Text 12715, 55 rader
Skriven 2005-11-20 09:20:00 av JEAN PARROT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av ROBERT FOWLER
Ärende: WiFi visible.
=====================

    Hello Robert, nice talking to you !  

 RF> We'll, changing the channel doesn't make either of you invisible to
 RF> the other.  You'll both still show up on each other's scans, and if he
 RF> wants to try to connect to you, he needs only to change his channel to
 RF> yours.

        You are right, but if I set the allowed IPs in the router, he
        can not connect. At least, it is my understanding.

 RF> I'm not sure what you mean by "keeping an eye" on the router.

        I can see if I am RX/TX, looking at the LEDs. The better
  indication is the 5 green bars on the ZA taskbar icon. They show RX
  activity, if I do not do anything myself, they ought to be dead.


 RF>   Do you
 RF> keep the router's station list open at all times?  The whole point in
 RF> the security configuration is that the connection to the wireless
 RF> devices occurs well before any other connections, and relatively
 RF> behind the scenes.  If an intruder obtained an IP from your DHCP
 RF> server and used it for nothing more than surfing, one would typically
 RF> be unaware that it was happening.

 RF> As to the IP restrictions on the firewall, there should be no need
 RF> to adjust the firewall, *if* the wireless is setup correctly.  One
 RF> can still allow DHCP to be enabled and have an established trusted
 RF> zone in the firewall.

        I still have alot to learn here, Robert. I am under the
  impression that "allowing" some IPs will prevent others to log-on.
  The IP allowances are done in the router, not the firewall, for the
  WL access. I also have these IPs "permitted" in ZA otherwise they
  can not connect. I only have on WL IP at home, the upstairs
  Thinkpad, the other three systems are on RJ-45 so the router only
  has the one 192.168.0.xxx permission. In ZA, all other three are
  allowed, depending on what system is on.

 RF> It's only when you've compromised your wireless configuration that
 RF> you need to try and compensate with other measures.  That's not to
 RF> say that a manual network configuration isn't more secure than the
 RF> default; it certainly can be, but it's also generally more
 RF> problematic for the average user to setup and maintain.

        Encryption would only protect my packets, the router would
  still be open to all if not for the IP restrictions. Methinks.

     
       Again in TI!   27D 44.475'N   082D 45.356' W
  Have a great day !
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)