802.11g Hardware Arrives

DBordello writes "There's been quite a scramble as networking companies the world over rush to be the first to bring their 802.11g wireless gear to market. Linksys missed their early December launch date, and a company named Buffalo Technology has risen to steal their thunder. The company today issued a press release announcing their AirStation G54 broadband router access point and wireless CardBus adapter, the first 802.11g draft standard hardware to hit the market. More information can be found at the company's website." Update: 12/31 21:35 GMT by M : The story submitter apparently found this blurb on broadbandreports.com. Hey people, give credit where it's due. Update: 12/31 22:50 GMT by T : Karen Sohl of Linksys writes to say that despite the slip in dates, "Linksys is shipping our line of Wireless-G products. We have been shipping since last week. Honestly not large volume by any means-- but by the end of this week we'll have shipped over 10,000 units to distribution -- Ingram Micro and Tech Data." That's where even large retailers (think Amazon) buy their stock.

Comments

802.11g

[checkitout]

alpha, beta, and now gamma... when's the stable release finally going to be out?

Re:802.11g

[3ryon]

alpha, beta, and now gamma... when's the stable release finally going to be out?

That would be 802.12. Odd number releases are never stable. Sheesh, how long have you been reading slashdot?

On top of things...

[My_nickname_is_taken]

Does this mean my 4Mb token ring is obsolete?

Re:On top of things...

[Lxy]

Does this mean my 4Mb token ring is obsolete?

Your post was funny. I know that. I'm bored and I want to write a speech on why Token Ring is a bitch to upgrade.

Most token ring hubs are 4/16 selectable, but every card needs to be 16 or 4. If even one card is a different speed, your ring comes to a crash. 16Mb token ring hardware is expensive, as is 100Mbit token ring (yes, they make 100Mbit token ring, I have a small test ring set up with it).

Why not ethernet? Well, in a lot of cases, Token Ring installations were wired with a 4 conductor 14 gauge cable with really odd looking hermaphroditic connectors on them. To move to ethernet requires either an investment in recabling or the purchase of an impedence matching convertor, which I really don't recommend. They will bring your ethernet segment to a crash if you're not careful.

If you're running 4 MB token ring, you're probably fux0red unless you have a lot of money to burn.

security?

[trance9]

I'm a little worried about this mad dash to 802.11 technology before any viable security is in place. Of course this is great for those who want to create open networks--but many will use it to create corporate networks, or home networks with unsecured machines attached.

I'm running an 802.11 network and it drives me crazy that there is no way to wholly secure it: I have to secure each and every host on my network as it's impossible to create any kind of firewall (someone will just hack the air interface and get around my firewall).

Hopefully in addition to cool new bandwidth there are some hardcore security features in this one. 802.11 is "ad hoc" in more ways than one :-)

Re:security?

[macemoneta]

Nope, you're right, that works just fine. You don't actually need the DMZ, and you can also use SSH tunnels if you want a more adhoc environment (that's what I'm doing now).

The problem is that most people just take the stuff out of the box and plug it in, leaving themselves open. This article describes the problem.

We can set this up easily enough, but for most people, if it isn't configured by the manufacturer, it will never happen. Even some of my more technically capable friends never upgrade firmware (or manage to destroy their equipment when they try).

Re:security?

[halftrack]

Security is not a hardware issue. If you split open a cat5 that's lying around you can crack right into a unsecure, _wired_ network. Network security is - to most extents - software and transfere protocol reliant and can therefor only exist on a software level. It's fine for vendors to implement hardware firewalling (which really is just hardware implemented software if you get my drift,) but it should not be something to rely on because it's part of the standard (and being part of the standard it would probably be cracked right away.)

No, do not depend on hardware security and don't ever think it's more secure than software security. Secure your LAN as needed, stay in control and know that pretty much anything that goes through the air can be picked up by virtually anyone. VPN, crypt and tunnell (or do whatever it is those security freaks do), don't trust anyone else to secure your network and data.

FYI

[Andorion]

FYI, 802.11g is the spec for wireless networks that provides data rates of up to 54Mbps (54 Megabits per second.)

-Berj

Re:Great!

[Simon Field]

We have had great success in buildings with thick walls.

We use directional antennas such as these and these to get very high signal strengths and low noise.

We use this antenna to go between buildings. These also work great for long distances.

With two of those antennas, we have spanned 2400 feet (and we are planning a similar setup to span a distance of 5 miles).

Don't give up -- there are easy solutions to thick walls.

Hrrmmmn,

[Hawthorne01]

802.11g is out, and MacWorld SF is in a week....

Given Apple's early adoption of 802.11b, are all us Mac users in for a nice surprise at the the SteveNote regarding wireless?

Re:Hrrmmmn,

[jeffehobbs]

Yeah, but what Dynamic Ornamental Appearance will the new 802.11g cards have? Maybe they will change color when your credit card number is being wirelessly intercepted.

~jeff

802.11g

[r]

btw, for those who haven't heard of 802.11g - it's a new standard for higher-speed transmission in the same 2.4GHz band. it promises 20+ Mbps (maybe even up to ~54Mbps), in contrast to the 11 Mbps of 802.11b.

it's interesting, though, that the standard is still in the draft stage, scheduled for ratification in mid-2003, and hardware manufacturers are already rolling out implementations. not surprising, given market conditions, but let's hope that any changes will be minor, and fixable in firmware. :)

see the P802.11 status report at IEEE for more details...

Well, yes and no...

[Akardam]

AFAIK, 802.11g is the spec that allows up to 54Mbps at 2.4GHz, as opposed to 802.11a, which is 54Mbps at 5GHz.

Crash Course, Comin' Up!

[Akardam]

• 802.11b: The first widely available wireless networking spec. Up to 11Mbps at 2.4GHz. Widely adopted by people who really wanted wireless NOW.
  
• 802.11a: The second available wireless spec. Up to 54Mbps at 5GHz. This had the advantage of placing the transmissions in a less populated band. However, most people who wanted wireless networking already had 802.11b equipment, and didn't feel that the faster speed was really worth it, hence the slower adoption.
  
• 802.11g: Basically, faster 802.11b. Up to 54Mbps at 2.4GHz. This has the advantage of running in the same frequency range. I believe that 802.11g equipment may interoperate with 802.11b, but I'm not sure. I also believe that 2.4GHz wireless has a bit of a distance advantage over 5GHz, but don't quote me on that.
  

Hope this helps.

Re:Bollock! There is no 802.11g

[gwernol]

802.11g is not a standard. The standard is not yet written. It is in a draft form. At the most recent 802.11 meeting it was in comment resolution and the text was being changed in significant ways.

Claiming compliance to 802.11g at this date is to lie.

All true, but note that Buffalo do not claim this. From the website linked in the submission:

"54g delivers the fastest possible data rate defined by the proposed IEEE802.11g draft specification"

and

" As you may know, IEEE802.11g is slated to be certified by the Wi-Fi Alliance in mid 2003. We understand this could affect current 802.11g technology. We are dedicated to ensuring that our customers have the most current and reliable products available on the market today. If the certification materially changes the principal operating features of our pre-standard 802.11g products, we will replace or upgrade any of those products at no charge and provide toll-free technical support."

So not only do Buffalo plainly state that this technology based on the draft standard, but they also offer free replacement or upgrade once the standard is ratified. Sounds like a pretty good way to deal with this. Doesn't at all sound like:

It is proprietary. Buy it and you are buying proprietary, non interoperal stuff. Kids, just say 'no'.

Try reading the links before getting on your high horse.

Correct

[Andorion]

But 802.11g is also backwards compatible with 802.11b (11Mbps at 2.4GHz) and 802.11a (54Mbps at 5GHz.)

Read up on all the specs for the different 802.11 standards at ZDnet.

-Berj

And in other news..

[xchino]

..Wireless Access Points will now instead be referred to as G-spots.

Re:Is it reasonably secure now?

[mrneutron]

Weak keys were addressed by 'WEP+', an 802.11b firmware upgrade which negates the weak inititialization vector attack. WEP+ is now available from most vendors.

Many 802.11b APs also allow separate xmit and recv keys, making WEP attacks much more difficult.

Then disable SSID broadcasts (making your 802.11b wireless network invisible to tools like netstumbler).

WEP certainly has its weaknesses (especially when 802.11b was first released), but is arguably 'reasonably secure' today. It's far from perfect, but is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

Re:Is it reasonably secure now?

[TechyImmigrant]

>It's far from perfect, but is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

Oh yes it is.
WEP+ is not a standard. Different vendors have different means of avoiding (or not) weak keys.

Problem 1: Weak key avoidance just makes the IV space get exhausted quicker.

Problem 2: There are likely to be new classes of weak keys discovered that invalidate the weak key skipping mechanisms and further shink the IV space.

Problem 3: If you have no weak keys, then IV space exhaustion gets you in the end.

Problem 4: To solve IV space exhaustion within the current WEP structure, you need rapid rekeying. There is no rapid rekeying spec. 802.1X is used be vendors in the wild, but only in proprietary ways, since as a standard it doesn't work over a non secured channel like 802.11.

Problem 5: 802.1X has some fundamental layer violation problems with networks that don't have an ethertype (like 802.11). Ethernet is fine. It has an ethertype.