WiFi security issues? Newbie ? for W7

T

The Natural Philosopher

David said:
I prefer to be paranoid - I use a hardware firewall between windows
machines and the internet. But if that's not possible, then the
standard windows firewall, when properly configured (i.e., no
inappropriate exceptions), is good enough for short-term usage. It is
not perfect, but it is seldom the weakest link.

I agree,. I prefer to be paranoid. No windows machines at all AND a
hardware router.

But my remarks were from an XP installation a few years back inside a
firewalled network. I could not get the machines to talk nice to an
appliance that was supposed to be a visible share on the network.

Firewall. It took a fair bit to even get the machines to talk to each
OTHER. maybe they had 'home' on them.
 
R

RayLopez99

On 21/12/10 18:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It may be the "home" versions that were the problem.  MS has always put
some limitations on the file sharing capabilities of the home versions -
they didn't want anyone to think they could buy a "home" version and use
it as a server without paying the full "server" version prices.  It may
be that they accidentally improved their security that way!

FUD from a Linux user noted.

In fact, you can prevent (at the cost of some slower download times)
all such attacks in public places by simply using a VPN. That simple.

RL

VPNs (virtual private networks) for serious business

You always face serious risk when using public Wifi hotspots, public
broadband (Ethernet) connections, such as those at hotels or truck
stops. It is even more risky to use public computers at libraries,
Internet cafes, or hotel business centers.

And don't count on SSL (secure connections with https, and the
padlock) to keep your information private. They may have fixed it by
now, but as an example, it has been possible to "sidejack" the highly-
regarded Gmail application by simply listening to traffic at a
hotspot, using nothing more than a laptop and a little free software.

VPNs offer a good way for serious road warriors to avoid these
problems. VPNs use encryption to "tunnel" right through insecure
connections. You can rent VPNs by the month or by the year at Witopia
or HotSpotVPN. Hotspot Shield is a free (ad-supported) VPN service
recommended by Sunbelt Software (security software) and others. [more
solutions] [compare] [update]

Wireless hotspot service providers -- e.g., TMobile Hotspot, Boingo
Wireless, iPass -- provide a degree of enhanced security. But they
still recommend that you use a VPN [more].
 
P

Peter Foldes

A "server OS" is usually just a stripped down ordinary OS.

Huh? Want to explain that statement above to me.

--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
 
D

David H. Lipman

From: "Sidney Lambe" <[email protected]>



| You can run a server, or a lot of servers, on an ordinary OS.
| They are just applications like the file server software.
| A "server OS" is usually just a stripped down ordinary OS.

No. A Server OS is geared towards the optimal serving up of services. This can be File,
Print, Directory (X.500), etc. The hardware and the OS is optimzed to handle numerous
requests and the queing of those requests based upon a prioritization concept. There are
Dedicated Serrver OS' and there are Non-Dedicated Server OS. While there may be
similarities in a workstation OS and a Server OS, to categorize a server OS as "...just a
stripped down ordinary OS" is not true. If anything it is tthe opposite. A workstation
OS is a stripped down version of a server OS but that really isn't true either. Take
Windows as an example. A Windows OS may only be abble to handle 10 clients accessing
service it is providing while a server OS can handle hundreds or thousands.
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

LOL the person is a typical dumb home user. However, the world is not
dumb-home-user free.

Sidney Lambe (or the name) has been here before, to similar effect :)
 
F

FromTheRafters

Sidney said:
A server OS is basically a stripped-down regular OS.

Stripped down in the sense that a lot of 'fluff' is removed. They are
geared more for throughput. It might not have to do a lot of things,
most general purpose computers do, but what it does, it should do
quickly and accurately.
 
J

JEDIDIAH

Yeah, that is a little deep. He doesn't seem to know the difference
between a file server and a server o/s, which you don't need a server
o/s for a machine to be a file server. A professional or business o/s
workstation version will do nicely.

Well, there are real differences between the various iterations of
Windows (and they say that Linux has fragmentation). This is why there
was a lot of disappointment when they decided to castrate WHS.
 
J

JEDIDIAH

A server OS is basically a stripped-down regular OS.

I don't know where you got the idea that "serving up of services"
is some kind of big deal.

Perhaps he has some experience doing it for thousands of users at once.

That's where the rubber hits the road.
I run a webserver here. Know what was involved? Installing it and
tweaking my firewall. 5 minutes. The ordinary Linux OS has all
the utilities needed for a 'server OS'.

That just gets you the software running. This tells you nothing
about whether or not your "server" will be able to handle the number
of users you want to support with any degree of service quality or
the ability to actually stay online under load.

[deletia]

More than anything, a "server OS" is something that's not going to
get in the way of itself, or the programs running services and won't
allow the programs running services to get in the way of the OS either.
Then there's the whole scalability thing.
 
R

RayLopez99

Back on the topic of why the wifi should be kept secure.http://www.securityweek.com/man-pleads-guilty-hacking-neighbors-wirel...

Regards, Dave Hodgins

Thanks for that link, interesting.

But by Usenet standards this man is not a criminal. If anything it
shows he has a sense of humor. I can't log onto the article that
outlines why this man had a beef with his neighbor, but it looks like
a rather cruel and elaborate practical joke. I would imagine he would
be given a light sentence, but you never know. For instance some boys
in LA who were shooting random people from their car with paintballs
were given rather stiff sentences about a decade ago, and I thought
that was a bit excessive for what looked like "good clean fun" (well
not so clean--the paintballs as I recall were red dye, but that stuff
washes off I would assume).

RL

According to the US Department of Justice, in his plea agreement,
Ardolf, 45 years-old, was indicted on June 23, 2010, admitted that in
February of 2009, he hacked into his neighbor’s wireless Internet
connection and created multiple Yahoo.com email accounts in his
neighbor’s name. Then, on May 6, 2009, he used one of those accounts
to email the office of the Vice President of the United States. In
that email, Ardols wrote:

This is a terrorist threat! Take this seriously. I hate the way you
people are spending money you don’t have.... I’m assigning myself to
be judge jury and executioner. Since you folks have spent what you
don’t have it’s time to pay the ultimate price. Time for new officials
after you all are put to death by us....

The email, the Department of Justice says, was also sent to the
Governor and a U.S. Senator from Minnesota, went on to threaten to
kill the officials one at a time, with the first being dead by June 1.
Ardolf signed the email with the name of the neighbor and his wife. He
admitted he sent the email using the neighbor’s wireless router with
the intent that the email would be traced back to the neighbor.

In addition to sending the threatening email described above, Ardolf
admitted that in February of 2009, he posed as his neighbor and used
the email accounts he had created to send emails of a sexual nature to
three of the neighbor’s co-workers. Again, the defendant sent the
emails through the neighbor’s wireless Internet connection, intending
for them to be traced back to the neighbor. In one of the emails,
Ardolf attached an image containing child pornography. Ardolf also
admitted to creating a MySpace page using his neighbor’s name, on
which he posted the same pornographic image
 
N

Norman Peelman

Big said:
I don't know what an ordinary O/S is, and I have never heard of it.

A server OS allows more concurrent connections remotely, than some
cut-down O/S version does. As an example, the max number of concurrent
connections a Windows workstation O/S version can allow is 10.

So if you have 10 user connected to the workstation machine
concurrently, the 11th one is out and cannot get a connection until 1 of
the current 10 are closed. A server O/S is going to allow concurrent
connections based on the number of user licenses it supports, which is
more than the default of 10. This also applies if a Web server was
hosted by a server O/S as opposed to a workstation O/S hosting the Web
server.

There are other things that make a server O/S different, like clustered
servers, Web server farm, load balancing on servers etc, etc. However
the core components of a workstation and a server O/S are the same, with
the server O/S being able to do other things that a workstation O/S
cannot do.

Or you could just use Linux and avoid every single bit of what you
just said.
 
N

Norman Peelman

David said:
From: "Sidney Lambe" <[email protected]>




| You can run a server, or a lot of servers, on an ordinary OS.
| They are just applications like the file server software.
| A "server OS" is usually just a stripped down ordinary OS.

No. A Server OS is geared towards the optimal serving up of services. This can be File,
Print, Directory (X.500), etc. The hardware and the OS is optimzed to handle numerous
requests and the queing of those requests based upon a prioritization concept. There are
Dedicated Serrver OS' and there are Non-Dedicated Server OS. While there may be
similarities in a workstation OS and a Server OS, to categorize a server OS as "...just a
stripped down ordinary OS" is not true. If anything it is tthe opposite. A workstation
OS is a stripped down version of a server OS but that really isn't true either. Take
Windows as an example. A Windows OS may only be abble to handle 10 clients accessing
service it is providing while a server OS can handle hundreds or thousands.

Just wondering, do you guys get dizzy?
 
N

Norman Peelman

Big said:
It a beefed up version on an O/S workstation vs server O/S

LOL! This person no more knows what he/she is talking about than the man
in the moon. :) He using Linux, and all of a sudden, he's an expert's
expert on computer O/S(s). :)

This coming from a guy who set his router password to 12345678...
 
N

Norman Peelman

JEDIDIAH said:
Perhaps he has some experience doing it for thousands of users at once.

That's where the rubber hits the road.


That just gets you the software running.

No, that gets your server running.
This tells you nothing
about whether or not your "server" will be able to handle the number
of users you want to support with any degree of service quality or
the ability to actually stay online under load.

Quality of service is not the question.
[deletia]

More than anything, a "server OS" is something that's not going to
get in the way of itself, or the programs running services and won't
allow the programs running services to get in the way of the OS either.
Then there's the whole scalability thing.

True 'servers' have little or no front-end, and no fluff. What the
confusion is about 'home file sharing' vs 'servers' I have no idea.
 
N

Norman Peelman

Big said:
The justification is MS choice not your or anyone else justified choice.
It is what it is.

Imagine that... you seem to think that it's ok for M$ to have a
choice but not me... hmmmm.
 
P

(PeteCresswell)

Per Steel said:
I used Linux back in 2005. I was not that impressed.

I fooled around with it a few years ago too - trying to get a
Tivo-On-Steroids app called "MythTV" working.

Finally ponied up eighty bucks for a commercial app called
"SageTV" and haven't looked back.

My impression was that Linux is pretty good for somebody who
wants to minimize their cash outlay *and* who is either an
enthusiast or has an enthusiast to set up their system and answer
questions.

I'd think it is an especially good fit for the thousands (?) of
people who use their PCs only for web browsing, email, the
occasional "Word" type document, and lightweight spreadsheets.

The downside being that they can't go to their friends and
neighbors with questions...

The price is definitely right.

But I was not in either category and my take is that if I had
worked at Burger King for minimum wage for the hours and hours I
spent trying to get things working I could have bought a very
nice ready-to-go Windows PC with MS Office installed and had
money left over.
 
T

The Natural Philosopher

Big said:
I start a sweet job on Jan 3rd 2011, as a .NET developer, my dream
position, and in one of the cities I wanted to get to and live. I am
going to have a lot of fun, and MS is going to put a lot of money in my
pockets. That's all that counts with me. If it was Linux putting the
dollars in my pockets, then I would be using Linux.
plenty of linux admins needed at big server farms.
 
D

Dave Cohen

Somebody downloading childsporno or wikileaks through your wifi,
to avoid being traced.
So the trace points to your wifi, and you might get a visit
from police or FBI.

You have to set share access to each drive, and you have the option to
not permit changes.
For a home user, it makes no sense not to use a secure connection in the
first place.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top