LITTLEBLACKDOG.COM

EEps · Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:15 am Post subject:

EdisonRex wrote:
- in Texas, someone got acquitted because he did not cause any damage although he connected to an unsecured wireless network.

Hmmm... I don't this was me though. Shocked

Moderator Joined: 26 May 2001 Posts: 8155 Location: Borneo

I'm not argueing that an accidently left open system is ok to enter but that i can assume that a system that is without password is specially opened for the world to use and if i find a network without password than the owner wants me to use it, just as i see a working water drink fountain i can assume that the owner wants me to drink the water

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 6:56 pm Post subject:

EdisonRex wrote:
- in Texas, someone got acquitted because he did not cause any damage although he connected to an unsecured wireless network.

Well, that is good to know... as Texas is where I live.

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 1:00 am Post subject:

csign wrote:
I'm not argueing that an accidently left open system is ok to enter but that i can assume that a system that is without password is specially opened for the world to use and if i find a network without password than the owner wants me to use it, just as i see a working water drink fountain i can assume that the owner wants me to drink the water

those seem like incompatible arguments. As a casual scanner you have no idea if an open network is intentionally left open for you to use or not. A public hotspot is usually staked out and the more well run ones seem to all have a proxy to redirect your browser to their login/billing page, etc. Your neighbor's one, that you suddenly connected to in the back garden because their signal is stronger than yours there, might be open by negligence or an accident, but unless you ask that neighbor, you wouldn't know for sure.

So if you are saying you don't think an accidentally unsecured network is ok to enter, but you assume that if a network is unsecured it is ok to enter, how do you reconcile this?

Are their any long term health risk associated with wireless routers constantly broadcasting their radiation?

No definitive answers.

So, I would like to install a wireless router that I can have broadcast wirelessly when I want it to, and go wired only when I don't want the broadcast. Has anyone seen an option like that?

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 8:06 pm Post subject:

most wireless routers let you specify MAC addresses, which seems like the best policy to me. you're MAC address isn't listed, you get no service.

mgosby wrote:
So, I would like to install a wireless router that I can have broadcast wirelessly when I want it to, and go wired only when I don't want the broadcast. Has anyone seen an option like that?

If I'm reading your question right, you want to get a wireless network appliance that will only broadcast when you are logged on to the wireless network and will not broadcast otherwise, thereby avoiding others stealing your bandwidth? Sorry; can't be done...unless you have a Cisco-level device or something, you can't lock a computer to be a 'master' wireless client on any consumer-level WiFi routers. MAC addresses are definitely the way to go. And Windows can certainly handle the crossovers flawlessly; as I was typing this our wireless network came back on, so I unplugged my cable and just went wireless. No errors; didn't even log off of AIM.

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:06 pm Post subject:

i have a wireless router at home and i would say hey if you can get p[ast my firewall have at sharing the bandwidth. I have seen some odd connections and probes to the firewall and each is bumped off. shame on the fools that havent got the firewall up

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 5:19 am Post subject:

skildude wrote:
i have a wireless router at home and i would say hey if you can get p[ast my firewall have at sharing the bandwidth. I have seen some odd connections and probes to the firewall and each is bumped off. shame on the fools that havent got the firewall up

the firewall's not an issue. since i'm connecting through their wireless, i'm as good as behind the firewall. i'm just another computer on their lan. safe and sound behind the protection of their firewall.

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 6:11 am Post subject:

if im not mistaken my router has a built in firewall. and asks all sorts of questions as to this "new" pc on the router

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:04 am Post subject: On-Off Wireless Broadcasting

The ability to switch the wireless antennae ON / OFF would do two things: 1) control access from unauthorized connections, and 2) limit the amount of radiation transmitted by the device. Currently, the only way I can think of to do this is to unplug the wireless router when it's not used, but this knocks all wired connections of the small home network as well.

What if I plug the wireless router into the uplink port on the wired router? In theory, this might allow me to power off the wireless when it's not needed, but keep the wired router on at all times.

This is out of concern for the unknown health risk of constantly broadcasting radiation with the always on wireless router. The risk of unknowning sharing broadband is secondary.

Thanks for feedback.

Jonathan wrote:
mgosby wrote:
So, I would like to install a wireless router that I can have broadcast wirelessly when I want it to, and go wired only when I don't want the broadcast. Has anyone seen an option like that?

If I'm reading your question right, you want to get a wireless network appliance that will only broadcast when you are logged on to the wireless network and will not broadcast otherwise, thereby avoiding others stealing your bandwidth?

You're following, although, not exactly, Jonathan. I want to get a wireless appliance that will only broadcast when I want it to broadcast, for instance, when I flip a switch on the device. The concern is the constant emmission of radiation waves while the wireless signal is being broadcast. I'd like more control over this, since there are no concrete answers about the health risk associate with this.

I would like to keep wired connections alive, while cancelling wireless connections until I have a need for a wireless signal at home. Using two routers at the same time might be an answer. I will test it and let you know. Please send feedback if there are known complications that I might face.

Thanks,

Goz

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2003 5:29 pm Post subject:

Yeah, keeping independent control over wireless is no problem. Just get a standalone router and a standalone access point; I recommend the Linksys BEFSR11/41 (the 11 has one port, the 41 has a 4-port 10/100 switch built in) and then an 802.11g wireless access point (WAP).

And don't worry about radiation. 802.11b/g uses the same range as many telephones: 2.4ghz in the radio spectrum, unless I'm highly mistaken. As it is licensed by the FCC, the radio is not strong enough to even interfere with other technologies, let alone cause health damage. It's no more dangerous than talking on a cordless (not cellular) phone or listening to the radio.

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:05 am Post subject: A Workable Option

Thanks for your reply to my inquiry. I plugged my Linksys 2.4 GHz Wireless B into an open port on my D-Link wired router and now my laptop access the internet using the wireless connection to the internet.

I am leaning towards your belief that there are no health concerns associated with the technology, but having the option to turn off the wireless signal when ever I want without downtime for wired PCs gives me a lot of relief and security.

Best wishes and happy surfing.

No )( here!

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 9:30 am Post subject:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/34153.html

Salient point:

in Canada, it is considered theft of communications to jack a wireless network.