Running CAT-5 in cavity wall

[R Taylor]

I can access my CD/mp3 collection via pocket PC over WLAN and feed the signal to any number of sources, remotely and securely.

versatility is, indeed, the key ;-)

RT

[Andy Hall]

Yes, but physical security is one of the first things that is done for networks and obviously that is much easier with a wired network. Typically you don't have people walking into your house and plugging into the RJ45 sockets to bum an internet connection or see what you have on your servers.

... and practically. If you want to run at low power levels to reduce spread outside the property this may well not be possible, and even with full power, elements of construction such as foil covered plasterboard, insulating materials and even certain types of masonry can have an effect.

RF at these frequencies is funny stuff. I'll give you an example. In the summer (such as it was) I was sitting in the garden with my notebook PC and connected to an access point in the house. My wife brought over part of a sheet of Celotex that was due to go to the tip and parked it against a tree. An additional wireless LAN belonging to a neighbour about 50M away appeared in my list on the PC at only 6dB below my own AP and I was easlity able to associate to it. Taking the sheet away, reduced the signal by 10dB.

Have you always measured performance over a period of time and error rates?

There is a degree of resilience, but interference from video links, microwaves and numerous other devices can cause degradation in performance. That is quite common.

Yes, quite.........

So you don't mind neighbours using your internet access and gaining access to your financial records.?

All of these methods are extremely weak. MAC addresses are very simply sniffed and spoofed as is SSID. WEP can be broken in 10 minutes with a reasonable amount of data and poorly selected keys with very simple tools.

No, the major difference is a lack of physical access to unauthorised people with a wired network, so problems such as MAC spoofing, SSID, WEP etc. don't occur. Provided that you can keep would-be hackers physically away from the network then you don't have the problems introduced by a WLAN.

In fact you have a common set of network vulnerabilities with both, because an access point gives you access to a wired network. When a wireless link is added, then you add the wireless network vulnerabilities as well.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Set Square]

You're not IMM in disguise, are you?

See Andy Hall's post for a full refutal of your drivel.

[R Taylor]

drivel ? wi-fi as an alternative to cable/both have security issues, is drivel ?

refutal ? pointing out the obvious is refutal ?

heh heh, whatever.

I'm too long on t'interweb to get into a ping pong match with the likes of you or 'mr obvious' with his extreme, peripheral, what-if's

RT

[Bob Mannix]

Can't quite see why it's a ping pong match anyway! Wifi routers generally have fixed ports as well - hardwire fixed installations that are close and use Wifi for roaming laptops, temporary stuff. 90% of security problems are overcome by simply applying security. If you are (un)fortunate enough to be running XP SP2 other networks don't break in and annoy your connection.

Use both!

[Mike Barnes]

Our wireless network doesn't work while the microwave oven is cooking. The effect is 100% reproducible.

On the wider topic of wireless vs. wired, I expanded our network using WiFi for both static and mobile devices. The experience quickly persuaded me that drilling holes and routing wires was a small price to pay for speed and reliability. I laid wires to the places that I previously thought too difficult, and I now reserve WiFi for situations where it's really needed (i.e. mobile devices only). I'm aware that in many locations WiFi "just works", but here it doesn't, a lot of the time.

[Andy Hall]

These things may be obvious to you and me but certainly not for the average person buying WLAN or other networking products in the store.

Both WLAN and fixed LANs have security vulnerabilities if connected to the public internet that are essentially the same with respect to that. However, even fairly cheap routers implement basic firewall and NAT capabilities out of the box which will provide security to a reasonably acceptable level.

If one assumes that physical access can't be gained to a wired network in a house then this only leaves the question of whether one is concerned about access by people who are authorised to be on the network but not necessarily authorised to use certain facilities - e.g. does one want to allow the kids to look at financial records.

Wireless network access has all of the above issues but adds the vulnerabilities inherent in the technology as implemented - weak encryption and easy spoofing. These are neither peripheral nor extreme but regularly done by teenagers and more serious interlopers - I have seen it and it is frighteningly easy.

Of course you can take the view that the chances of this happening in a home environment are small, or one may not care too much.

However, with entry level wireless products, security is open as delivered and a lot of people don't understand or don't bother to do anything about it. In effect it leaves the WLAN wide open, normally broadcasting an SSID of the manufacturer's name so that anybody can easily join.

If you add to this that defaults for setting up simple Windows workgroups to share PCs leave enormous security holes including announcing details on the network, then the vulnerabilities are severe.

In making these technologies easy to use, the effect is equivalent to pinning up a copy of one's bank statement in the window to be read by neighbours and passers by.

Yet to most people implementing, it is neither obvious nor extreme but what they will get when they plug in their purchases from PC World.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Set Square]

Then stick to things you know about, there's a good chap!

[Dave Stanton]

20mm Black plastic electrical conduit, ideal.

Dave

[Mike Hall]

Bugger !

[The Natural Philosopher]

I would worry that the interference rejection on audio is good enough, unless you transfer as a digital signal. You need quality screened coax for audio below about 10v RMS IME.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well said. WiFi is a system of last resort, not first.

[Christian McArdle]

As for the range, my home system won't reliably exceed 5m from the access point. It is located in the understairs cupboard, when in the bedroom, which is only 5m horizontally and 1m vertically away, you have to orientate the machine to get a connection.

Whilst it is a very useful system, the claims for range and interference free operation are decidedly dodgy.

Christian.

[The Natural Philosopher]

With good antennae, we could get reliable 500m on it.

Till birds flew past, or it rained...

[Mike Barnes]

Or you could use KAT 5 transmitters and receivers... I use them for audio only and the quality is excellent.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Excellent. On the book mark list that one goes.

Thx.

[tony sayer]

Yah boo!!, with some very good aerials we've got 5 miles out of it!...

Not a problem either!....