Slashdot Mirror
Linksys Shows Off New Products To SOCALWUG
John Hering writes "Last night at the Southern California Wireless Users Group (SOCALWUG) meeting, a representative from Linksys, a division of Cisco Systems, presented several new never-before-seen Linksys products which including a wireless-G range extender, a wireless switch, wireless network attached storage and even a new Boingo co-branded wireless-G router which will serve as an off-the-shelf hotspot solution. It's interesting to note how the new Linksys products continue to look more and more like Cisco products."
... is the one that won't allow unencrypted 802.11 links to happen. Whenever I go wardriving, half of the hits I get from kismet have SSID="LINSYS", WEP="NO".
Cisco's stuff may be nearly bulletproof, but the damn things take forever to power on. A 350 AP or BR can easily take over 3 minutes to boot. I really hope that they can find a way around boot speed issues. The public at large will not be as willing to wait as a network admin.
Cringely has an interesting article on how Linksys has embraced Linux in products like the Linksys WRT54G and how the teaming of this technology may well be the next disruptive technology.
Personally, I think the design style that linksys has gone with has built a little mini-brand and I can't see why they're messing with that. By changing that I think Cisco goes a long way to telling customers 'the name might be Linksys, but you're not really buying Linksys products anymore'. They might think it's a good thing, but others might not. The products seem to D-Link-y now.
What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/
For LinkSYS to support WPA in AP-AP (Wireless Bridge) mode on their WAP54G.
"Note:WPA does not work in Wireless Bridge mode in this release"
Dammit people, WHEN will you get it right?
We don't need no stinkin NEW Products, we need completed features in our firmware for existing products.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
yush
... the G-spot :)
Sounds like an interesting concept, but I wonder how it will scale...
Assuming single-channel G/B operation, the best it could do is divide G/B users into three distinct segments (three non-overlapping frequency ranges at best). With this lack of flexibility a switched architecture seems not to yield much benefit... In fact, the alternitive use of overlapping channels to increase the overall 'bus' of the netork (the dual channel 108 mbps devices') seems more beneficial. If the net is only segmented into 3 segments, best case, and any given two hosts on the network communicate, there is a 33% chance they are on the same segment anyway, and the switched benefit isn't had. With dual channel, single segment, sure there is a 100% chance for contention in that case, but far more bandwidth available, and much better performance in wireless to lan communication (which is 98% of usage anyway).
Of course, it could be different from what I'm picturing, maybe it is more akin to a managed hub, where packets are only retransmitted to each host on 'switch-like' rules, but it remains the standard single-media solution. Perhaps kept very switchlike by different encryption keys per host, but ultimately the media is still shared in a hub fashion, so the typical network performance benefits of switched ethernet networks are not there to be had.. Of course, more intelligently handling mixed B/G devices could be the case, which would be a good thing..
Anyone know any more details about what they are meaning by a 'switched wireless network'? It certainly could be an interesting concept if the standard had more non-overlapping channels...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I'm glad to see they seem to have dumped that horrible design they had.
But more importantly, it looks like this will make what I wanted possible:
Wireless switching with the Linksys WET54GS5 Wireless Ethernet Switch:
- Managed Ethernet switch
- Wireless supports virtual LANs (VLAN)
- Supports up to 69 VLAN users
- Each wireles suser gets a separate Subnetted IP address
- Targeted release June 2004
This should enable you to share your wireless Internet access, without opening up your own network to strangers.
This, for anyone who knows dick about radios, is the height of stupidity. There are, very rarely, time where it makes sense to amplify a low gain antenna, but monkeys are not qualified to make this decision.
Tell me, do you really pay Slashdot to pass for a raving lunatic, or did someone offer you a subscription for Christmas?
I have new for you: if you knew "dick" about radio yourself, you'd know that stock AP "antennas" aren't really antenna at all and rarely reach 2.2dBi anyway. As for the "morons" who buy RF amps, they may not be "specialists" like yourself.
In fact, most 802.11 users don't know anything about it, except that it's convenient and they just have to connect to the router's internal web server to configure it. And when they want more range, they buy whatever solution the shop sells them. Just like most people who drive cars don't know anything about how cars work, and let AutoZone sell them gasoline additives to "clean their injectors": well, if you don't know anything about cars, how will they know it's snake oil?
So, why don't you get off your high horse and stop talking out of your arse?
Why in the WORLD would you want that?!
;)
First off...
We want to ENCOURAGE open wireless networks! If you live in a dense city like San Francisco (where I live) if we had enough open networks we would have a decentralized Internet infrastructure across the city.
I'm sitting in a coffee shop right now in the Haight district of San Francisco (Waller and Cole actually) and there are 5 wireless networks on the corner.
The downsize is that 2 of them are WEP and I can't really get decent signal on the others due to lack of decent antenna and LoS.
Criaglist founder Criag Newmark is nice enough to have an Open AP right up the street but it's too far for me to reach it.
Second... WEP is NOT secure. What we REALLY need is a decent AP that has ipsec already setup and still allows open connections.
Of course I've been leading the way here. I've had an Open AP in my last 3 appts. Never had any problem.
Also.. when the RIAA comes calling I have probable deniability. I can just tell the Judge that it was some random wireless user and I have a Linksys AP and I'm not smart enough to secure it
Kevin
MAC filtering does nothing for security. Passive monitoring is no harder on a MAC filtered network than on a non-filtered, and active attacks aren't much harder (associate as a valid MAC).
WEP has flaws, but suggesting MAC filtering instead is a bad, bad idea.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
The SAN device looks cool - it appears to be a device that makes any USB mass storage device appear as a network drive. I wonder if it shows up as a windows file server, nfs server, or a network attached block device? Can two computers use it simultaneously? Does anyone else make something similar?
-jim
Also.. when the RIAA comes calling I have probable deniability. I can just tell the Judge that it was some random wireless user and I have a Linksys AP and I'm not smart enough to secure it ;)
;-)
That will only work so many times. After a couple of people use that defense, you can bet somebody is going to push some law mandating the securing of wireless networks, either by requiring manufacturers to make it easier or passing a law that says that the network owner is responsible for *anything* illegal that goes thru his/hers network.
Rest assured, they'll try to convince people it's in the interest on national security *and* to prevent child pornography ("won't somebody please think of the children").
No sig
Umm, why is this a troll? Cisco's support policies and hardware reliability are not that great, given the extreme expense for same.
Ferinstance, just try downloading a flash image for say, a CSS 11150 box. You pay $10k for the thing, and then you can't download a ROM image without paying about $1500 a year for support.
Riiiight.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.