Pretty "mind-blowing" cool report @ Tom's Hardware
I didn't read more than the 1st few lines of that article, but unless I'm mistaken ths gist of it is that wireless networking isn't as secure as ppl think it is with the default settings, & to use it safely/securely there's a whole bunch of precautions & measures to take, yes? If that's what it's about, then I don' ...
I didn't read more than the 1st few lines of that article, but unless I'm mistaken ths gist of it is that wireless networking isn't as secure as ppl think it is with the default settings, & to use it safely/securely there's a whole bunch of precautions & measures to take, yes?
If that's what it's about, then I don't mean to be harsh, but it's not exactly news. There have been umpteen web articles, & even 1 or 2 mentions about it on TV [well, in this country anyway - dunno about others].
If that's what it's about, then I don't mean to be harsh, but it's not exactly news. There have been umpteen web articles, & even 1 or 2 mentions about it on TV [well, in this country anyway - dunno about others].
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Yup, there was an article in one of the trade papers about it. A load of people got on a bus, and they did 'drive by hackings' of wireless networks in the centre of london.
It was only done as a test, and the results were that with a laptop, the right software and an aerial made out of a coke can, they could gain access to most wireless networks without any problems what so ever.
Worrying stuff, and the people in charge of those networks should be strung up.
It was only done as a test, and the results were that with a laptop, the right software and an aerial made out of a coke can, they could gain access to most wireless networks without any problems what so ever.
Worrying stuff, and the people in charge of those networks should be strung up.
One of our bosses at work was very interested in having some kind of wireless network.
I too could see the advantages of moving a lot of the laptop users over to such a system.
However my research prior to any roll-out showed just how bad the security was on wireless connections - basically speaking there was no way I was going to allow such a system onto our network.
The potential for "Drive-by" hacking was confirmed by me when i took one of the laptops outisde of our building and was very much able to log onto the network whilst sat outside, sure nice for the hot sunny days like today, but the thought of unauthorised access was just too scary.
I gave a report to the boss in question on wireless networks, the jist being that if he insisted on a wireless link there was no way I could currently guarantee the integrity of our network.
We now do not have any wireless equipment except some in their own totally seperate domain for testing purposes, but nothing atached to our main network.
Those network/systems administrators who just roll out this kind of technology without first reading up on the security issues should be shot, simple as that.
I too could see the advantages of moving a lot of the laptop users over to such a system.
However my research prior to any roll-out showed just how bad the security was on wireless connections - basically speaking there was no way I was going to allow such a system onto our network.
The potential for "Drive-by" hacking was confirmed by me when i took one of the laptops outisde of our building and was very much able to log onto the network whilst sat outside, sure nice for the hot sunny days like today, but the thought of unauthorised access was just too scary.
I gave a report to the boss in question on wireless networks, the jist being that if he insisted on a wireless link there was no way I could currently guarantee the integrity of our network.
We now do not have any wireless equipment except some in their own totally seperate domain for testing purposes, but nothing atached to our main network.
Those network/systems administrators who just roll out this kind of technology without first reading up on the security issues should be shot, simple as that.
Yup, it happens and then afterwards they call Microsoft a bunch of ****ing wankers because they (The IT staff) forgot to apply a patch!!
ehhh, before the net we didn't have 12yr old script kiddies surfin' their AOL accounts reading webpages on how to do this stuff. We had 12yr old wardialer's who surfed BBS's to figure out how to do it. Networks were much less vulnerable to attack because there was much less of a wide-open network to attack.
Yep, it truly is amazing. But not as amazing as it should be:
I should be able to connect a device up to my computer and connect wireless to a satellite in the sky from anywhere in the world for a very cheap price.
BT shouldn't have a stranglehold on the Tele market and increase broadband support in more areas.
No one should be using Modem's anymore. There should be Cable/Jacks in every hotel/Dorm/everywhere.
Internet companies need to monitor their bandwidth and improve it to match.
ISP's should not restrict the amount of download's. If it's UNLIMITED then it's UNLIMITED if it's not then state as such.
etc
etc
etc
We are still much better off than we were tho!
I should be able to connect a device up to my computer and connect wireless to a satellite in the sky from anywhere in the world for a very cheap price.
BT shouldn't have a stranglehold on the Tele market and increase broadband support in more areas.
No one should be using Modem's anymore. There should be Cable/Jacks in every hotel/Dorm/everywhere.
Internet companies need to monitor their bandwidth and improve it to match.
ISP's should not restrict the amount of download's. If it's UNLIMITED then it's UNLIMITED if it's not then state as such.
etc
etc
etc
We are still much better off than we were tho!
yeah
now u have BEll DSL, and Rogers cable who are both limited banwidht nbow,
Bell DSL is 5g up and 5g down.
Rogers cable has now cut speeds in half, because some 8% of hardcore user, and clogging the Networks, yeah BS!
and supposedly they will be putting a 5g down, and 5g up limit on as well, and they did not even send out emails to let their customers know of this, supposedly because
"No one has noticed, and has not contacted us"
here is the articlke a friend found.
Rogers quietly slows download speeds
7/4/2002 5:00:00 PM - Heavy usage hampered Internet service, company says
by Paul Fruitman
If it seems like it takes longer to download those movie and mp3 files these days, it might be because it does.
Users of Rogers Communications Inc.'s Hi-Speed Internet can now download at a maximum speed of 1.5 Mbps, down
from 3 Mbps a month ago. Rogers made the switch in early June without issuing a news release or making any formal announcement.
According to Bob Carrick, president of Ottawa-based communications consulting firm Carrick Solutions Ltd. and a past vice-president at the Residential Broadband Users' Association, Hi-Speed customers were not given any notice of the change.
"It's been done without any e-mail to customers," he said. "People are just finding their speeds have been cut in half."
Rogers spokesperson Taanta Gupta said the company reserves the right to make amendments to its products and added that while Rogers may have promoted the 3 Mbps speed in the Internet-through-cable service's first years, it hasn't been promising those speeds recently.
Still, Gupta said the changes were made to improve, rather than limit, the average customers' broadband experience. She said a small percentage of heavy-use customers were slowing down the service of the remaining users. In other words, people were hogging the bandwidth.
"Our belief is that the impact will be a better network experience for customers," she said.
Gupta defended the lack of notification of the switch by saying that few customers have noticed a difference in their service. She said the company has received only 10-15 complaints about the change.
"Customers haven't seen the difference and there's no point in making an announcement," she said.
But Carrick said Internet message boards have been full of complaints from Rogers' customers. While he admitted many customers would have never experienced the 3 Mbps download speed because of network congestion, he said those familiar with speedy downloads of large files were aware of a slowdown.
"Some never hit 3 Mbps, but the ones that did noticed it right away," he said.
He noted that some customers are happy about the change because it relieves congestion, but said cutting the maximum download speed in half could also increase Rogers' bottom line.
"By reducing the speed 50 per cent, they've doubled the number of customers they can have," Carrick said. "It's like doubling your network capacity without spending any money."
But Gupta said network capacity did not factor into the decision.
"We didn't see (capacity) as being a problem for many years to come," she said. "There's plenty of capacity. The capacity is not the issue."
Reduced speeds at Rogers are yet another unwelcome change for heavy broadband users who have seen both Rogers and Bell Canada's Sympatico service put up limits to high-speed surfing in recent months.
In May, Sympatico announced it was moving from a one-size fits all high-speed approach to tiered services. High Speed Standard, previously the only available option, features up to 1 Mbps download speed, costs $44.95 (the previous price was $39.95) and limits users to 5 Gigabytes upstream and 5 GB downstream per month.
The Ultra service costs $69.95 per month, offers up to 3 Mbps download support and allows 10 GB upstream and 10 downstream per month. Sympatico also introduced a lower-cost "lite" service that features speeds twice that of dial-up and caps uploads and downloads at 1 GB per month. Along with cutting maximum download speeds, Rogers has also raised its standard price to $44.95 and introduced its own lite service.
The bit caps especially angered broadband users, some of whom signed a petition to protest their existence. As well, Carrick last month set up a Web site that allows disgruntled users and broadband neophytes to browse through alternative (and incumbent) providers that service their area. On Wednesday, CanadianISP.com's 19th day in existence, the site had 11,000 page views, according to Carrick.
But Gupta and Sympatico spokesperson Andrew Cole insisted those upset over bit caps and download slowdowns represent only a small minority of users.
"For the vast majority of users, bandwidth charges are non-issue," Cole said. "The average user per month uses 1.5 GB of bandwidth, which leaves (Standard service users) a large window to expand their enjoyment."
He said only five per cent to eight per cent of customers use more than 5 GB per month.
"It's a vocal minority who are being introduced to a new concept, but one that is going to be increasingly commonplace," Cole said.
"I think what you will see over the coming years will a continued evolution of tiers," Gupta added.
She said Rogers has plans to institute its own download caps, but a decision on when the phase-in will take place won't come until at least the end of the year. And like the change to download speeds, the bit caps will infringe on the Internet usage of only small percentage of customers, she said.
"Whatever bit caps we impose, 90 per cent of our customers won't be affected," Gupta said.
[/list:u]
Okay, so the 10% it will affect then don't mean crap then to rogers... gee, thnx! a**holes
now u have BEll DSL, and Rogers cable who are both limited banwidht nbow,
Bell DSL is 5g up and 5g down.
Rogers cable has now cut speeds in half, because some 8% of hardcore user, and clogging the Networks, yeah BS!
and supposedly they will be putting a 5g down, and 5g up limit on as well, and they did not even send out emails to let their customers know of this, supposedly because
"No one has noticed, and has not contacted us"
here is the articlke a friend found.
Rogers quietly slows download speeds
7/4/2002 5:00:00 PM - Heavy usage hampered Internet service, company says
by Paul Fruitman
If it seems like it takes longer to download those movie and mp3 files these days, it might be because it does.
Users of Rogers Communications Inc.'s Hi-Speed Internet can now download at a maximum speed of 1.5 Mbps, down
from 3 Mbps a month ago. Rogers made the switch in early June without issuing a news release or making any formal announcement.
According to Bob Carrick, president of Ottawa-based communications consulting firm Carrick Solutions Ltd. and a past vice-president at the Residential Broadband Users' Association, Hi-Speed customers were not given any notice of the change.
"It's been done without any e-mail to customers," he said. "People are just finding their speeds have been cut in half."
Rogers spokesperson Taanta Gupta said the company reserves the right to make amendments to its products and added that while Rogers may have promoted the 3 Mbps speed in the Internet-through-cable service's first years, it hasn't been promising those speeds recently.
Still, Gupta said the changes were made to improve, rather than limit, the average customers' broadband experience. She said a small percentage of heavy-use customers were slowing down the service of the remaining users. In other words, people were hogging the bandwidth.
"Our belief is that the impact will be a better network experience for customers," she said.
Gupta defended the lack of notification of the switch by saying that few customers have noticed a difference in their service. She said the company has received only 10-15 complaints about the change.
"Customers haven't seen the difference and there's no point in making an announcement," she said.
But Carrick said Internet message boards have been full of complaints from Rogers' customers. While he admitted many customers would have never experienced the 3 Mbps download speed because of network congestion, he said those familiar with speedy downloads of large files were aware of a slowdown.
"Some never hit 3 Mbps, but the ones that did noticed it right away," he said.
He noted that some customers are happy about the change because it relieves congestion, but said cutting the maximum download speed in half could also increase Rogers' bottom line.
"By reducing the speed 50 per cent, they've doubled the number of customers they can have," Carrick said. "It's like doubling your network capacity without spending any money."
But Gupta said network capacity did not factor into the decision.
"We didn't see (capacity) as being a problem for many years to come," she said. "There's plenty of capacity. The capacity is not the issue."
Reduced speeds at Rogers are yet another unwelcome change for heavy broadband users who have seen both Rogers and Bell Canada's Sympatico service put up limits to high-speed surfing in recent months.
In May, Sympatico announced it was moving from a one-size fits all high-speed approach to tiered services. High Speed Standard, previously the only available option, features up to 1 Mbps download speed, costs $44.95 (the previous price was $39.95) and limits users to 5 Gigabytes upstream and 5 GB downstream per month.
The Ultra service costs $69.95 per month, offers up to 3 Mbps download support and allows 10 GB upstream and 10 downstream per month. Sympatico also introduced a lower-cost "lite" service that features speeds twice that of dial-up and caps uploads and downloads at 1 GB per month. Along with cutting maximum download speeds, Rogers has also raised its standard price to $44.95 and introduced its own lite service.
The bit caps especially angered broadband users, some of whom signed a petition to protest their existence. As well, Carrick last month set up a Web site that allows disgruntled users and broadband neophytes to browse through alternative (and incumbent) providers that service their area. On Wednesday, CanadianISP.com's 19th day in existence, the site had 11,000 page views, according to Carrick.
But Gupta and Sympatico spokesperson Andrew Cole insisted those upset over bit caps and download slowdowns represent only a small minority of users.
"For the vast majority of users, bandwidth charges are non-issue," Cole said. "The average user per month uses 1.5 GB of bandwidth, which leaves (Standard service users) a large window to expand their enjoyment."
He said only five per cent to eight per cent of customers use more than 5 GB per month.
"It's a vocal minority who are being introduced to a new concept, but one that is going to be increasingly commonplace," Cole said.
"I think what you will see over the coming years will a continued evolution of tiers," Gupta added.
She said Rogers has plans to institute its own download caps, but a decision on when the phase-in will take place won't come until at least the end of the year. And like the change to download speeds, the bit caps will infringe on the Internet usage of only small percentage of customers, she said.
"Whatever bit caps we impose, 90 per cent of our customers won't be affected," Gupta said.
[/list:u]
Okay, so the 10% it will affect then don't mean crap then to rogers... gee, thnx! a**holes
