Re: [nycwireless] Wireless Cards for Windows 95?
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Rudy Milanes wrote: > Hi guys, a friend game me her old PC with Win95 the > other day, it works fine. The only problem is that > I'm having difficulties finding a compatible wireless > card for it. Does anybody know about a compatible > card? > The original ORiNOCO (nee WaveLAN) cards should work under Win95 properly. If you don't mind it being 64-bit WEP encrypted, I have the silver ORiNOCO card that I'd be willing to part cheaply. Contact me off-list if you need more details. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Linux on Linksys? (m0n0wall)
On Mon, 31 May 2004, Rob Kelley wrote: > If anyone does want to try putting m0n0wall on a Linksys, get the > WRT54GS (aka "with Speedbooster"). It comes with 8MB EEPROM, whereas > the regular WRT54G has just 4MB (m0n0wall needs "less than 5MB"). > "m0n0wall is based on a bare-bones version of FreeBSD". Right here there is a problem. The Linksys source comes with a BINARY version of both the Ethernet (et.o) and Wireless (wl.o). I very much doubt you could insert a Linux kernel module without source into *BSD, and have the whole thing run on MIPSel arch. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] So has anyone been "hacked" yet? Bad experiences?
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Dustin wrote: > Can you explain this? > > What isn't normally understood is that there aren't "3 non-overlapping > channels" with 802.11g cards, either. > I was talking to Ben today, and was reminded of this thread. I meant to post the URL earlier, but forgot about it entirely. This article explains why Jim says that there is not 3 "non-overlapping" channels with 802.11b/g (which is factually true), and why I discourage the use of the Atheros Super-G chipset (at least from what I read from the article). The particulars are on page 4/5 of the article: http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/Sections-article59-page1.php Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] So has anyone been "hacked" yet? Bad experiences?
In Soviet Russia, the router hacks you! In United States, you hack the router! I'm in the middle of fidding with the WRT54G/GS. It's amazing what you can do with a sub-$100 piece of equipment, given the proper source code. I guess my beef with the Wireless industry in general was the lack of upgradability for WPA/TKIP for existing cards. Every vendor was claiming that they'd come up with the upgrade, then... I guess the marketing department got the best of this situation, and forced us all to buy new stuff to get that feature. My other beef is Atheros' apparent lack of "good neighbor" policy with their "108mbps" chipset. Instead of using two nonoverlapping frequency, they had to use all _three_. I strongly discourage everyone from buying 108mbps-based products, because you _will_ make your neighbors unhappy when you interfere with their ability to get wireless. I'm at a loss as to what cards to recommend to clients. I used to swear by the Lucent/Agere/Proxim Orinoco (Hermes I) cards, but now I have no idea what cards have decent drivers, utilities, and performance anymore, especially in the 802.11g arena. Anyway, I'll get off the shoebox for a while. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: AirMagnet Wi-Fi Seminar - November 19 in New York City
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, dgoody wrote: > Airmagnet supplied me with an evaluation unit of their product and I > recently tested it during a Wifi enabled conference I attended. The > product turned out to be top notch troubleshooting tool. I was > particularly impressed with how well the mass of collected data was > presented. If your in the market for a good wifi troubleshooting tool > you probably should attend this event as Airmagnet is definitely one of > the vendors you need to consider. > I went to the seminar. Their product is very interesting, esp. the depth of information that the tool provides. I did ask them if they were interested in presenting at one of the NYCWireless meetings. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Connectivity emergency in brooklyn
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 4) Call up Speakeasy (800-556-5829). Tell them that you need a ADSL > >circuit on a separate line because your line is on a loop concentrator. > >They should be more than willing to work with you on this one, unlike > >VZ. It does require a truck roll, so that does mean higher upfront > >cost. But it'll be cheaper than SDSL/ADSL, and probably faster. Oh, > >and feel free to refer my account (starfox) if you go this route. > When there's no copper - you are screwed one way or the other. The only > way VZ will pull new copper is by SDSL or T1 order. > Not true, if they have pairs for a SDSL/T1, then they can fulfill a dark pair order. The ILEC doesn't know what the CLEC is going to run on it, and they shouldn't care. If you really want to find out about the "copper shortage" situtation, you can always flag down a neighborhood lineman. They are the ones that can tell you upfront if there is an actual shortage, or the VZHQ is spouting its propoganda. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Connectivity emergency in brooklyn
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Jonathan Hirschman wrote: > Whatever the issue, Verizon insists that DSL is not possible. There > isn't a distance issue, it has to do the with the type of circuit > installed. Verizon won't even provide DSL themselves :( > Most likely it's Verizon's loop concentrator. What happened was NYNEX back in 93-94 decided that it'd be more cost effective by bringing in fiber to the basement of a building, then putting in a mini-CO there to connect to the NID of each apartment. I recall this being done to my old building around that time. It resulted in "higher voice quality" and all, but made it totally incompatible with the xDSL standards that came out a few years later. But you still have a few options. 1) Use IDSL. The loop concentrator should be compatible with ISDN, and IDSL (physically) uses the same signaling as ISDN. It's not as pricey as SDSL, but then again, it's not as fast either. 2) Use SDSL. But you knew that already. 3) Call up Verizon. Tell them that you need a "phone line compatible with an alarm system." Supposedly this causes Verizon to try to provision an analog loop for you. YMMV on this one. 4) Call up Speakeasy (800-556-5829). Tell them that you need a ADSL circuit on a separate line because your line is on a loop concentrator. They should be more than willing to work with you on this one, unlike VZ. It does require a truck roll, so that does mean higher upfront cost. But it'll be cheaper than SDSL/ADSL, and probably faster. Oh, and feel free to refer my account (starfox) if you go this route. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) has a weakness (kinda redundant)
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, dgoody wrote: > When they refer to passphrase do they mean the password you enter when > authenticating via PEAP? Or do they mean a pre-shared key? > PSK == pre-shared key Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) has a weakness (kinda redundant)
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, jon baer wrote: > Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) has a weakness: poorly chosen short > human-readable passphrases can be cracked with a robust dictionary attack > offline and without access to the network: Robert Moskowitz, the senior > techncial director of TruSecure Corp.'s ICSA Labs, has given me permission > to post this paper he has written that describes a weakness in the interface > design for WPA-equipped access points and adapters. > The only issue I have with WPA-PSK is that there seems to be no standard on how many characters max and what kind of characters are permitted, as well as no way to enter the PSK itself in hexadecimal ala WEP. I have a pretty secure way of generating random hexadecimal strings, but that wouldn't do me any good with PSK. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] SMC2532W-B + XP + NS won't work. Help! Weird problem.
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, jon baer wrote: > Go into Services (Start->Programs->Administrative Tools->Services) and turn > off Wireless Zero Configuration ... see if it has any effect as its known to > conflict w/ other client apps like Orinoco Client Manager and such. > I've had absolutely _0_ problems with Orinoco CM and WZC. As long as it's recent enough (I use 2.90 and 3.1x), it actually complements WZC and gives you a much better indication of signal strength. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] locustworld meshbox experiences?
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Anthony Townsend wrote: > Built with a 500mhz fanless processor, 128mb RAM, on board 802.11b > 2.4ghz wireless adapter. 32mb compact flash drive. No moving parts! The > system utilises over-the-air self-updating software and cryptographic > mesh authentication. > I wonder if the system is vulnerable to DNS cache poisoning attacks. This is why I don't like self-updating mechanism. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: failure delivery
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, R K wrote: > Can anyone diagnose these? What's going on? The > router's address is 192.168.254.254. > > 2003/10/23 19:57:41 ** TCP SYN Flooding ** > > 192.168.254.52:3390 ->> 192.171.141.157:135 > 2003/10/23 19:57:42 ** TCP SYN Flooding ** > > 192.168.254.52:3455 ->> 192.171.141.223:135 > 2003/10/23 19:57:42 ** TCP SYN Flooding ** Looks like whatever computer at 192.168.254.52 is infected with one of those NetBT worms (ie, a virus). I would strongly suggest that you buy/use an up-to-date virus scanner and scan the machine for any signs of infection (ie, Blaster worms and variants). Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Big solar blast may rattle WiFi today
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Gerald wrote: > On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Kevin Arima wrote: > > > WiFi != Satellites, pagers, cell phones, and electrical grids. I very > > much doubt that there will be any noticable effect on Part 15 devices. > > Solar flare may zing satellites, wireless networks > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5096394.html > "Among the pontetial effects could be intermittent performance...of the world's wireless communications network" Just because the link points to WiFi doesn't mean that that's what they meant by wireless communications network. I have no doubt that satellites, long range radios, and other high-power wireless _may_ be affected. But anyone who claims that WiFi is going to be affected by this flare is spreading FUD, IMHO. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Big solar blast may rattle WiFi today
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, jon baer wrote: > -snip- > Satellites, pagers, cell phones and electrical grids could be affected > Friday afternoon by a powerful stream of energized gas and particles from > the sun. > -snip- > WiFi != Satellites, pagers, cell phones, and electrical grids. I very much doubt that there will be any noticable effect on Part 15 devices. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Smart card consortium offers Wi-Fi access specifications
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, jon baer wrote: > pretty interesting + probably how it should be done, although i can't see > many people immediatley adapting it or the equipment costing what it costs > now ... > I was looking around for how much it costs to have smartcard/biometric logon to my laptop. I think the reader itself costs about $100 itself. The one fundamental issue that I have with this "setup" is what happens if you are not happy/have problems with a certain WiFi provider. If you are paying them directly (as it is right now), then you talk to the provider, but if billing is handled through this consortium, I wonder how seriously they will take complaints with their individual providers. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Embedded Nano-Itx WiFi question
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, jon baer wrote: > i need some help with a few assumptions/guesses i have ... > > via recently annoucned the nano-itx (120mm x 120mm) cards/boards which have > a mini pci located underneath the board, would the engenius EL-2511MP PLUS > (http://www.netgate.com/EL2511MP.html) be suitable? or the fact that it lies > underneath be a problem? The only thing is I don't forsee nano-itx cases coming with built-in antennas. I don't see any height issues with putting in the mPCI card. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] dongle
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, jon baer wrote: > Would also like to know how the range is + if its able to run on Linux. > Linux support of USB-based devices aren't that great, because manufacturers tend to choose custom interfaces and not release the specs. I know some Prism2 USB will work, and there's some beta drivers for the Hermes USB (ORiNOCO USB). The only exception to the first line seems to be bluetooth USB dongles. Apparently the specs for USB<->Bluetooth are well-defined, so it's actually easier to get stuff working under Linux. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: Verisign DNS
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Joe Plotkin wrote: > http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/33050 > *snip*. I think we went over this a couple of month ago. Please please please please STOP QUOTING ENTIRE ARTICLES. On the aside, I've made ICANT quite aware of how I feel about the changes Verisuck made to the .com/.net TLD. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] POE question
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Ummm, no. Look up EIA/TIA 586B, which is the "standard" way of wiring > > CAT5. EIA/TIA 586A is the "crossed over" end of a crossover. > Both of you are wrong. > > 586A/B differ only in colors of wires. 586A is not crossover. > My bad, 568, not 586... Regardless, my point stands, but let me clarify. A crossover cable is 568A on one end and 568B on the other. Standard Ethernet cable is 568B on both ends. http://www.siriuscomputers.com/rj45.htm Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] POE question
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Michael Yellin wrote: > I am considering doing POE. However, I make my own cables. After doing a > little research, I noticed that I might be making the cables incorrectly. > Be that as it may, I generally do it like this. > > Line up the wires, alternating stripped and solid wires, but always keeping > similar colors together. If I need a straight thru cable, I make it > straight through, and if I need a cross over, I just reverse the order of > the wires in plug 2 from the wires in plug one. > Ummm, no. Look up EIA/TIA 586B, which is the "standard" way of wiring CAT5. EIA/TIA 586A is the "crossed over" end of a crossover. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] trivial dns
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Julian Bleecker wrote: > Yeah, I've seen the kit, and this particular distribution, but to the best > of my knowledge, there is nothing particular about this distro that makes it > show the kind of splash page I'm referring to. > > What I think I need to do is have a custom DNS service that replies to name > resolution in a particular way. So, on my small network i'd have DNS queries > go to my own trivial DNS and resolve the IP to something other than the > "real" address. > That's not how you do it. Doing that way is bad, because the client caches the reply. What you do is IPTables Redirect to the local webserver until the client is "authenticated". Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless]
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Jon Baer wrote: > From: "Abdelfetah Jibril" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [nycwireless] > > Does any one know of technology which can be used to monitor collision > rates, power transmission, retry rates and etc. on a wireless network? > SNMP should be able to get it from decent (ie, ORiNOCO) APs. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] live stream of the meeting
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Terry Schmidt wrote: > The live stream of the meeting is online now, audio only. > > http://stream.nycwireless.net:8000/ > Bah... Mention my domain will ya? BTW, if there's still room for Q&A, did the Defcon shootout violate Part 15 perchance? Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] handling email borne viruses
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Daniel Thor Kristjansson wrote: > I don't think John or anyone else thinks blocking port 25 is the > solution to Outlook worms. But I don't see why it isn't a legitamite way > to do some damage control, especially on a no-cost public node. > The core issue boils down to the way TCP/IP was designed, where (basically) nodes trust other nodes to do the right thing(TM). Whatever solutions is designed to counter that notion (ie, blocking/throttling port 25, or other "draconian" measure) is going to end up breaking TCP/IP one way or the other. Is there a solution? I think so, but... Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] WavePoint II -- still useful?
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've got an Orinoco Wavepoint II which I've been sitting on for a while. > One of the nice things about it: you can stick two orinoco cards in it to > create a pretty large coverage area. But now that you can pick up APs for > well under $100, and since I live in a relatively tiny apartment, should I > just ebay this and get something more modern and/or consumer oriented? > Is there anything this thing can do that others can't? > About the only things I can think of is bridge filtering, 802.1X auth and connecting an external antenna. It cannot do NAT or DHCP, so you would need an external router for that. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] 802.15
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, dgoody wrote: > So my question is if 802.15.3 can provide strict QOS for streaming media > but it's surrounded by 5-6 other ISM protocols that do not respect it's > media access scheme how will it actually achieve this? > Same way every Part 15 devices is supposed to act. "This device may not cause harmful interference, and must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesirable operation." Which means 1) relocate your device or 2) if your neighbor insists on putting those X10 wireless garb^H^H^H^H cams that causes your ISM devices to stop working, take your shotgun and... Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] OReilly article: When Is 54 Not Equal to 54? ALook at 802.11a, b, and g Throughput
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Jon Baer wrote:
> This article develops a simple model for the maximum TCP throughput of
> 802.11 networks so that a comparison can move beyond a simple comparison of
> nominal bit rates. According to the model, 802.11g is significantly faster
> than 802.11b. In a network consisting only of 802.11g clients, it is even
> slightly faster than 802.11a. However, "protection" mechanisms added to
> 802.11g to ensure backwards compatibility with legacy 802.11b clients can
> cut the throughput by 50 percent or more.
>
I think this is a bit misleading. The author only calculated on a
theoretical basis, so the comparision is between a "near-best-case"
802.11b/a vs "not-so-best-case" mixed 802.11g, and produced "transactional
speed" based upon that. That's comparing apples to oranges.
ie, in 802.11b, there are "long preamble" vs. "short preamble" as well as
RTS/CTS. Both can affect throughput, but the author only considered long
preamble ("In the interest of reducing the number of calculations, this
article will perform calculations using only the long preamble") and no
CTS/RTS for 802.11b. I'm sure there are other parameters that could
change the numbers significantly (ie, broadcast datarate, IIRC), and the
overhead of associating with an AP is not in the numbers at all.
On a mixed 802.11g/g network with short preamble, based upon his
calculation, I calculated 1466 TPS (what a silly acronym) by subtracting 2
96us from each of his 802.11g-CTS "transaction" (192us total). Multiply
that by 1460 (TCP payload), then by 8 (to get megabits), and I got
17.1mbps, which is a bit better than the 13.4mbps.
802.11b with short preamble: 528 TPS, 6.2mbps.
In short, it validates the "5-6mbps" throughput that has been demonstrated
with existing 802.11b network, and gives a rough idea of what we should
expect from both mixed-node as well as pure 802.11a/g.
Kevin "Starfox" Arima
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] RE: Sony Japan Unveils the Clie PEG-UX50
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > Is it me, or am I seen a trend to make micro-laptops. Zaurus CL > style. I guess now that they solve the space problem they will > focus on get that screen 'anti-sun reflexion technology' tooked > from the tablet PCs. > One word: OLED. Refer to the earlier thread about LCD technologies. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] file sharing
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, John Klos wrote: > I hate to sound cynical, but getting Windows computers to see each other > on a physical ethernet segment is difficult enough. > No, you're just flamebaiting... > Before worrying about file sharing, which is always a pain in the ass on > Windows, try to get TCP/IP working first. If you're using DHCP, are the > Windows computers getting IPs? If so, or if they are static IPs, can you > ping the IPs directly from the router or from the Linux machine? Can the > Windows computers ping the router? > Try typing Start->Run->WINIPCFG to show your IP configuration. If you have multiple adapters installed, then choose the correct adapter from the dropdown. It should show the IP address and the subnet mask. Make sure that it's in the same range (ie., 192.168.0.x) and that the subnet is also the identical. Open a MS-DOS Command Prompt. Try any (or all) of the following commands. ping tracert arp -a Do it for both the other computer and the router itself. It should look nearly identical from either computer. If not, then something's amiss. > Due to the shortage of IPv4 space, broadcast IPs are being used more and > more as regular addresses, so it's generally not a good idea to make a > diagnosis based on whether or not they work. > Also, note that most OSes have restricteded support for responding to broadcast ping based on the fact that it was abused as a DoS tool in the late 90s (ping class A/B/C broadcast using spoofed packet). Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] wrt54g- redirection
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Jonathan Ian Steinberg wrote: > With the source now open...how feasible is it to insert a line of code > that does an initial redirection to a URL without needing a complete > server at the AP site. Can someone code the redirection into the AP? > IIRC, port redirection requires kernel-level support in 2.4. Unless someone can "hack" a module out without recompiling the whole kernel, the chances are very slim. Even if it's possible, we still have to repack the binary in the original useable form. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] WiFi enabled digital camera (Sanyo)
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Jon Baer wrote: > so here is my question ... if a CF flash card was already pre-configured > w/ all its SSID/WEP/etc would that allow an older camera that took CF to > be able to write bits directly out over the connection? from what i > gather here the device is given an IP on the flash and an IP for where > to transmit the photos (server). are there any CF/802.11 cards that > allow settings to be mounted like that statically? > The article says that it uses an off-the-shelf CF 802.11b card, along with the Mobile IP standard so you can "roam" between hotspots without having to reconnect to the Internet-connected "server". Anyway, what you would describe would require that a CF card to do a lot more than just be a 802.11b card. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] anti glare solutions (lcd laptops)
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Rolan wrote: > Less goofy looking, but low res (320x240) > > http://www.microopticalcorp.com/Products/HomePage.html#EG7 > Y'know, once OLEDs become a "mature" technology, you might start seeing some high-resolution version of these. And then, it won't look as goofy if you start wearing "viewing eyeglasses". Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] anti glare solutions (lcd laptops)
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Jon Baer wrote: > can anyone make a good recommendation for an anti glare for a laptop? > > i thought id be able to buy some film (vs. attachment) but not the case and > id like it to fit my thinkpad snug and not flimsy ... something like ... > Err, might I ask *why* you need it? What anti-glare filters do is to polarize light that passes through the filter. Since CRTs are emissive, you do not lose as much "light" that is generated by the CRT (unpolarized->polarized), but cuts down on glare considerably (outside source->polarized->bounce off CRT glass->filtered by anti-glare). Since LCDs are non-emissive, it work by polarizing and twisting a source of light (backlight->first polarizing film->color film->crystal->second polarizing film). The crystal determines how much "light" will pass through by "twisting" the light so it either passes through or gets filtered by the second polarizing film. If you are having trouble reading the screen outdoor, that is because the ambient light is overpowering what the LCD provides, similar to how a flashlight is less effective at daylight than it is at night. Reading an LCD is like having a piece of paper that has print on the "back side" of the page and you need to shine a light through in order to read it. "Your" light has to be stronger than the ambient light. Anti-glare will NOT fix that. Either turn up the brightness, or read below for a "cheat". If you have glare "indoors" (true glare - ie, what you would experience with CRT), then the only thing I can recommend is reorient the laptop, or change the angle of the screen. But I have a feeling this isn't what you were referring to. Now, for the cheat. Forget filters. You can improve the readability of your screen with ~$2 or less of parts, and it doesn't have to look half-bad. Get yourself some black heavy-duty construction paper. You need to create an overhang, similar to this: http://www.necmitsubishi.com/products/home/ProductDetail.cfm?product_id=254 This will cut down the side light, and give you more angle where the screen is "viewable" outdoors. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] 802.11g network behavior article
Interesting article from Intersil. It includes the actual maximum throughput for both 802.11b and g AFTER network overhead (not protocol overhead), which is 7.2mbps for 802.11b and 30.5mbps for 802.11g, respectively. Would explain the ~5mbps TCP transfer rate that we see on 802.11b AP<->host. http://www.intersil.com/data/wp/wp0570.pdf Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Re: nycwireless Digest, Vol 4, Issue 25
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Jordan Schuster wrote: > third thing's third, for those who have, or are about to, join > NYCwireless as a full member (membership info: > http://nycwireless.net/membership/ for more details) > Is it me, or does the membership page contain phrases that isn't appropriate for an "official" page like this? We do not need any "investigations" or similar just because the certain TLAs were snooping around looking for "terrorist". Just my 2 fiat cents. Kevin "Starfox" Arima (I'm referring to the "disrupt the WTO when it meets in NYC (just kidding)" portion). -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Madison Park node, Verizon WiFi, and Madison SquarePark
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Ben N. Serebin wrote: > It's up... the Madison Square Park node is only in the northeast > corner of the park in the summer due to foliage. The node is run by me at my > old company, Tracer Technologies from the 10th floor hence the corner issue > and foliage problem. In the Spring and Fall the coverage goes up to 50% of > the park. If someone wants to lead the way to work on park level > penetration, I'm all for it. Anyone? I'm willing to assist, but can't be the > lead since I have many other things I'm working on. > That's a shame. I was at 24th and Madison where the tables are, and was hoping to get some coverage. But you're right, the foliage is pretty thick, and getting signal from the 10th floor is probably very hard. Unfortunately, I'm not a good sales person, so I can't really help with trying to "sell" the idea to any organization. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Madison Park node, Verizon WiFi, and Madison Square Park
Anyone know what happened to the Madison Park node? I was there today (waiting 45 min to get some hot dog - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/18/dining/18HOTD.html), and all I found was the Verizon WiFi and some WEP-encrypted AP but no NYCWireless. I found that Verizon does not portblock, although it was kinda useless for my purpose since my DSL circuit was down at home, hence I couldn't log into my box to get my e-mail. But I did confirm that SMTP, SSH, and IRC are allowed once "authenticated". Anyway, regarding the hot dog. I think it was worth the 45 min wait, and just not because of the hot dog. There's an organization called the Madison Square Park Conservancy who supposedly is responsible for the upkeep of the park. Apparently, all proceeds from the hot dog sales goes to the conservancy, which means that the manager of the said hot dog vending stand (whom I met) should have a lot of weight when it comes to new ideas for the park. After I was done surfing Verizon, I went back to the stand, where I was promptly told that they were not selling any hotdogs by said manager (since it was 3PM). I told him that I had some earlier, and it was delicious. I voiced my concern about said stand closing as of this year, and he mentioned that there is a possibilty of continuing, but because all the proceeds goes to the conservancy anyway, it was up in the air. That's when I told him that Bryant Park has Intel, NYCWireless and others sponsoring a free Wireless access for laptop, and that *I* thought that having something similar for Madison Square Park would be a good idea. He promised to pass that on to the people-in-charge. So, if any of you happen to be hungry for some hot-dog, and wanna do some grass-root activisim, here's your chance. It would be nice to have an "official" Madison Square Park node, in addition to the others. And it'd be a good $4 spent ($2.50 for the Chicago dog, $1.50 for the New Yoik dog) Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] orinoco combo card & rg-1000
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Guthrie Collin wrote: > i couldn't find any definitive info on using the orinoco 802.11a/b/g card in the > rg-1000. > has anyone tried this? can i upgrade my wireless net with this method? You cannot. Any G or A card will be a CardBus card (because of inherent limitations on PC Card transfer rates). CardBus requires different interface as well as different voltage levels. Most PCI PC Card adapters uses CardBus chipsets but can not take CardBus cards because of the voltage issues. Not to mention the fact that the driver required would be totally different. So this completely rules out RG1x00 and AP-500 and 1000 from being "upgraded". Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] [Fwd: [nyphp-announce] now@nyphp: NYCwireless,PHP Training next week, Wireless Blog]
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Dana Spiegel wrote: > Ben, Yury, and I will be presenting NYCwireless, the Apps SIG, and the > Arts SIG next week at the NYPHP group meeting. > > The NYPHP organization is a terrific group of people that supports the > PHP community, and all are encouraged to attend this meeting. > Kinda offtopic, but they apparently "subscribed" me to a mailing list whereas they do not observe 5xx series as fatal errors. I keep getting the following error at least once a week: mainlog:2003-06-17 10:48:19 verify failed for SMTP recipient from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> H=parsec.nyphp.org [66.250.131.26] I know it's not your fault, but they really need to update their mailing list software to unsubscribe people whose mail bounces. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] [Fwd: [NEXTEL-1] NETGEAR's 802.11g FirmwareUpgrade]
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > NETGEAR's 802.11g Firmware Upgrade > > California-based technology and networking provider, NETGEAR, made public > its plans to launch a free and downloadable firmware upgrade for its line of > 802.11 products. The firmware will integrate with the new IEEE 802.11g > standard, and it will allow users to easily upgrade their existing products to > comply with the new specifications. NETGEAR's software upgrades continue to > become available and as they do they will be posted on the company's > website. (Source: NETGEAR, Inc.) > And how exactly is this news? It's quite expected that all current "802.11g" equipment manufacturers will have firmware upgrades to comply with the ratified standard. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Wireless Outdoor Router Protocol (?)
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Jon Baer wrote: > The part Im looking for is the Wi-Fi certification ... I kinda find it odd > that the Wi-Fi label is no where to be seen on the product > literature/website yet the article does state ... The MP.11, like the > outdoor ORiNOCO products it's based on, uses 802.11b for communication, so > Proxim can "leverage 802.11b commodity radios," > WiFi != 802.11b. 802.11 specifies how a radio transmits, how the packets are encoded, etc. WiFi just goes to say that "this 802.11b product will work with any other WiFi 802.11b product". Obviously, if they are using 802.11b encoding but in a proprietary manner, then it will not work with "other" 802.11b products. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Re: Handling the March Against War
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, John Klos wrote: > > The jews there have a lot at stake in this stuff... > > this war against iraq might finally mean freeing the jews from Arab > > oppression . > > Although I, of course, am all for free speech, the NYCWireless list is > hardly an appropriate place for voicing your opinions regarding war, > especially when they are offensive and inflammatory. I know better than to > take your comments seriously, but others might be offended. > > I guess the Palestinians oppress the Jews by sticking houses in the way of > their bulldozers? > Nah, they are so oppressed that they can barely afford the F-16's, M-1's, and other instruement of defenestration. Of course, the US taxpayers pay for most of it, so... Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] orinoco silver vs. gold?
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, arvind s grover wrote: > what card would you all recommend, orinoco silver or gold. it would be > used in a mixed platform of pc's from windows 98 to 2000 to XP. thanks. > The card is physically identical. The only difference is the encryption (silver is 64/40, gold is 128/104). This should be covered in the mailing list archives, and on Google. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] A good 802.11g review/tech
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Kevin Arima wrote: > Although it is not a approved standard, it *should* contain CCK/Barker > (802.11b compatibility) and OFDM (802.11g "54mbps"). Now, as to whether > they'll choose CCK/OFDM or CCK/PBCC as a mandatory or a standard... > s/standard/optional/ My brain is broken or something today Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] A good 802.11g review/tech
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Ben Serebin wrote: > I just want to clear up any confusion about this, 802.11g is not a > final approved standard yet. So, there is a possibility that 802.11g > products won't be fully compliant with other 802.11g/b products from other > vendors. > > "802.11g is a new IEEE standard for wireless LANs that is currently in draft > form, and expected to be ratified (finally approved) in July 2003." > [From the URL below] > Although it is not a approved standard, it *should* contain CCK/Barker (802.11b compatibility) and OFDM (802.11g "54mbps"). Now, as to whether they'll choose CCK/OFDM or CCK/PBCC as a mandatory or a standard... Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
RE: [nycwireless] Interesting article from Pen Computing.....
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Christopher Mc Carthy wrote: > Thanks for shooting that down - I did wonder about the "802.1x > compatible NIC" bit, but I just don't know enough about this stuff :( > Now mind you, the driver and the OS (or add-on to the OS) has to support it. ie: WinXP. You need a NDIS 5.1 driver, and WZC enabled for 802.1x authentication to work. Too bad 802.1x is NOT enabled in most "consumer" AP or routers. The "cheapest" way to get 802.1x is using AP-500 on a RG-1x00 series. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] RE: nycwireless digest, Vol 1 #701 - 1 msg
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Peter Frishauf wrote: > Interesting article from Pen Computing. > Quick synopsis: He doesn't know WTF he's talking about. > Is your PDA with integrated WiFi already obsolete? > by Jonathan A. Zdziarski > > In 2001, IEEE began development of a protocol called 802.1x. 802.1x runs on > top of 802.11 and provides port-based authentication services to existing > wireless networks allowing for secure password authentication, dynamic WEP > keys, even VPN capabilities. 802.1x uses a protocol called 'EAP' short for > Enhanced Authentication Protocol. As of December 2002, many corporations > (including Microsoft) and colleges (including MIT and Georgia College & > State University) have implemented the 802.1x protocol on top of their > existing 802.11 wireless infrastructure to secure their wireless networks. > VPN capabilities has nothing to do with 802.1x. 802.1x provides authentication. What the AP or anything else does after being authenticated has nothing to do with each other. > You might think, "Great, wireless is finally getting more secure!" The catch > is that 802.1x isn't merely a software protocol. In order to log onto a > wireless network using 802.1x, you must have an 802.1x compatible wireless > card, a feature that we haven't found on any of this year's WiFi PDAs. While > PCMCIA cards for laptops supporting 802.1x are in no short supply, 802.1x > won't make its way into the PDA world until January 2003, when two software > manufacturers (Funk Software and Meetinghouse Data Communications) release > their versions of 802.1x clients for PocketPC to complement the new 802.1x > compatible CF (Compact Flash) cards to hit the market. This is all scheduled > around Microsoft's latest release of the PocketPC operating system designed > to include 802.1x support. Nevertheless, PDA manufacturers continue to > produce PDAs with integrated WiFi knowing full well that by this time next > year, owners of these PDAs will not be able to log onto most corporate or > college wireless networks. > You have to have a 802.1x compatible NIC? LOL. That's a load of FUD if I ever heard one. Now, if he said that WPA/TKIP isn't going to be compatbile with the current WEP cards, that I could believe. > While raw 802.11b wireless will still be the affordable standard for home > networks, there is little doubt that 802.1x's secure authentication features > will be implemented just about everywhere else. Having been developed by > IEEE, the same organization that created the 802.11b standard, the protocol > has already been widely accepted by the engineering community. Companies > such as Cisco and 3Com have already embraced 802.1x and designed new routers > and networking hardware to depend on it. Microsoft's Windows XP Operating > System utilizes 802.1x to provide 'Network Login' capabilities on secure > infrastructures. 802.1x has already worked its way into many corporation and > campus settings and is continuing to grow to be just as popular as 802.11 > itself. > I'm in the middle of discussing 802.1x with a guy who's in the commitee for 802.1aa. 802.1aa "fixes" many issues within 802.1x, and if you are using WPA, it apparently uses 802.1aa draft specs right now. > Unfortunately due to the name IEEE has given this protocol, which in my > opinion was a big mistake, many people misunderstand the term 802.1x > thinking that the 'x' is a wildcard for any 802.11b compatible card. > Manufacturers naturally aren't going to highlight their lack of 802.1x > support, as their job is to push PDAs. This has left the consumer with > virtually no knowledge of the importance of 802.1x support. > I'm sure he doesn't like 802.3u, or 802.3ab either. Too confusing. As I said before, 802.1x has NOTHING to do with 802.11. It just so happens to be a (somewhat) decent authentication method to securely provide a dynamic session key, as long as you can properly deal with the PKI (which I apparently can't)... > Jonathan A. Zdziarski is president of Atlanta-based Network Dweebs > Corporation that provides real-time messaging solutions, open-source tools, > and professional software design services. His company is also working on a > freeware OpenNAP (napster) client for Pocket PC (see screenshots of > OpenNAPCE) and other corporate Pocket PC software tools. > Ahhh, a president. No wonder it's full of FUD and misinformation... Remember boys and girls, the higher up in title you go, the less you know. Kevin "Starfox" Arima (World Dictator in training) -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] [ot] Bluetooth + WiFi
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Jon Baer wrote: > I was just wondering who/how many on the list actually had a Bluetooth > enabled phone (T68i,etc) and what their experiences with WiFi interference > were. @ the moment Im literally getting none, but I wanted to see if anyone > was developing BT apps (like push) ... > I was actually testing bluetooth and wifi file transfer at the same time a while ago. From what I could see, there were no real decrease in S/N ratio, nor did I see degraded performance persay. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Writing a Compact Flash Image
On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Tim Butcher wrote: > Does anybody know how to write a BZ2 image to a compact flash using Windows > and a ScanDisk ImageMate? > Err, what are you trying to do, exactly? bzip2 is a compressed file, not an image persay. If you need to extract something from that file, use a Linux box or find bzip2.exe on the web. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Belkin PC Card
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Michael Hallen wrote: > Unless there's some kind of some "booster" or an antenna that only need be > near the card, rather than connected to it. > No, there is no such thing. There will never be such things. Unless you believe in perpetual motion, of course. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] WHAT'S A GOOD WIRELESS CARD TO GET?
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, David Rosenstrauch wrote: > The SMC card doesn't only work with SMC 22Mbps access points. It works just > fine with any standard 11Mbps 80211.b AP. It just won't achieve the 22Mbps > speed. (Or maybe that's actually only 13-14Mbps, as Kevin mentioned. And > the card might suck, as Ben mentioned.) :-) > Try 7-8. Part of the reason is the preamble. We're still using CCK at 1mbps. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] WHAT'S A GOOD WIRELESS CARD TO GET?
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, David Rosenstrauch wrote: > Once 802.11g becomes widespread, won't ANYONE with any 802.11b card be left > with a card that can only talk at 802.11b/11mbps? > Yes, but your average user, who buys "oh wow, 22mbps... it's fast" card, then sees "22mbps" as one of the speed in 802.11g, and wonders why they paid the extra $ to have a short-lived "speed"... Well. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] WHAT'S A GOOD WIRELESS CARD TO GET?
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, David Rosenstrauch wrote: > Keep in mind also that most routers and AP's don't support 22Mbps yet. > So if you're taking it out in public, you'll probably be only getting a > max of 11Mbps anyway. > The "22mbps" mode is a proprietary TI encoding that didn't make it into 802.11g. Once 802.11g becomes widespread, you'll be left with a card that can only talk at 802.11b/11mbps. Even so, I only think the actual throughput difference between 802.11b/11 and 802.11b+/22 is somewhere around 2-3mbps max. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] WiFi Watchdog Fingers Wireless Freeloaders
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Marcos R. Lara wrote: > http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20021204S0006 > Okay, so you gonna give me $20K in order to get this "feature"? =) Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] radiator ...
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Bon sy wrote: > I understand the inherent problem of RC4 is its structure on > exposing publicly expose the initialization vector and using finite number > of fixed shared "prviate" key, thus allowing --- at least in > theory --- sending a known simple text as a basis to decrypt some of the > messages when a key is reused. > The problem is not with RC4, but how it's implemented in WEP. The 40-bit or the 104-bit "key" is part of the RC4 key, so certain attacks became feasible (especially when cards initialized the 24-bit IV to 0). The other issue was the known packet header structure of 802.11. I believe TKIP uses the key as a hash, so it's possible to use a bigger base of "keys" so that key reuse would not be a problem. Of course, I have yet to see firmware implementing it, although I've been told that it's possible to use TKIP in WEP-capable cards. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] radiator ...
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Jon Baer wrote: > What about the upcoming WPA standard? (is it even shipping yet?) Is > EAP part of it? > You mean TKIP? That just uses RC4 in a different manner, I believe. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] radiator ...
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Mike McCauley wrote: > Its true that TTLS does not require a cert on the client. > > I guess the theory is that the server authenticates itself to the client by > virtue of the fact that it has a valid server certificate, and then the > client authenticates itself to the server by virtue of the fact that it has > the correct users password. All the authentication traffic between client and > server (including over-the-air) is encrypted inside TLS (which is basically > the same as SSH). > Unfortunately, it is a bit complex than that. If you search for "man in the middle" TTLS on Google, you'll come across a PDF here: http://www.saunalahti.fi/~asokan/research/tunnel.pdf Basically, it claims that MITM attacks are possible when an inner protocol is tunneled through a protected tunnel provided by the outer protocol. Now I do not know whether something of this nature is feasible, but when designing a security solution it's something that you should keep in mind. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] radiator ...
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Mike McCauley wrote: > Many low-end wireless AP's still only provide MAC address authentication > (either internally or to a Radius AAA server), but there are more and more > APs coming that support 802.1x EAP authentication to a Radius server. And > there is now a wide range of wireless clients for different platforms that > support one or more 802.1x EAP authentication protocols. Probably EAP-TTLS-* > and EAP-PEAP are set to become the most popular. EAP-TLS has been available > longer (on Windows and Linux), but it requires a PKI certificate to be > installed on each wireless client, which is tedious. TTLS and PEAP only > require a single certificate for the Radius server. > I remember there being a problem with TTLS security because of lack of certificate on the client machine. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Shopping in New York
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, David Rosenstrauch wrote: > Don't know about best or cheapest or anything like that, but some places that > I shop are: > > * J&R (on Park Row) > * Comp USA (38th &5th) > * Circuit City (14th St./Union Square) > There's also Best Buy on 23rd and 6th. Good prices. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] PCMCIA vs Compact Flash
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, R.D. Hammond wrote: > logicaly i dont think there is much of a difference between IDE, PCMCIA > and Compact Flash. Its more an issue of physical layout and voltage, > current, etc. stuff you can 'glue' together. > Actually, PCMCIA and CF are a bit different. I don't think CF has 5V/3.3V key notch, nor will ever support CardBus-type buses. And CF cards "plugging into" IDE bus are a special case of CF flash cards only, and I still think you need some bridging circuitry to do it regardless. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Ad-hoc?
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Anthony Townsend wrote: > Apple MAcintosh makes great use of ad-hoc mode using Rendevous in Mac > OS X. > you can IM and share files with other users > Actually, I think Rendevous is a *little* overrated. Ever since Win98 started to assign private IP address (169.*) when it couldn't contact a DHCP server, it's still been possible to "view" other computer's files, as long as it was in the same subnet. I did the exact same thing about two month ago as a test and had no problems accessing files without IP configuration or DCHP server. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Re: EAP-TLS authentication
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Jacques Caron wrote: > This being said, I believe that even if most platforms have one or more > supplicants available (Windows, Mac OS, Linux, *BSD...), I have quite some > doubts about the "smaller" platforms, e.g. Pocket PC and Palms, but there > is no reason this cannot be added at some point, someone just needs to do > it. It might be interesting to see how a Palm with a 16 MHz processor will > handle public-key cryptography, though... > The only time PKI or similar is involved is during the authentication process and the rekeying process. As long as the device can handle SSL-type transaction and store certificates (EAP-TLS requires client certificates), then it shouldn't be a problem. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] EAP-TLS authentication
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Bon sy wrote: > What's the assumption on the OS and wireless cards for supporting EAL-TLS > authentication. In other words, any standard compatibility issues on using > any OS and wireless cards as xsupplicants? > This is a quote from MS's page, who just released a 802.1x supplicant for Win98, ME, NT and 2K: http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/evaluation/news/bulletins/8021xclient.asp IEEE 802.1X is an authentication standard that greatly reduces the security vulnerabilities associated with connections to IEEE 802.11 wireless networks. IEEE 802.1X authentication uses Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) to exchange messages during the authentication process. EAP-Transport Level Security (EAP-TLS) is used in certificate-based security environments. It provides the strongest authentication and key determination method. EAP-TLS provides mutual authentication, negotiation of the encryption method, and encrypted key determination between the client and the authenticator. On the AP, it must be able to contact a RADIUS server, forward the authentication, then pass the unique encryption key to the client after the RADIUS servers accepts the client. On the server side, the RADIUS server has to support the EAP method of authentication, and the specific subset of EAP (TLS in this case) as well. freeradius does this (as long as it's compiled with a beta version of openssl), and Win2K server (with IAS) does this. I am not aware of any other "free" (as in either built-in or GPL) implementation. As for compatibility, I had problems when using Win2K SP2 with IAS with WinXP client, but that was a few month ago. I tried to compile freeradius along with openssl-0.9.6c, but apparently only 0.9.7 can support the EAP TLS method. There is a way to install openssl unstable for the purpose of linking against freeradius, but I'm not sure I want to do that yet. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] New Multimode (b,a,g) chip from TI
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Jon Baer wrote: > The chip is called the TNETW1130 and its claim to fame is a technology > TI is calling Auto-Band. It provides the chip with instant > interoperability between the three different OSI physical layers > available to it from 802.11a, b, and g (the latter with full 54Mbps > support). > Err, I recall 802.11g having two component: CCK over 2.4ghz OFDM over 2.4ghz Given 802.11b is CCK over 2.4ghz, I believ that 802.11g is backwards compatible by default. And since 802.11a uses OFDM over 5ghz, all they did was take a 802.11a/b chip, add a few circuitry to have OFDM use both 2.4 and 5ghz, and call it a 802.11a/b/g chip. Am I missing something? (Oh yeah, are they also going to implemnt CCK/PBCC over 2.4ghz "802.11b+") Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Antenna to boost wireless security (news.com)
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Ahmi Wolf wrote: > Here's a list of wireless IR products I just came across: > > http://www.svtehs.com/optolink.htm > And each very incompatible with others. 802.11 does have a spec for IR-based carrier. I didn't see any 802.11 (IR)-based on that list. I also recall the placement of the "AP" as well as exact placement of the adapter IR window being pretty critical in whether or not you get good connection or not. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Antenna to boost wireless security (news.com)
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Jon Baer wrote: > It's about containment ... which I personally find to be a more bigger > security pitfall than what currently exists. I dont know what the odds > are of enterprise/companies switching to IR-based tech vs. radio but it > makes more sense than splurging more $$$ trying to defend open > frequencies ... > Very unlikely. How many IR-based 802.11 products do you know of? (Yes, one of the spec for 802.11 has IR as a carrier mechanism) Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Antenna to boost wireless security (news.com)
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Jon Baer wrote: > An optical antenna that uses a geometrically shaped lens promises to > bring greater security to wireless networks for businesses, according to > British scientists. > What has optical antenna have to do anything with WiFi? Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] choosing a pc card
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Ben Serebin wrote: > ORiNOCO Cards Power Consumption (from ORiNOCO's website) > >Modes - Doze / Receiver / Transmit > Silver/Gold 9mA / 185mA / 285mA > Combo 15mA / 320mA / 560mA > Ummm, keep in mind that the 11b cards are 5V, and the 11a/b cards are 3.3V (CardBus). The difference comes to about 33%, and only in the Transmit (1.5W vs 2W). I've seen *tons* of references to a 3.3V 11b cards in the ORiNOCO drivers, but I have yet to encounter a non-5V Hermes chipset. Then again, there are references to a "Ruby" chipset in the newer drivers, but... Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] 802.11b SD Card...
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Nathan Freitas wrote: > > An interesting issue with using 802.11b on a Palm is that many of the > leading web browser (AvantGo, Blazer, Palm Web Clipping, etc) are all > proxy-based. This means that they require a connection to an > intermediate server to fetch web content. If the wireless node is using > NoCatAuth or some sort of popup portal page to grant access, you won't > ever be able to access the page, and never gain wireless access. I have > this very problem with my Palm m515 with Xircom 802.11b sled. > > While Palms will eventually have a proxyless browser (through > PalmSource's announced licensing of Access' NetFront browser), this is > still a real issue for non-PalmOS 5 devices, or any device wishing to > utilize 802.11b that doesn't have a traditional web browser. > There is a built-in browser on the Tungsten W which does not require a proxy setup (OS4 device). I am almost sure that the same browser is built into the OS5 base. I cannot vouch for the reliability of the said browser, however. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
RE: [nycwireless] Mac Titanium G4 to Linksys BEFW11S4?
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Roland R. Thomas wrote: > So my question: how do I find the MAC address of the Airport card itself > and not the Ethernet port? > You should be able to get it through the Apple System Profiler. Also note that if you are using hexadecimal keys on the Linksys for WEP, you need to prepend a $ when the Apple asks for the password. Hex WEP: 1234567890 Apple equiv: $1234567890 Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] HostAP for Windows
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Jacques Caron wrote: > You can supposedly put an Orinoco/Agere/Lucent card in hostap mode by > setting a registry value, using the latest drivers for W2K. Haven't tried > it, and haven't seen anywhere what the final result is (i.e. what you can > control and how), though. > Do you have any documentations or website that has this info? IIRC, the AP does a soft-load of the AP firmware when it's inserted into a RG or an AP unit. I doubt that the drivers themselves (even when using the tertiary firmware load feature) contain the AP-specific firmware. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] HostAP for Windows
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Tim Butcher wrote: > Is there a similar driver as HostAP for Windows? > Even if there were, I'm not sure what good it would do? Windows doesn't really have the fine-grained routing capabilities that Linux has. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] SpeakEasy.net Wireless sharing policy? NOW: (Covadfriendly to wireless users)
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Kev wrote: > Yeah. $60 a month for 608/128 aDSL is kinda expensive, even with the free > Playstation 2/X-Box offer. > Not that I'm advocating the use of Speakeasy for NYC Wireless purposes, but... On what basis are you judging whether their price is competitive or not? They give you static IPs (including reverse), allow you to run servers, don't require you to "log in", gives you an "unlimited" dialup (was told it's capped at 150hrs, but), and have very good service. I don't know about you, but I'd like to find out if there are other ISPs offering _comparable_ service cheaper than SE. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Linksys WET11 on /.
Since I didn't see any mention of this on here: http://slashdot.org/articles/02/09/12/0447253.shtml?tid=137 It seems to be a nice device, other than the MAC Address Translation (MAT?). Unfortunately, it seems to be a required part in order to service more than one device behind the WET11. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Linksys wireless router question
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Stephen Liu wrote: > I am planning using Linksys 2.4GHz EtherFast Wireless Access Point and > Cable/DSL router with 4-port switch (Model BEFW11S4) to connect to Terminal > Server which shall serve 12-15 diskless workstations and 2 notebooks and > seeking advice from folks on the list who have experience on this device. My > questions are ; > > 1) Can I use its 4 ports to link directly to diskless workstations if I only > have 4 workstations. To increase the number of diskless workstations > served can I bridge the port via a hub. > You can connect it directly, yes. A hub is a multiport repeater, a switch is a multiport bridge, so technically you can't "bridge" using a hub... 10/100 switches are dime-a-dozen nowdays. Given the limitation on class II repeaters on a 100baseTX network, I would strongly suggest you just cascade more switches if you need additional ports. > 2) Another application > Can I use this device as broadband router for sharing broadband without going > through Terminal Server to serve workstations with hard disc directly. > As long as it's running IP, then whatever application can just use the router directly. But it's strictly dependent on _what_ you want to run. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Re: nycwireless digest, Vol 1 #558 - 1 msg
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Michael Codanti wrote: > The main problem I have with the BEFW11S4 is that it puts the wireless on > the same segement as your wired network, leaving you totally exposed. (At > least that is what I understand about it) > And how is that different from, say, a standalone AP connected to your network? Obviously, the BEFW11S4 should not be used for nycwireless-type service if the 4-port switch is connected to private machines. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Orinoco Plastic Case
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, John Cooper wrote: > I managed to snap-crackle-pop my Orinoco Silver plastic protective case, > anybody know where I can get a replacement either in the city or online? > I know they go on eBay for a few bucks each. Search for Orinoco Case. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] LinkSys BEFW11S4 price drop (good/bad?)
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Rob Kelley wrote: > I noticed the prices on the LinkSys LinkSys BEFW11S4 > have gone down (now $119). > > Is this a good unit or a turkey? I've been asked > several times for a good all-around Access Point for a > newbie. This one looks tempting because of the built > in router and the ability to attach a bigger antenna > without cracking the box. > I've had pretty good experiences with it. The Linksys 128-bit WEP is compatible with the ORiNOCO cards, so that's a plus. However, setting the WEP key involves a little bit more effort than should be. But once it's working, it should be fine (except for the occasional power cycle). If you don't need advanced features of the Agere stuff (ie, 802.1x, MAC RADIUS), and you need both a router and an AP, then go for it. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] 900 Mz wirelesss phone
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Fred H. Schlesinger wrote: > GlacierI have a Sony 900 Mz spread spectrum (dss) phone. It has great > range, and, obviously doesn't interfere. > If your 900mhz cordless phone is interfering, I'd say you have bigger problems than that. ie, some agency whose TLA is FCC might come knocking at your door. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] 2.4ghz phone testing event
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Dustin Goodwin wrote: > Would anyone be interested in having an event where > everyone brings in their 2.4ghz cordless phone and we > test how well behaved they are? I have heard reports > of Uniden phones that crush all 3 ISM bands knocking > all 802.11b clients offline. It would be nice to > provide list of the 2.4 phones that are 802.11b > friendly. Anyone interested in leading this effort? > I heard that the popular Siemens phone does that too. Unfortunatley, it's the only one of it's kind that does 2-line multi-handset intercom, etc. X10 wireless cameras are notorious for flooding the ISM band as well. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] A RADIUS question
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Bon sy wrote: > > I wonder anyone out there uses RADIUS. If so, what brand, > how much does it cost, and what's your experience? I am interested in not > just FreeRADIUS, but commercial one and feature matrix comparison as well. > There's a RADIUS server in Win2K server. It's called Internet Authenticaiton Service (I believe). I'm not sure what you want to use it for, but if it's for WinXP EAP/TLS auth, then there's a series of steps that you have to follow (including installing Certificate Server), and even then, I could not get it to work. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] WiFi to PCI Cards
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Jonathan M. Slivko wrote: > I got a WiFi Card from Terry the other day (thanks Terry!) and now I need to > connect it to my Desktop. I found out that J&R carries a PCMCIA to PCI > converter for about $80 and I was wondering is there any cheaper place in > the city that I could go pick one up, or is that about as cheap as they get? > Mind you, I already have the NIC, I just need the adaptor. Thanks. > Err, depends on whether you need a PLX or a true PC Card->PCI converter. Regardless, you can get a Orinoco converter (true PC Card->PCI) for around $50'ish on eBay. PLX should go cheaper than that. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Re: RG-1000 Not accepting new IP
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Jim Thompson wrote:
> The new chipset ("Ruby") is all about the NIC. All Lucent APs I've seen
> just use PCMCIA NICs (built by Lucent/Agere/Orinoco, of course). Its
> highly unlikely that you need firmware from box X to run a Ruby-based
> card, since they look the same from the driver level.
>
Yeah, so why did the Winter 2002 (ala 3.92) have a line saying "we now
support it"? Are you sure it can be run by the same driver?
> Ruby-based cards do cost less. Better performance is... questionable.
>
You have access to one? =)
Kevin "Starfox" Arima
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] 802.1x, Win2K, and WinXP
Hi, In the midst of upgrading my RG-1x00 to a AP-1000, I discover that you can use static WEP and 802.1x WEP at the same time. So I think, great, I have a Win2K server, and a WinXP client, why not try it out. Enabling 802.1x automatically disables Key 2,3,4. They also tell you to put a key in so that non-802.1x clients can log on. I'm not sure why the help file tells you to disable closed configuration, since I'll be manually telling WinXP what SSID it is, but anyhow... Install IAS, and install Certificate Services on Win2K. Run through the process outlined on MS's site. Find out I need 3 patches that can't be downloaded. Call up MS support, they give me the 3 files, but tells me there's two version of one file, one labeled SP3, the other SP4. Transfers me to "tech support", where the girl basically tells me they're braindead on Sundays... Manually look at the files, see it's just a text file (Q306260). The SP4 install is smaller, but the actual file in question is larger. Figure since the SP4 contains more information than the SP3 one, I'd install the SP4. Find out that you still have to type in the "manual command you have to type in" as outlined in the KB article even on the SP4 patch. Of course, the extra "patch" in the SP4 file barfs on SP2 system. If they give you the two choices, take the SP3, and make sure you type in the command before reboot. Try to fsck around with generating certs. Attempt to generate a cert for the laptop, tells me I can't start the wizard. Attempt to generate the same cert on the server, generates a cert for itself instead. Find out that 1) You have to be part of the domain or 2) have IIS running in order to generate a machine cert(!). Nasty note to M$: No, I don't want to be running IIS just so I can generate machine certs. Grudgingly add laptop to domain for the purpose of getting a cert. Generate machine cert, machine tells me that it can't find a certificate to use to log on(?). Find out that the machine cert store and the user cert store are two different things(!). Try to copy said machine cert to user cert store. Get an error 8 in the event viewer, "machinename.domain. the specified user does not exist". Remove machine cert from user cert store. Error 7 "INTERNAL/machine$. the specified domain does not exist". Why is it so *#@!ing hard to use 802.1x? Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Linux Access Point? Router? What can I do here?
On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Rob Kelley wrote: > I have an old laptop Ive wanted to incorporate into > my wireless network, but I've gotten too muddle-headed > to see it clearly. Im looking to have (in order of > priority): > > 1. An extra router/firewall (to further separate my > home network from the wireless network) > 2. NoCatAuth > 3. A webserver > 4. An Access Point > You'd prolly be better off with using a desktop w/2 NIC and a ISA->PC Card converter. Unless the laptop has an on-board NIC or similar, I have only encountered one laptop which has 3 PC Card slot, and that was using the external dock. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Re: RG-1000 Not accepting new IP
On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Christopher Mc Carthy wrote: > Can the RG-1000 accept the 2.0 ABS firmware? > Err, if you are referring to the "Snow" ABS, then no. It is a totally different beast, even different from BG-2000/AP-200, I believe. The Snow has 1 10baseT and 1 100baseTX and an 860-based chipset. The BG-2000/AP-200 has 2 100baseTX. The AP-500/RG-1x00/Graphite has 1 10baseT (PCNetISA) and an AMD Elan 486-based chipset. The AP-1000 has one 100baseTX (PCNetPCI) and an AMD Elan P5-based chipset. The latest ORiNOCO AP Manger firmware comes with 3.95. I believe Airport Update 2.02 is at 3.84. The card firmware in 3.95 is 8.42. Now, the WavePoint II supposedly was identical to the AP-1000 sans the 100baseTX (it had a 10baseT), so it's possible that the AP-1000 firmware contains both PCNetISA and PCNetPCI code. However, since it's a P5-based chipset, that's probably the reason why people can't get it working when flashed onto the RG-1x00. AP-500 firmware can do 802.1x, but is useless unless you run WinXP (or "other" 802.1x-compatible client - there was one announced for Apple, and someone's working on a Linux one, but it only works with WinXP now) and run Win2K server with IAS. It can do more fine-grained filtering, but lose the functionality of NAT and the modem. Functionally, the AP-500 should be the same as the AP-1000. RG-1x00 firmware can now be configured with AP Manager (and should be preferred to be done that way), and for most purposes, it should suffice for everyone. And with Spring 2002, it came with the same firmware version as the AP-500, so I can't really find a convincing reason why one would run AP-500 firmware on a RG-1x00. The only thing that bugged me with the RG-1x00 was that the AP Manager claimed it could do 10baseT FDX, but in reality always stayed at half duplex. The AP-1000 will happily do 100baseTX FDX. Easiest way to "reload" firmware onto a RG-1x00 is to do the forced reload procedure. Get the latest AP Manager, reset the RG, hold the forced reload button for a second, and reload the firmware. For some reason I couldn't get FreeBase to reload the RG-firmware onto a AP-flashed RG. BTW, I'm still curious as to what this "Ruby" card that the Winter 2002 AP Manager was referring to. Can't be the 802.11a card, because the slot inside the AP-1000 are not CardBus-compatible. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Bryant Park setup
So here I am, surfing in Bryant Park. I see 3 APs, all with excellent signals, but they are all using channel 6? xx51FC 40dB s/n Ch 6 xx57B3 30dB s/n Ch 6 xx216B 20dB s/n Ch 6 Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Fortune article
This article is filled with lots of FUD. If you don't want to read my analysis, feel free to press d. Kevin "Starfox" Arima >I was reminded of the Quechua greeting last week while traveling in New York City, where I was told by a speaker of the indigenous Brooklynese language that Time Warner Cable had just sent out letters to some of its customers warning them that it's wrong to steal broadband cable service. I see they conviniently forgot to include the fact that said "warning" included an implicit threat of legal action. Just a "warning letter", eh? >Time Warner Cable (like FORTUNE, a member of the AOL Time Warner all-star team) is upset because of a growing movement in some big cities to create free public access points for wireless Internet access. Glad to hear that FORTUNE and TWC prides themselves to be so high on AOLTW's "team" player roster. *gack*. >It's a very thoughtful gesture, sharing high-speed Internet access. Not everyone can afford the high rates charged for broadband Internet access by Time Warner Cable or its competitors, including the phone companies and Internet Service Providers (ISPs). If the phone company and/or their holiness AOLTW would get off their ass and put up a practical, high-speed network that was accessible wirelessly, I would have no qualms paying for it. I had no problems doing that for Ricochet, but no service offered right now even comes close to the usability and the speed of Ricochet. I also take issues with the author equating users of NYCWireless' service to paupers. >But, gosh darn it, free sharing of Time Warner's data pipes is wrong, just like free "sharing" of copyrighted music over Napster and its heirs is wrong. Ladies and gentlemen, the future President of the United States. What, he's trying to imitate W now? "Gosh darn it", if AOLTW's lobbying "all-star team" wasn't busy filling up both party's coffer with cash, we wouldn't have stupid legislations like the DMCA. >Even though the courts smacked down Napster a year ago, dozens of file-sharing alternatives continue to make copyrighted music available without charge (and thus without payment to the music's artists or rightful owners). At least he got this right. Artist != rightful owners. Oh yes, the "rightful owner" of the music, the record companies, has a well-known track record of ripping off artists. Even when the artist gets paid, it's a miniscule amount compared to the profit the record companies rake in. >The music companies fear that a whole generation of digital technology users has been culturally inculcated with the idea that "bits want to be free." And they have a lot to fear too. Like the fair-use provision of the copyright law they tried to circumvent by using DMCA. >People who would not dream of shoplifting audio CDs from a music store, or installing a black-market decoder box to steal cable TV signals, appear to have fewer qualms about siphoning digital tunes off Madster or bandwidth from their local ISP. Installing a black-market decoder box would violate 47 USC 553. No users of NYCWireless (as far as I'm aware) are installing black-market cable modems, which would be the proper analogy to his comments above. >Maybe we need daily reinforcement of the message that lying, cheating, and stealing are wrong, in both the analog and digital worlds. New TOS issued for Road Runner Internet Service: In order to use our service, you must submit yourself, at a time and place convinient to us, a daily 1-hour session of "Good Citizen" behavior class. Failure to follow this section will result in immediate termination of your account. >Some folks are using special high-gain antennas and amplifiers to extend the range of the wireless connection beyond the typical 100 to 300 feet of most WiFi base stations. Using an amplifier or high-gain antenna would probably result in the device no longer conforming to Part 15 of the FCC. I hope none of you are doing that either. =) >Of course, anyone else who passes through your cloud with a wireless access card and antenna can also tap into the high-speed connection -- assuming he or she has permission from the network administrator. But isn't the "network administrator" of a node giving permission to NYCWireless users? Oh, but that's "different", isn't it? >If you're the network administrator of your home wireless network, all you have to do is eliminate the need for people to sign in with a password. Actually, most Wireless APs come without use of security or WEP by default. Not the other way around. >It's sort of like someone paying for the all-you-can-eat buffet at the local restaurant, loading up some extra plates, and passing them outside to friends who haven't paid. More like TWC promising "all-you-can-eat" bandwidth, delievered right to your house, and then complaining that you have "unauthorized" friends over to eat some left-over snacks. >In the long run, the answer is for music companies, cable companies and other
Re: [nycwireless] NYCwireless / Bryant Park Wireless Network Availablefor Alpha Shakedown Test
Err, tried it today, couldn't get anywhere outside the default gw. Browser didn't return anything either, so... Signal was strong. This was on the 42nd street side of the park right between 5-6 avenue (near the bar). Then again, there were at least two other "network" accessible without WEP and with DHCP, so I just, erm, "borrowed" it for about 10 min... Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] FYI - Starbucks hotspots in NYC
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Jon Baer wrote: > I also wish there was someway (phone, WAP, HDML, fortune teller) to tell > me where the nearest free signal was when Im in the city ... > The airwave is always free (well, subject to FCC regulations). Only when it is "occupied" with the signal you want is when it's useful. ;) Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Spam with our name on it???
http://vil.mcafee.com/dispVirus.asp?virus_k=99455 On Fri, 17 May 2002, R.D. Hammond wrote: > What is up with this? Get this thing in my inbox that looks at first (half) > glance like its an advisory from the wireless group. (Have to view the whole > From: headder to get the full story.) > > Am i the only one being bombared with this mindless drivel? Looks like an > atempt to install backdoor software on some git's windex box. I realy think > there enough root exploits to windex without taking the 'sucker the luser' > aproach. Im giving this one 0/10 for originality. > Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
RE: [nycwireless] CLECs (phone providers) in Manhattan
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Karl West wrote: > ...that is truethanks for pointing that out. Still allot of people are > going that route.and how often does the power go out. But its a point > well made. WTF are you two (Karl and Forrest) sending out 20K XML-bloated e-mails WITH attachments? Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Broadband recommendations
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Terry Ewing wrote: >I'm moving out of Jersey and into the Upper East Side later this month. > I'm looking for DSL or cable modem recommendations. I'd rather not spend > more than $60/month. I'd also be willing to get an antenna and host a node. > Reliability and good customer service are more important than speed. > Depends on your building, but if your building has TWC, RoadRunner seems to be pretty decent, and from what I've heard, TWC hasn't gotten into the "bandwidth glut" oversubscription... yet. As long as you can live with their TOS, I'd go with them. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] ISP, don't use Speakeasy
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Daniel Thor Kristjansson wrote: > > There was a post on the list a couple days ago about ISP's that are > 802.11b friendly. Someone recommended Speakeasy. > > While Speakeasy 802.11b friendly, I'd recommend staying away from them > none the less. I've had problems from day 1 with their connection. The > most notable being a loss of carrier for up to 12 hours every day. The > second being a switch to Verizon DSL at random with a different (yet > strangely static) IP. > Obviously, there are no ISPs that are 100% reliable. I've recommended them to 10 people so far. I think 9 of them have been happy with it. If you look at dslreports's review, SE's review has consistently been on the positive side. And as for their reliability, from a mainly SDSL circuit standpoint, they have been top notch. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] NYC ISP Providers
On Fri, 3 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If anyone has a list of DSL providers for Manhattan, please share with > me or the listserv, or indicate where we can obtain this info. Thank > you. > Most of the DSL "providers" actually resell Covad/Rythms/Verizon connection. Sprint Broadband may be the only one doing their own CO-hosting. I don't recall which one actually allows wireless sharing for nycwireless use (I'm sure someone can mail the list with their name), but I personally prefer Speakeasy (who resell Covad). They have static IPs, and don't mind you running servers (unlike a majority of the DSL providers). They've been very stable for me and many of my clients. If you do go with Speakeasy, lemme know. (I can get referral credits). Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] client for G3 desktop Mac?
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, R.D. Hammond wrote: > 802.11b via USB ? USB PCI card on which end? or did you mean PCMCIA? > either way: > > lart thy self! > Excuse me? The reason I mentioned the USB 802.11b adapter was because I recalled seeing one being made available with Mac drives a while ago, and they made a big fuss out of it since this was supposedly the only non-PCMCIA solution out there that would work with a Apple desktop without the Airport slot. That's the reason I said "IIRC", and I believe I was clear on what kind of solution I was proposing. Kevin "Starfox" Arima -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
