Re: Speaking of wireless
In a message dated: 28 Aug 2002 13:47:26 EDT Kevin D. Clark said: >However, refusing to respond to any ICMP is anti-social in a >networking sense; this breaks various things (like TCP path MTU >discovery, for example). This behavior is non-compliant with how the >specs are written. As such, if you set up a server this way, not >everybody is going to be able to use it. Usually people don't turn this off at the server level. I've most often seen it done at the firewall, which is configured to drop ICMP requests destined for anything behind it. It may well be anti-social, but so is cracking a network :( If everyone would just be nice we wouldn't have to deal with this crap! So, be nice, dammit! :) -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 13:47, Kevin D. Clark wrote: > However, refusing to respond to any ICMP is anti-social in a > networking sense; this breaks various things (like TCP path MTU > discovery, for example). This behavior is non-compliant with how the > specs are written. As such, if you set up a server this way, not > everybody is going to be able to use it. Well, that is pretty much the point. You only allow certain people in. The comment about denying ICMP was made in regards to a firewall. You don't *WANT* everyone using it ;-) C-Ya, Kenny -- "Tact is just *not* saying true stuff" -- Cordelia Chase Kenneth E. Lussier Sr. Systems Administrator Zuken, USA PGP KeyID CB254DD0 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB254DD0 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > In a message dated: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:49:20 EDT > Michael O'Donnell said: > > >How does refusing to do ICMP make a box more secure? > > They can't finger-print your TCP/IP stack and determine what OS > you're running. This makes it difficult to then know what types of > script-kiddies to run in order to root your box. However, refusing to respond to any ICMP is anti-social in a networking sense; this breaks various things (like TCP path MTU discovery, for example). This behavior is non-compliant with how the specs are written. As such, if you set up a server this way, not everybody is going to be able to use it. --kevin -- Kevin D. Clark / Cetacean Networks / Portsmouth, N.H. (USA) cetaceannetworks.com!kclark (GnuPG ID: B280F24E) alumni.unh.edu!kdc ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
In a message dated: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:14:27 EDT "Hewitt Tech" said: >Also, don't forget the famous "ping of death" DOS issue. In that >vulnerability if you sent a ping with more than 65,510 data from a Windows >box, the machine receiving the ping request could fall over. That problem >affected quite a few of the UNIX implementation out there and I think it >could even take down an NT server if conditions were just right. I thought it was the other way around? If you sent that POD *to* a Windows system it would fall over. I don't remember any UNIX versions being vulnerable to it, though, my memory isn't ECC :) -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
Also, don't forget the famous "ping of death" DOS issue. In that vulnerability if you sent a ping with more than 65,510 data from a Windows box, the machine receiving the ping request could fall over. That problem affected quite a few of the UNIX implementation out there and I think it could even take down an NT server if conditions were just right. -Alex - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 1:00 PM Subject: Re: Speaking of wireless > > In a message dated: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:49:20 EDT > Michael O'Donnell said: > > >How does refusing to do ICMP make a box more secure? > > They can't finger-print your TCP/IP stack and determine what OS > you're running. This makes it difficult to then know what types of > script-kiddies to run in order to root your box. > > See this SANS article about this very topic: > > http://www.sans.org/newlook/resources/IDFAQ/TCP_fingerprinting.htm > -- > > Seeya, > Paul > -- > It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, >but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. > > If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! > > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
In a message dated: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:49:20 EDT Michael O'Donnell said: >How does refusing to do ICMP make a box more secure? They can't finger-print your TCP/IP stack and determine what OS you're running. This makes it difficult to then know what types of script-kiddies to run in order to root your box. See this SANS article about this very topic: http://www.sans.org/newlook/resources/IDFAQ/TCP_fingerprinting.htm -- Seeya, Paul -- It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing, but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away. If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
>They look pretty tight from the outside. You can do better with >a Linux/*BSD/Solaris firewall of course. For instance, you can't >ping my firewall from the outside and I don't think you can do that >with one of these. How does refusing to do ICMP make a box more secure? . ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 11:10, Hewitt Tech wrote: > The other good reason for waiting for 802.11g is that the 802.11b standard > has a very weak WEP implementation and I believe the g standard will correct > that. What I know about the 802.11b standard is that there are two WEP > encryption levels, 64 and 128 bit (actually less because there is a 24 bit > table of seed values). The SMC device that I mentioned earlier says that it does 256-bit WEP. > Although you will hear people say that using WEP is > useless, the truth is that not using WEP means you're running a wide open > network. Anyone with a Pringles can antenna and a wireless card can > participate in your wireless setup from as far as a couple of miles away. There are a few ways that this can be curtailed. The most obvious is to run a VPN between the wireless clients. The other is to use some of the features of the router/firewall's DHCP server. This particular device does MAC address registration, so unless they know one of the two MAC addresses and can spoof it, they can't get on to the network (in theory). It seems like a lot of time and effort, and a whole lot of guess work. Of course, if they set up their own base station close enough, I suppose they could sniff the ARP's. > The Orinoco PCMCIA cards have antenna connectors built into them. The 64 bit > WEP supposedly requires about 15 minutes worth of packet traffic for a > cracker to exploit while the 128 bit flavor takes 15 hours of traffic. There > are already proprietary solutions. I believe Cisco is using a dynamic keying > mechanism to change keys every 5 minutes or so. That means that cracking > their setup would be very difficult. The problem is that it's a proprietary > solution and only works when you are using their hardware exclusively. Another problem is that since it is proprietary, no one really knows how secure it is, since it can't be independantly verified. Closed encryption usually falls over. > Of course if someone is really determined to crack your systems they can > probably manage it but I don't think it's wise to leave the door completely > open. If you leave the door open, they will walk right in. If you lock the door, only the truly determined will bother to pick the lock. That will happen on a hard-wired network as well. C-Ya, Kenny -- "Tact is just *not* saying true stuff" -- Cordelia Chase Kenneth E. Lussier Sr. Systems Administrator Zuken, USA PGP KeyID CB254DD0 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB254DD0 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
"Kenneth E. Lussier" said: >be able to use this to replace my Linux firewall so I can use that box >for other things. I just don't know how robust these firewalls are (I do I'm not sure either. They look pretty tight from the outside. You can do better with a Linux/*BSD/Solaris firewall of course. For instance, you can't ping my firewall from the outside and I don't think you can do that with one of these. I'm not sure how much outgoing stuff you can restrict with them either, if that's important to you. >some pretty wierd stuff, like port redirection, forwarding, NAT, Masq, They can do all that. That's pretty standard stuff. -- --- Tom Buskey ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
The other good reason for waiting for 802.11g is that the 802.11b standard has a very weak WEP implementation and I believe the g standard will correct that. What I know about the 802.11b standard is that there are two WEP encryption levels, 64 and 128 bit (actually less because there is a 24 bit table of seed values). Although you will hear people say that using WEP is useless, the truth is that not using WEP means you're running a wide open network. Anyone with a Pringles can antenna and a wireless card can participate in your wireless setup from as far as a couple of miles away. The Orinoco PCMCIA cards have antenna connectors built into them. The 64 bit WEP supposedly requires about 15 minutes worth of packet traffic for a cracker to exploit while the 128 bit flavor takes 15 hours of traffic. There are already proprietary solutions. I believe Cisco is using a dynamic keying mechanism to change keys every 5 minutes or so. That means that cracking their setup would be very difficult. The problem is that it's a proprietary solution and only works when you are using their hardware exclusively. Of course if someone is really determined to crack your systems they can probably manage it but I don't think it's wise to leave the door completely open. -Alex - Original Message - From: "Jon Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Kenneth E. Lussier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 10:24 AM Subject: Re: Speaking of wireless > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > I was just looking at some SMC gear. They have a new 802.11b WAP/ > > Firewall called the "Barricade Turbo" that does 22MBit/sec (if you > > have cards that will do it), and it has 256-bit WEP encryption. > > I saw this and it looked hot. On the other hand I have the "Barricade", and > I am saving my pennies for the 802.11g product, which I am sure they will > upgrade whatever is in the "Barricade Turbo" to have the same features, but > just be faster and compatible. > > SMC updates their micro-code, and I have downloaded it and updated it no > problem. > > md > -- > = > Jon "maddog" Hall > Executive Director Linux International(SM) > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. > Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. > WWW: http://www.li.org > > Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association > > (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. > (SM)Linux International is a service mark of Linux International, Inc. > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > I was just looking at some SMC gear. They have a new 802.11b WAP/ > Firewall called the "Barricade Turbo" that does 22MBit/sec (if you > have cards that will do it), and it has 256-bit WEP encryption. I saw this and it looked hot. On the other hand I have the "Barricade", and I am saving my pennies for the 802.11g product, which I am sure they will upgrade whatever is in the "Barricade Turbo" to have the same features, but just be faster and compatible. SMC updates their micro-code, and I have downloaded it and updated it no problem. md -- = Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux International(SM) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (SM)Linux International is a service mark of Linux International, Inc. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
> server, etc. will remain hard wired. Thoughts, comments, suggestions > welcome I've had good luck with Agere's (aka Lucent) Orinoco Silver cards on RH 7.3. I am also using RG-1000 access point. I say RH7.3 because on RH 7.2 I was able to get it working w/ the driver off their web site on my desktop, but could not get it to work on my laptop (Dell Latitude C600) - even using the same kernel / modules from the desktop. However once I upgraded to RH 7.3, everything just worked. Pat -- Patrick O'Rourke [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 23:39, Jon Hall wrote: > As to access points, I got an SMC, which has three wired ports, a parallel > printer port that works with both windows and Linux and allows them (and my > notebook working off a wireless LAN) to share a printer, and a WAN port for the > DSL modem. The unit uses a web browser to set it up, and has been working > flawlessly for several months now. I was just looking at some SMC gear. They have a new 802.11b WAP/Firewall called the "Barricade Turbo" that does 22MBit/sec (if you have cards that will do it), and it has 256-bit WEP encryption. I might be able to use this to replace my Linux firewall so I can use that box for other things. I just don't know how robust these firewalls are (I do some pretty wierd stuff, like port redirection, forwarding, NAT, Masq, etc.). The product description is at http://www.smc.com/index.cfm?sec=Products&pg=Product-Details&prod=263&site=c > I bought a 900 MHz phone, which sits happily next to it. The phone is not > affected by either the wireless LAN nor the microwave. I don't have a cordless phone. Maybe I should join the 20th century, eh? > >And why did they go from b to g? What happened to c,d,e, and f?? > > Actually they went from "b" to "a" to "g".and probably the same reason > that the Ford Model "T" car had a follow-on model that was the Model "A". Ahhh Marketing. Get people to buy it by confusing them to the point where they don't remember what they wanted or why ;-) C-Ya, Kenny -- "Tact is just *not* saying true stuff" -- Cordelia Chase Kenneth E. Lussier Sr. Systems Administrator Zuken, USA PGP KeyID CB254DD0 http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB254DD0 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
On 27 Aug 2002, Paul Iadonisi wrote: > On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 19:38, Ken Ambrose wrote: > > IMHO, stay the hell away from Prism chipsets (eg. the Linksys cards). > > You have to play all sorts of games with re-compiling: > > - your kernel > > - PCMCIA stuff from Sourceforge > > - linux-wlan drivers > > > > None of this may necessary if you have a stock kernel -- they try to have > > stock binaries at the linux-wlan site. Andy maybe someone's had an easier > > time of it than me. But I've tried, twice, to get the darn drivers > > working. The first time, after ages, I got it going, under RH 7.1. I > > also finally got it working under 7.3... but now none of my /other/ > > PCMCIA/Cardbus network cards work. It's really, really, really annoying. > > I think I'd have to agree, here. That's why I took Tom Buskey's > earlier advice and returned the Linksys WPC11v22 today. I'm looking at > the possibility of getting a Cisco 350. I tried one today and was > astonished that it required *zero* tweaking of my Red Hat 7.3 > distribution. I plugged it in, and had an address in seconds (on eth0 > instead of that funky wlan0). It is quite a bit more expensive (~$140 > vs. ~$90), but when I see something work out of the box like that, I > don't mind paying more for it. I can second this. Like most things I've found with Cisco, it's expensive, but it works. Cisco also provide a driver and a port of their ACU utility for Linux. It allows you to setup various profiles (Home, work etc..) and check Link quality, strength etc... > My experience, of course, was exacerbated by the Linksys > WPC11v3/WAPv2.2 incompatibility. I *did* manage to get the WPC11v3 > working without rebuilding my kernel, but I had to jump through a number > of hoops. The available rpms available for the linux-wlan drivers run a > bit behind, as well (v0.14 of linux-wlan for 2.4.18-5 of the kernel > where 0.15-pre4 is out and so is the 2.4.18-10 kernel errata), so I had > to try building my own. I was about to dive into that until I had such > an easy time with the Cisco and decided to can the Linksys. I also have a 3Com card (based on the Spectrum24_T chipset) and this is now fairly easy to use in Linux. Though in the beginning it was a nightmare. --rdp -- Rich Payne http://talisman.mv.com ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
Just adding a data point for the discussion: I've got a Lucent Orinco access point (no surprise since I work for Lucent) and like it. It's configured to act as a 'bridge' between the wireless segment of the home network and the wired side. I've got a linksys router connecting everything to the WAN on wired side and the heavy hitting machines are wired to it. For wireless clients, I've got an IBM laptop which has an Orinoco PCMCIA wireless network interface. The kids' PCs are also on the wireless side and are equipped with Linksys USB wireless network adapaters. They work well enough for the kids. Haven't done anything serious with them however. FYI - check out http://www.netstumbler.org for some interesting reading re: 802.11. There is a utility called netstumbler which can be used to sniff around for 802.11 networks. Cool. __ | 0|___||. Andrew Gaunt *nix Sys. Admin., etc. _| _| : : } [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www-cde.mv.lucent.com/~quantum -(O)-==-o\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.gaunt.org ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
802.11g will be 54 MBit/sec, just as "a" is. It will be in the 2.4 GHz frequency range just as 802.11b, microwave ovens, some cordless phones. 802.11g will have better range than 802.11a, due to its lower frequency and lesser ability to be absorbed by people, leaves, etc. 802.11b and 802.11g are usable over in Europe and Asia because their frequencies are in the 2.4GHz range. 802.11a is only legally available and usable on this side of the pond. 802.11g will probably be out early next year. Until it is, I would recommend buying 802.11b or compatible. As to access points, I got an SMC, which has three wired ports, a parallel printer port that works with both windows and Linux and allows them (and my notebook working off a wireless LAN) to share a printer, and a WAN port for the DSL modem. The unit uses a web browser to set it up, and has been working flawlessly for several months now. I bought a 900 MHz phone, which sits happily next to it. The phone is not affected by either the wireless LAN nor the microwave. >And why did they go from b to g? What happened to c,d,e, and f?? Actually they went from "b" to "a" to "g".and probably the same reason that the Ford Model "T" car had a follow-on model that was the Model "A". md -- = Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux International(SM) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (SM)Linux International is a service mark of Linux International, Inc. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 19:38, Ken Ambrose wrote: > IMHO, stay the hell away from Prism chipsets (eg. the Linksys cards). > You have to play all sorts of games with re-compiling: > - your kernel > - PCMCIA stuff from Sourceforge > - linux-wlan drivers > > None of this may necessary if you have a stock kernel -- they try to have > stock binaries at the linux-wlan site. Andy maybe someone's had an easier > time of it than me. But I've tried, twice, to get the darn drivers > working. The first time, after ages, I got it going, under RH 7.1. I > also finally got it working under 7.3... but now none of my /other/ > PCMCIA/Cardbus network cards work. It's really, really, really annoying. I think I'd have to agree, here. That's why I took Tom Buskey's earlier advice and returned the Linksys WPC11v22 today. I'm looking at the possibility of getting a Cisco 350. I tried one today and was astonished that it required *zero* tweaking of my Red Hat 7.3 distribution. I plugged it in, and had an address in seconds (on eth0 instead of that funky wlan0). It is quite a bit more expensive (~$140 vs. ~$90), but when I see something work out of the box like that, I don't mind paying more for it. My experience, of course, was exacerbated by the Linksys WPC11v3/WAPv2.2 incompatibility. I *did* manage to get the WPC11v3 working without rebuilding my kernel, but I had to jump through a number of hoops. The available rpms available for the linux-wlan drivers run a bit behind, as well (v0.14 of linux-wlan for 2.4.18-5 of the kernel where 0.15-pre4 is out and so is the 2.4.18-10 kernel errata), so I had to try building my own. I was about to dive into that until I had such an easy time with the Cisco and decided to can the Linksys. -- -Paul Iadonisi Senior System Administrator Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux. GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
"Kenneth E. Lussier" said: >I'm not really worried about the bandwidth issue at the moment. This is >all for my home network, which is connected to a 768/768 DSL line. >11Mbits/sec is plenty. Besides, I only have a 10Mbit hub for the wired >systems. I'm also not overly concerned about the PC, since it is my >wifes and she runs Windows (for now, but I'm working on that ;-), and I >would assume that most of the wireless stuff is geared toward Windows. I >just don't want to go out and get a wireless hub, a PCI card, and a >PCMCIA card, only to find out that the cards don't work with that >particular hub, or that the pc card won't work under Linux. Most of the APs have a web interface. Some also do SNMP. >But, since Sean and Maddog brought it up, what is the difference between >802.11a and 802.11b. And why did they go from b to g? What happened to >c,d,e, and f?? 11b is 11mb at 2.4 GHz. Same as many cordless phones. When I get a phone call, sometimes I have to hit channel on the phone to get my network connection running. If I could set the phone to use just one channel, they wouldn't interfere. Microwave ovens can interfere too, but I haven't had that issue. It's been out for awhile so lots of people have hacked on it. Some airports/ coffee shops/neighborhoods have set up WLANs for people to use. Some for free. 11a is 54mb at 5 GHz. Half the distance, newer so people haven't played with it as much, newer so it's more expensive. Since it's a different frequency, your phone won't interfere. 11g is 'the next standard' which I don't know much about :-X > >C-Ya, >Kenny > >On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 21:20, Jon Hall wrote: >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> > You may want to check out their units doing 802.11a, which would give >> > you a better choice of frequencies, and I also think bandwidth. >> >> I would not advise many people at this time to go 802.11a, since 802.11g is >right >> around the corner. While 802.11a is faster, with "more frequencies", 802.11 >b >> is the established standard, and 802.11g will be backwards compatible with i >t. >> >> There are "second generation" 802.11b cards that give 22 Mbits/sec and are >> compatible with 802.11b systems that exist right now. >> >> My $0.02 >> >> md >> -- >> >= >> Jon "maddog" Hall >> Executive Director Linux International(SM) >> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. >> Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. >> WWW: http://www.li.org >> >> Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association >> >> (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. >> (SM)Linux International is a service mark of Linux International, Inc. >> >> ___ >> gnhlug-discuss mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss >-- >"The ebb and flow of the Atlantic tides. >The drift of the continents. >The very position of the sun along it's ecliptic. >These are just a few of the things I control in my world." > >___ >gnhlug-discuss mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss > -- --- Tom Buskey ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
"Kenneth E. Lussier" said: >Hi All, > >There has been some talk lately about wireless devices, and I may be in >the market for some shortly. However, I can honestly say that I know >nothing about wireless. All I want to do is connect a Dual-boot >Win32/Linux PC and a Linux laptop to a wired network via a wireless >access point. What brands/models should I be looking at? I don't need a >wireless firewall/dhcp server/router/etc., since my firewall, mail >server, etc. will remain hard wired. Thoughts, comments, suggestions >welcome I got addtron because it was the cheapest I could find. It's PRISM based. The AP (access point) is based on a 486 clone and someone has ported Linux to it. http://opensource.instant802.com I had to got from Mandrake 7.1 -> 7.2 to get the card to work. But it worked out of the box. I don't use WEP but I can go 128 bits FWIW. If I wanted security, I'd go VPN. I'd look for a card that Netstumbler, kismet, or one of the other sniffers could work with. It could be useful to find a publicly available net. When I got my AP, they didn't have those combo units. I've since set up a few of them. They're very slick. Many cost about the same (or less) as a standalone AP and include an N-port switch and print server. I'd think about one of those combo units. If power is an issue (or outlets), you can consolidate your firewall. I'd like to have a print server runnining; the parallel ports on my sparcs aren't well supported under the BSDs and linux. Stand alone print servers typically run $50-150. You could set up the combo unit as a reverse firewall to your WLAN. I'd would check to make sure you didn't have to use the NAT feature. I bet there are some that have Linux running/ported to and you could do stuff with that. Look around for Linux support. Another option for the AP is to turn a PC into one. You already have a server running. Get a card with a PCMCIA -> ISA or PCI adapter. This is one advantage of a PC over my sparcs :-) FreeBSD does it in this article: http://www.samag.com/documents/s=7121/sam0205a/sam0205a.htm It should be easy to do with Linux using the same techniques. It'd be real easy to VPN too. -- --- Tom Buskey ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
I'm not really worried about the bandwidth issue at the moment. This is all for my home network, which is connected to a 768/768 DSL line. 11Mbits/sec is plenty. Besides, I only have a 10Mbit hub for the wired systems. I'm also not overly concerned about the PC, since it is my wifes and she runs Windows (for now, but I'm working on that ;-), and I would assume that most of the wireless stuff is geared toward Windows. I just don't want to go out and get a wireless hub, a PCI card, and a PCMCIA card, only to find out that the cards don't work with that particular hub, or that the pc card won't work under Linux. But, since Sean and Maddog brought it up, what is the difference between 802.11a and 802.11b. And why did they go from b to g? What happened to c,d,e, and f?? C-Ya, Kenny On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 21:20, Jon Hall wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > You may want to check out their units doing 802.11a, which would give > > you a better choice of frequencies, and I also think bandwidth. > > I would not advise many people at this time to go 802.11a, since 802.11g is right > around the corner. While 802.11a is faster, with "more frequencies", 802.11b > is the established standard, and 802.11g will be backwards compatible with it. > > There are "second generation" 802.11b cards that give 22 Mbits/sec and are > compatible with 802.11b systems that exist right now. > > My $0.02 > > md > -- > = > Jon "maddog" Hall > Executive Director Linux International(SM) > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. > Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. > WWW: http://www.li.org > > Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association > > (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. > (SM)Linux International is a service mark of Linux International, Inc. > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss -- "The ebb and flow of the Atlantic tides. The drift of the continents. The very position of the sun along it's ecliptic. These are just a few of the things I control in my world." ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > You may want to check out their units doing 802.11a, which would give > you a better choice of frequencies, and I also think bandwidth. I would not advise many people at this time to go 802.11a, since 802.11g is right around the corner. While 802.11a is faster, with "more frequencies", 802.11b is the established standard, and 802.11g will be backwards compatible with it. There are "second generation" 802.11b cards that give 22 Mbits/sec and are compatible with 802.11b systems that exist right now. My $0.02 md -- = Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux International(SM) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (SM)Linux International is a service mark of Linux International, Inc. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
Actually I use the Linksys wireless equipment here and it works well. The trick for me is that I use the external WAPs of theirs. I did not feel like playing with drivers and kernel issues, as mentioned below, and some other things for me as well. I simply plug a standard NIC into my system, and then from there I am using their WAP11s doing 802.11b. Painless for the most part! You may want to check out their units doing 802.11a, which would give you a better choice of frequencies, and I also think bandwidth. Have fun, Sean On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 19:38, Ken Ambrose wrote: > IMHO, stay the hell away from Prism chipsets (eg. the Linksys cards). > You have to play all sorts of games with re-compiling: > - your kernel > - PCMCIA stuff from Sourceforge > - linux-wlan drivers > > None of this may necessary if you have a stock kernel -- they try to have > stock binaries at the linux-wlan site. Andy maybe someone's had an easier > time of it than me. But I've tried, twice, to get the darn drivers > working. The first time, after ages, I got it going, under RH 7.1. I > also finally got it working under 7.3... but now none of my /other/ > PCMCIA/Cardbus network cards work. It's really, really, really annoying. > > $.02, > > -Ken > > P.S. The Linux "drivers" from the Linksys site are simply the linux-wlan > drivers. Check it out at http://www.linksys.com/download/driver.asp?dlid=59&osid=7 , > near the bottom. > > > On 27 Aug 2002, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > There has been some talk lately about wireless devices, and I may be in > > the market for some shortly. However, I can honestly say that I know > > nothing about wireless. All I want to do is connect a Dual-boot > > Win32/Linux PC and a Linux laptop to a wired network via a wireless > > access point. What brands/models should I be looking at? I don't need a > > wireless firewall/dhcp server/router/etc., since my firewall, mail > > server, etc. will remain hard wired. Thoughts, comments, suggestions > > welcome > > > > TIA, > > Kenny > > -- > > "The ebb and flow of the Atlantic tides. > > The drift of the continents. > > The very position of the sun along it's ecliptic. > > These are just a few of the things I control in my world." > > > > ___ > > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss > > > > > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Speaking of wireless
IMHO, stay the hell away from Prism chipsets (eg. the Linksys cards). You have to play all sorts of games with re-compiling: - your kernel - PCMCIA stuff from Sourceforge - linux-wlan drivers None of this may necessary if you have a stock kernel -- they try to have stock binaries at the linux-wlan site. Andy maybe someone's had an easier time of it than me. But I've tried, twice, to get the darn drivers working. The first time, after ages, I got it going, under RH 7.1. I also finally got it working under 7.3... but now none of my /other/ PCMCIA/Cardbus network cards work. It's really, really, really annoying. $.02, -Ken P.S. The Linux "drivers" from the Linksys site are simply the linux-wlan drivers. Check it out at http://www.linksys.com/download/driver.asp?dlid=59&osid=7 , near the bottom. On 27 Aug 2002, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote: > Hi All, > > There has been some talk lately about wireless devices, and I may be in > the market for some shortly. However, I can honestly say that I know > nothing about wireless. All I want to do is connect a Dual-boot > Win32/Linux PC and a Linux laptop to a wired network via a wireless > access point. What brands/models should I be looking at? I don't need a > wireless firewall/dhcp server/router/etc., since my firewall, mail > server, etc. will remain hard wired. Thoughts, comments, suggestions > welcome > > TIA, > Kenny > -- > "The ebb and flow of the Atlantic tides. > The drift of the continents. > The very position of the sun along it's ecliptic. > These are just a few of the things I control in my world." > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss > > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Speaking of wireless
Hi All, There has been some talk lately about wireless devices, and I may be in the market for some shortly. However, I can honestly say that I know nothing about wireless. All I want to do is connect a Dual-boot Win32/Linux PC and a Linux laptop to a wired network via a wireless access point. What brands/models should I be looking at? I don't need a wireless firewall/dhcp server/router/etc., since my firewall, mail server, etc. will remain hard wired. Thoughts, comments, suggestions welcome TIA, Kenny -- "The ebb and flow of the Atlantic tides. The drift of the continents. The very position of the sun along it's ecliptic. These are just a few of the things I control in my world." ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
