? My connecting device's network name
list doesn't tell me.
> then configure individual devices to connect to either one.
Else how would I make the comparative band measurements listed above?
nospam
Sep 13, 2016, 12:03:56 AM9/13/16
to
In article <nr7t77$9ct$1...@dont-email.me>, AL <noe...@none.invalid.com>
when configured with the same ssid, it will automatically use the band
that provides the best throughput and seamlessly switch as needed when
you move about the house.
> My connecting device's network name
> list doesn't tell me.
actually it does. option-click the wifi icon.
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.
> >
> > Easy enough to configure the router to use a different SSID for each
> > band,
>
> I do.
>
> That's the way I've always configured a 2 band router. Else how would I
> know which band I was connecting to?
why do you care? what matters is the best throughput.
> >> 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.
> >
> > Easy enough to configure the router to use a different SSID for each
> > band,
>
> I do.
>
> That's the way I've always configured a 2 band router. Else how would I
> know which band I was connecting to?
when configured with the same ssid, it will automatically use the band
that provides the best throughput and seamlessly switch as needed when
you move about the house.
> My connecting device's network name
> list doesn't tell me.
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, 12:05:44 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.
Jolly Roger
Sep 13, 2016, 12:42:12 AM9/13/16
to
On 2016-09-13, AL <noe...@none.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 9/12/2016 7:08 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2016-09-13, AL <noe...@none.invalid.com> 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.
>>
>> Easy enough to configure the router to use a different SSID for each
>> band,
>
> I do.
>
> That's the way I've always configured a 2 band router. Else how would I
> know which band I was connecting to?
Normally, there's no need to connect to a specific band, since the
> On 9/12/2016 7:08 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2016-09-13, AL <noe...@none.invalid.com> 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.
>>
>> Easy enough to configure the router to use a different SSID for each
>> band,
>
> I do.
>
> That's the way I've always configured a 2 band router. Else how would I
> know which band I was connecting to?
radios will use the band with the best connectivity automatically.
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"
> Easy enough to configure the router to use a different SSID for each
> band, then configure individual devices to connect to either one.
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, 1:13:08 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, 1:26:14 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, 1:26:16 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.
AL
Sep 13, 2016, 1:28:55 AM9/13/16
to
On 9/12/2016 8:31 PM, Horace Algier wrote:
> 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.
It's a yearly ritual for me to call Cox and get another years discount.
I can usually get around a $30/mo discount. I have a bundle (ISP, phone,
TV) and sometimes have to threaten to cut the cord. They've always come
through...so far.
> 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.
I have a choice of ISPs here and I think that helps.
> 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.
It's a yearly ritual for me to call Cox and get another years discount.
I can usually get around a $30/mo discount. I have a bundle (ISP, phone,
TV) and sometimes have to threaten to cut the cord. They've always come
through...so far.
> 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.
I have a choice of ISPs here and I think that helps.
AL
Sep 13, 2016, 1:28:57 AM9/13/16
to
On 9/12/2016 9:03 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <nr7t77$9ct$1...@dont-email.me>, AL <noe...@none.invalid.com>
Because that way I don't have to measure throughput on new devices or
reconnected old devices. I just connect them to the SSID identifying the
5GHz band.
> when configured with the same ssid, it will automatically use the band
> that provides the best throughput and seamlessly switch as needed when
> you move about the house.
>
>> My connecting device's network name
>> list doesn't tell me.
>
> actually it does. option-click the wifi icon.
Option-click? Not on this W10 tablet. Not on my Samsung tablet. Not on
my Android phone. Not on the wife's 6+, mini, iPad...
> In article <nr7t77$9ct$1...@dont-email.me>, AL <noe...@none.invalid.com>
> 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 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.
>>>
>>> Easy enough to configure the router to use a different SSID for each
>>> band,
>>
>>> band,
>>
>> I do.
>>
>> That's the way I've always configured a 2 band router. Else how would I
>> know which band I was connecting to?
>
> why do you care? what matters is the best throughput.
>>
>> That's the way I've always configured a 2 band router. Else how would I
>> know which band I was connecting to?
>
Because that way I don't have to measure throughput on new devices or
reconnected old devices. I just connect them to the SSID identifying the
5GHz band.
> when configured with the same ssid, it will automatically use the band
> that provides the best throughput and seamlessly switch as needed when
> you move about the house.
>
>> My connecting device's network name
>> list doesn't tell me.
>
> actually it does. option-click the wifi icon.
Option-click? Not on this W10 tablet. Not on my Samsung tablet. Not on
my Android phone. Not on the wife's 6+, mini, iPad...
AL
Sep 13, 2016, 1:28:58 AM9/13/16
to
On 9/12/2016 9:05 PM, Horace Algier wrote:
> 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.
My next door neighbor leaves his guest WiFi open. Very handy when my ISP
goes down. His measures around 7 Mbps so it's only good in a pinch.
> I had advised turning off the 2.4GHz if he could get
> away with it).
Not all devices have the 5 GHz band. If he has such guests that want to
use his Wifi they would be SOL.
> 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.
My next door neighbor leaves his guest WiFi open. Very handy when my ISP
goes down. His measures around 7 Mbps so it's only good in a pinch.
> I had advised turning off the 2.4GHz if he could get
> away with it).
Not all devices have the 5 GHz band. If he has such guests that want to
use his Wifi they would be SOL.
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.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 1:31:24 AM9/13/16
to
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 22:29:01 -0700, AL wrote:
> My next door neighbor leaves his guest WiFi open. Very handy when my ISP
> goes down. His measures around 7 Mbps so it's only good in a pinch.
I have a neighbor that put up a Ubuqiti Nanobridge so that he could give
> My next door neighbor leaves his guest WiFi open. Very handy when my ISP
> goes down. His measures around 7 Mbps so it's only good in a pinch.
all *his* neighbors free WiFi from his setup.
There *are* people like that.
I keep telling him someone's gonna log in to his open network and send an
incriminating email or something to a public official - but he doesn't seem
to care.
There are people like that.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 1:32:34 AM9/13/16
to
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 22:28:57 -0700, AL wrote:
> I have a choice of ISPs here and I think that helps.
That's super helpful.
> I have a choice of ISPs here and I think that helps.
Where this was, that wasn't the case.
Sigh.
Rod Speed
Sep 13, 2016, 1:38:47 AM9/13/16
to
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
> 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
passcode for the new router. Quite likely that he has done that tho.
> 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.
> 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
passcode for the new router. Quite likely that he has done that tho.
> 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.
Jolly Roger
Sep 13, 2016, 1:39:25 AM9/13/16
to
On 2016-09-13, AL <noe...@none.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 9/12/2016 9:05 PM, Horace Algier wrote:
>> 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.
>
> My next door neighbor leaves his guest WiFi open.
And the pedophiles and nefarious hackers out there probably *love* him
> On 9/12/2016 9:05 PM, Horace Algier wrote:
>> 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.
>
> My next door neighbor leaves his guest WiFi open.
for it. Unfortunately for him, the SWAT team raiding his house looking
for kiddie porn or whatever else probably won't take "It wasn't me!" as
an excuse.
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.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 1:45:12 AM9/13/16
to
On 13 Sep 2016 05:39:24 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> And the pedophiles and nefarious hackers out there probably *love* him
> for it. Unfortunately for him, the SWAT team raiding his house looking
> for kiddie porn or whatever else probably won't take "It wasn't me!" as
> an excuse.
Funny you mention the SWAT team because the DOJ just did a raid with Fish &
> And the pedophiles and nefarious hackers out there probably *love* him
> for it. Unfortunately for him, the SWAT team raiding his house looking
> for kiddie porn or whatever else probably won't take "It wasn't me!" as
> an excuse.
Game (why F&G I don't know) and the county police force, but they raided a
pot farm (they seem to do one or two raids a year around here).
Rod Speed
Sep 13, 2016, 1:48:11 AM9/13/16
to
Horace Algier <hor...@horatio.net> wrote
> I keep telling him someone's gonna log in to his open network
> and send an incriminating email or something to a public official
I don’t care, legally that is their problem, not mine.
> - but he doesn't seem to care.
I certainly don’t.
> There are people like that.
Yep, I'm one of them.
The other plus is that if anyone does do a dummy spit
about the torrenting, I just just point out that I allow
anyone to use my wifi and so it could be anyone who did that.
> AL wrote
>> My next door neighbor leaves his guest WiFi open. Very handy when my
>> ISP goes down. His measures around 7 Mbps so it's only good in a pinch.
> I have a neighbor that put up a Ubuqiti Nanobridge so that
> he could give all *his* neighbors free WiFi from his setup.
> There *are* people like that.
Yeah, I do that myself.
>> My next door neighbor leaves his guest WiFi open. Very handy when my
>> ISP goes down. His measures around 7 Mbps so it's only good in a pinch.
> I have a neighbor that put up a Ubuqiti Nanobridge so that
> he could give all *his* neighbors free WiFi from his setup.
> There *are* people like that.
> I keep telling him someone's gonna log in to his open network
> and send an incriminating email or something to a public official
> - but he doesn't seem to care.
> There are people like that.
The other plus is that if anyone does do a dummy spit
about the torrenting, I just just point out that I allow
anyone to use my wifi and so it could be anyone who did that.
Rod Speed
Sep 13, 2016, 1:48:13 AM9/13/16
to
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
> AL <noe...@none.invalid.com> wrote
>> Horace Algier wrote
everyone.
> Unfortunately for him, the SWAT team raiding his
> house looking for kiddie porn or whatever else
> probably won't take "It wasn't me!" as an excuse.
They get to prove that it was him
that did it and that wont be possible.
> AL <noe...@none.invalid.com> wrote
>> Horace Algier wrote
>>> nospam wrote
>>>> didn't he set a passphrase? if he left it wide open,
>>>> then don't be surprised someone joined it.
>> My next door neighbor leaves his guest WiFi open.
> And the pedophiles and nefarious hackers out there probably *love* him for
> it.
Nope, they are free to use the local library which also has free wifi for
>>>> didn't he set a passphrase? if he left it wide open,
>>>> then don't be surprised someone joined it.
>> My next door neighbor leaves his guest WiFi open.
> And the pedophiles and nefarious hackers out there probably *love* him for
> it.
everyone.
> Unfortunately for him, the SWAT team raiding his
> house looking for kiddie porn or whatever else
> probably won't take "It wasn't me!" as an excuse.
that did it and that wont be possible.
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, 1:49:38 AM9/13/16
to
In article <nr82qk$k7q$2...@dont-email.me>, AL <noe...@none.invalid.com>
wrote:
> >> That's the way I've always configured a 2 band router. Else how would I
> >> know which band I was connecting to?
> >
> > why do you care? what matters is the best throughput.
>
> Because that way I don't have to measure throughput on new devices or
> reconnected old devices. I just connect them to the SSID identifying the
> 5GHz band.
5ghz propagation is not as good as 2.4 ghz, so you might actually get
better throughput on the 2.4 ghz band.
wifi devices can dynamically change bands on the fly as conditions
change, always giving the best throughput, without the user having to
worry about it.
let the computer do the work *for* you.
> > when configured with the same ssid, it will automatically use the band
> > that provides the best throughput and seamlessly switch as needed when
> > you move about the house.
> >
> >> My connecting device's network name
> >> list doesn't tell me.
> >
> > actually it does. option-click the wifi icon.
>
> Option-click? Not on this W10 tablet. Not on my Samsung tablet. Not on
> my Android phone. Not on the wife's 6+, mini, iPad...
option-click shows all the relevant information about the current
connection:
<http://infoheap.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/mac-wifi-setting-option-
click.png>
there are utilities for other devices that show the same info.
wrote:
> >> That's the way I've always configured a 2 band router. Else how would I
> >> know which band I was connecting to?
> >
> > why do you care? what matters is the best throughput.
>
> Because that way I don't have to measure throughput on new devices or
> reconnected old devices. I just connect them to the SSID identifying the
> 5GHz band.
better throughput on the 2.4 ghz band.
wifi devices can dynamically change bands on the fly as conditions
change, always giving the best throughput, without the user having to
worry about it.
let the computer do the work *for* you.
> > when configured with the same ssid, it will automatically use the band
> > that provides the best throughput and seamlessly switch as needed when
> > you move about the house.
> >
> >> My connecting device's network name
> >> list doesn't tell me.
> >
> > actually it does. option-click the wifi icon.
>
> Option-click? Not on this W10 tablet. Not on my Samsung tablet. Not on
> my Android phone. Not on the wife's 6+, mini, iPad...
connection:
<http://infoheap.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/mac-wifi-setting-option-
click.png>
there are utilities for other devices that show the same info.
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.
Jolly Roger
Sep 13, 2016, 1:53:52 AM9/13/16
to
On 2016-09-13, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>> AL <noe...@none.invalid.com> wrote
>
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>> AL <noe...@none.invalid.com> wrote
>
>>> My next door neighbor leaves his guest WiFi open.
>
>> And the pedophiles and nefarious hackers out there probably *love* him for
>> it.
>
> Nope,
Yep.
>
>> And the pedophiles and nefarious hackers out there probably *love* him for
>> it.
>
> Nope,
> they are free to use the local library which also has free wifi for
> everyone.
unsecured network to do their dirty work.
>> Unfortunately for him, the SWAT team raiding his
>> house looking for kiddie porn or whatever else
>> probably won't take "It wasn't me!" as an excuse.
>
> They get to prove that it was him
> that did it and that wont be possible.
he'll sit in jail while they rummage through his shit.
Rod Speed
Sep 13, 2016, 2:09:25 AM9/13/16
to
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>> they are free to use the local library
>> which also has free wifi for everyone.
> No need for a library visit in public
They don’t need to do that, its available
for quite a way around the library, in the
massive great carpark outside it etc.
> when they can just hop on an unsecured
> network to do their dirty work.
MUCH more likely to be noticed parked there.
>>> Unfortunately for him, the SWAT team raiding his
>>> house looking for kiddie porn or whatever else
>>> probably won't take "It wasn't me!" as an excuse.
>> They get to prove that it was him
>> that did it and that wont be possible.
> Nope,
Yep.
> they'll haul his ass and all of his electronic devices away,
> and he'll sit in jail while they rummage through his shit.
It actually happened to one of the local
kids, there was no jail involved at all.
And that stupid kid was using a mate's wifi and the goons didn’t
get even enter his place, let alone take any of his stuff away.
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>>> AL <noe...@none.invalid.com> wrote
>>>> My next door neighbor leaves his guest WiFi open.
>>> And the pedophiles and nefarious hackers
>>> out there probably *love* him for it.
>> Nope,
> Yep.
Nope.
>> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote
>>> AL <noe...@none.invalid.com> wrote
>>>> My next door neighbor leaves his guest WiFi open.
>>> And the pedophiles and nefarious hackers
>>> out there probably *love* him for it.
>> Nope,
> Yep.
>> they are free to use the local library
>> which also has free wifi for everyone.
> No need for a library visit in public
for quite a way around the library, in the
massive great carpark outside it etc.
> when they can just hop on an unsecured
> network to do their dirty work.
>>> Unfortunately for him, the SWAT team raiding his
>>> house looking for kiddie porn or whatever else
>>> probably won't take "It wasn't me!" as an excuse.
>> They get to prove that it was him
>> that did it and that wont be possible.
> Nope,
> they'll haul his ass and all of his electronic devices away,
> and he'll sit in jail while they rummage through his shit.
kids, there was no jail involved at all.
And that stupid kid was using a mate's wifi and the goons didn’t
get even enter his place, let alone take any of his stuff away.
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.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 2:10:14 AM9/13/16
to
On 13 Sep 2016 05:53:51 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Nope, they'll haul his ass and all of his electronic devices away, and
> he'll sit in jail while they rummage through his shit.
I remember reading about TOR EXIT NODE operators where something like this
> Nope, they'll haul his ass and all of his electronic devices away, and
> he'll sit in jail while they rummage through his shit.
happened to them.
They can make anyone's life miserable, for a short period of time, anyway.
Horace Algier
Sep 13, 2016, 2:10:16 AM9/13/16
to
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:45:10 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
> The other plus is that if anyone does do a dummy spit
> about the torrenting, I just just point out that I allow
> anyone to use my wifi and so it could be anyone who did that.
Along those lines, when they were taking folks to court for file sharing,
> The other plus is that if anyone does do a dummy spit
> about the torrenting, I just just point out that I allow
> anyone to use my wifi and so it could be anyone who did that.
they only went after people with secure WiFi or no WiFi at all.
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*.
AL
Sep 13, 2016, 2:48:27 AM9/13/16
to
On 9/12/2016 9:42 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Normally, there's no need to connect to a specific band, since the
> radios will use the band with the best connectivity automatically.
Many do use a single SSID for both radios. That does minimize confusion
for some. And the devices should prefer the 5GHz radio given a choice
anyway. Though in some groups I've read there are complaints of routers
dropping into a crowded 2.4GHz band for unknown reasons.
So you're right, a single SSID would probably work fine for the average
user. But I like to control my (hobby) devices and a split SSID
definitely allows me that greater control.
> Normally, there's no need to connect to a specific band, since the
> radios will use the band with the best connectivity automatically.
Many do use a single SSID for both radios. That does minimize confusion
for some. And the devices should prefer the 5GHz radio given a choice
anyway. Though in some groups I've read there are complaints of routers
dropping into a crowded 2.4GHz band for unknown reasons.
So you're right, a single SSID would probably work fine for the average
user. But I like to control my (hobby) devices and a split SSID
definitely allows me that greater control.
AL
Sep 13, 2016, 2:48:29 AM9/13/16
to
On 9/12/2016 10:42 PM, Horace Algier 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.
AL
Sep 13, 2016, 2:48:31 AM9/13/16
to
On 9/12/2016 10:39 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2016-09-13, AL <noe...@none.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 9/12/2016 9:05 PM, Horace Algier wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> My next door neighbor leaves his guest WiFi open.
>
> And the pedophiles and nefarious hackers out there probably *love* him
> for it. Unfortunately for him, the SWAT team raiding his house looking
> for kiddie porn or whatever else probably won't take "It wasn't me!" as
> an excuse.
Well I doubt that my neighbors wifi goes more than a few houses away.
> On 2016-09-13, AL <noe...@none.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 9/12/2016 9:05 PM, Horace Algier wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> My next door neighbor leaves his guest WiFi open.
>
> And the pedophiles and nefarious hackers out there probably *love* him
> for it. Unfortunately for him, the SWAT team raiding his house looking
> for kiddie porn or whatever else probably won't take "It wasn't me!" as
> an excuse.
But you're right there's hundreds of stories of innocent people being
detained (handcuffed) and having their houses searched before the facts
came out.
(BTW my neighbor is president of the local Apple club.)
AL
Sep 13, 2016, 2:48:33 AM9/13/16
to
On 9/12/2016 10:49 PM, nospam wrote:
> 5ghz propagation is not as good as 2.4 ghz, so you might actually get
> better throughput on the 2.4 ghz band.
That would be long distances or thick walls. Neither a problem in my
> 5ghz propagation is not as good as 2.4 ghz, so you might actually get
> better throughput on the 2.4 ghz band.
1800 sq ft house.
> wifi devices can dynamically change bands on the fly as conditions
> change, always giving the best throughput, without the user having to
> worry about it.
> let the computer do the work *for* you.
really doing. (If you've ever used W10 then you know what I mean.)
> option-click shows all the relevant information about the current
> connection:
> there are utilities for other devices that show the same info.
Rod Speed
Sep 13, 2016, 2:56:03 AM9/13/16
to
"Horace Algier" <hor...@horatio.net> wrote in message
news:nr8584$1t68$4...@gioia.aioe.org...
Not only didn’t they have a warrant to search his place, he wasn’t even
interviewed, let alone have anything seized or even ended up down at
the police station either.
Rod Speed
Sep 13, 2016, 2:56:04 AM9/13/16
to
news:nr8586$1t68$5...@gioia.aioe.org...
Because there is no way to prove that the others were doing anything.
AL
Sep 13, 2016, 3:10:17 AM9/13/16
to
On 9/12/2016 11:46 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Nothing happened to a mate of mine whose wifi was used like that.
> Not only didn’t they have a warrant to search his place, he wasn’t even
> interviewed, let alone have anything seized or even ended up down at
> the police station either.
There are dozens more like this:
> Nothing happened to a mate of mine whose wifi was used like that.
> Not only didn’t they have a warrant to search his place, he wasn’t even
> interviewed, let alone have anything seized or even ended up down at
> the police station either.
"a Homeland Security Investigations special agent said investigators
were able to track one account to a Bonney Lake home"
"Agents searched the home in December and spoke with the residents, who
adamantly denied having involved themselves in child pornography. Agents
searched their electronics and did not find any evidence of child porn."
"They learned, however, that Heiland, their neighbor, had set up the
couple’s unsecured Wi-Fi network,"
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Feds-Neighbor-s-Wi-Fi-a-path-to-child-porn-for-5387339.php
Rod Speed
Sep 13, 2016, 3:18:44 AM9/13/16
to
AL <noe...@none.invalid.com> wrote
> "a Homeland Security Investigations special agent said investigators were
> able to track one account to a Bonney Lake home"
> "Agents searched the home in December and spoke with the residents, who
> adamantly denied having involved themselves in child pornography. Agents
> searched their electronics and did not find any evidence of child porn."
And they didn’t end up in jail while that happened either.
Our have enough of a clue to actually check
if there is unsecured wifi from there.
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Nothing happened to a mate of mine whose wifi was used like that. Not
>> only didn’t they have a warrant to search his place, he wasn’t even
>> interviewed, let alone have anything seized or even ended up down at the
>> police station either.
> There are dozens more like this:
Not here there arent.
>> Nothing happened to a mate of mine whose wifi was used like that. Not
>> only didn’t they have a warrant to search his place, he wasn’t even
>> interviewed, let alone have anything seized or even ended up down at the
>> police station either.
> There are dozens more like this:
> "a Homeland Security Investigations special agent said investigators were
> able to track one account to a Bonney Lake home"
> "Agents searched the home in December and spoke with the residents, who
> adamantly denied having involved themselves in child pornography. Agents
> searched their electronics and did not find any evidence of child porn."
Our have enough of a clue to actually check
if there is unsecured wifi from there.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages