Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Virtually Duplicates Your Wireless Card

akhomerun writes "Microsoft has released version 1.0 of its experimental new VirtualWiFi Software. The free software enables Windows users to use a single wireless card to connect to multiple wireless networks simultaneously. The current build is a very primitive release, with no support for WEP or WPA encryption."

149 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Easier Wifi Man in the middle attacks? by random_culchie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You need two Wifi cards to do some man in the middle attacks..

    Will this make it easier ;)

    1. Re:Easier Wifi Man in the middle attacks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I don't think that in infrastructure mode you could successfully connect to an AP's SSID and then advertise yourself as that same AP without confusing your own connection to that AP first and formost.
      If you're talking about using 2 cards on 1 WEP/WPA enabled AP to have one create traffic with the AP and have the other listen to all the traffic eventually collecting enough data to make a guess at a passphrase, then I suppose that if you didn't physically need to be listening to the traffic while creating it, this could have been done with only 1 card before this software was available. Since this software doesn't change whether you can independantly listen to your own traffic (from what I read) I don't think it helps with this kind of cracking either.

    2. Re:Easier Wifi Man in the middle attacks? by rikkards · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope Just get a Prism2 based card and you don't need two. SMC has a good one then you just use Airodump and Airopeek, the latest beta (2.1?) has the ability to inject and scan at the same time. Been a while since I played with it.

  2. Network Bridge? by AnimeEd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does this mean we can connect to an AP and then connect using ad-hoc using the same card to another computer? This would result in a relay

    1. Re:Network Bridge? by drewxhawaii · · Score: 1, Funny

      i would assume so, and THAT would be awesome.

    2. Re:Network Bridge? by Fortress · · Score: 4, Informative
      Does this mean we can connect to an AP and then connect using ad-hoc using the same card to another computer? This would result in a relay

      Only if there is routing between the two connections, which I suspect will be optional.

    3. Re:Network Bridge? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      And Windows has built-in routing software. Check out that "Internet Connection Sharing" thingy :D

    4. Re:Network Bridge? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Informative
      Does this mean we can connect to an AP and then connect using ad-hoc using the same card to another computer? This would result in a relay
      Only if there is routing between the two connections, which I suspect will be optional.
      Or bridging. Windows XP has built-in bridging. Bridging is different than routing in that it occurs on Layer 2, while routing occurs on Layer 3.

    5. Re:Network Bridge? by tom+vendetta · · Score: 1

      If you create a wireless network bridge, what would the side-effects be? Am I the only one who forsees a big lag-fest packed alongside with this program? I mean... cmon guys, were dealing with Microsoft here. I dont think it would be feasible to use this program quite yet... would it?

    6. Re:Network Bridge? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering that it's a first release of an experimental package that performs a function that few if any have ever done before, no, it's not the best idea to use it. Even the most basic encryption is not yet there.

      Still, this shows that even Microsoft can pull some really neat things out of its R&D division. I shall look forward to a similar feature going into the MadWiFi driver set in the coming months, and thence into the Auditor Security Toolkit.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    7. Re:Network Bridge? by AGMW · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Considering that it's a first release of an experimental package that performs a function that few if any have ever done before, no, it's not the best idea to use it. Even the most basic encryption is not yet there.

      Still, this shows that even Microsoft can pull some really neat things out of its R&D division. I shall look forward to a similar feature going into the MadWiFi driver set in the coming months, and thence into the Auditor Security Toolkit.

      Hey, I don't know a lot about this, but if you had your laptop in your car and were being driven (for safety reasons!) whilst you surfed the internet, could this setup allow you to start off using your home wifi connection, then continually switch to the next strongest (unencrypted) signal and hence provide some sort of wifi roaming capability?

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    8. Re:Network Bridge? by jfoust2 · · Score: 1

      Many of the consumer-level "bridge" products today are not true layer 2 bridges. (Some are marketed explicitly as bridges, others offer a switch between AP or bridge modes.) The packets of the other end all appear to come from the same MAC address of that remote wireless device. (To confuse matters, as well as not fix the problem, some of these devices give you an option to clone the MAC of either the WLAN card or the Ethernet client.)

      A Cisco wireless bridge doesn't do this, but they cost much more.

      --
      Curator of the Jefferson Computer Museum http://www.threedee.com/jcm
    9. Re:Network Bridge? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Informative

      Possibly. Without being within the same network, though, that could create session issues. Posting to sites that match both cookies and IP addresses would be difficult, if not impossible. I'm not sure that SSL/TLS would be at all possible. However, accessing normal mapping sites could probably be relatively seamless.

      Interesting idea.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    10. Re:Network Bridge? by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Despite being over https, I have a hard time using my online banking, checking my webmail, or buying stuff with my CC over someone else's insecure AP, even if it IS over https.

      Truth is, most session state isn't tied to cookie + IP; you'd want the session to resume if a user is dropped because of a bad DUN connection. Because of DHCP, you would likely not tie it to IP unless it's of the most secure applications.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    11. Re:Network Bridge? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Hey, I don't know a lot about this, but if you had your laptop in your car and were being driven (for safety reasons!) whilst you surfed the internet, could this setup allow you to start off using your home wifi connection, then continually switch to the next strongest (unencrypted) signal and hence provide some sort of wifi roaming capability?

      Only until you were arrested by the FBI for h4x0r1ng those unencrypted signals. Everyone knows that moving around while using wireless is something only 3v1l h4x0rs do.

      Besides, you'd need to first figure out if Microsofts EULA allows it, and that would require you to read it. By the time you'd finished, Linux would have taken over the desktop and crushed Windows and Microsoft into oblivion. And the Internet would be hopelessly jammed by all of the running downloads of a cracked version of Duke Nukem Forever 2: Aleph-One ;).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    12. Re:Network Bridge? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      An individual session should probably be tied to IP addresses for even moderately secure sites. For something like Slashdot or your average forum, that's probably not necessary.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    13. Re:Network Bridge? by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      What about users who are NAT'd and/or Proxied? Do you punt them from the server then?

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    14. Re:Network Bridge? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      No, because the IP address used for the session is the NAT address, which is pulled from the packets, the same as we do things now.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  3. What the crap? by wolrahnaes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This just doesn't look like typical Microsoft, and IMO that's a good thing...

    Source code, a simple web site, and command line operation.....what more could I ask for?

    Thanks, Microsoft (geez I still feel wierd saying that....)

    --
    I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    1. Re:What the crap? by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Informative

      I see it's from their research division... They sometimes seem uncorrupted by their marketing machine. ;-) They have other projects going on too, like ConferenceXP (yes indeed, source here too), and Netscan. Kind of interesting projects actually.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:What the crap? by mattjb0010 · · Score: 5, Funny

      This just doesn't look like typical Microsof

      A primitive release with security to be added later? Sure sounds like Microsoft to me.

    3. Re:What the crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Please... tell me there's a catch. I'm not ready for the apocalypse yet.

    4. Re:What the crap? by grazzy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Compared to what? Google GMail Beta? Firefox with its endless trail of patches? WU-FTPD? Sendmail?

      They released free software that makes cool stuff, quit complaining!

    5. Re:What the crap? by FST777 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Microsoft Research Shared Source license agreement (MSR-SSLA) is actually a license, made by Microsoft, which permit free use of the software and the source (if any) for non-commercial use, provided that any modification are subject to the license (in which Microsoft may make full use of the software).

      As such, it is nearly Open Source... but if you make modifications, you are volutarely working for Microsoft.

      not too bad though...

      --
      Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
    6. Re:What the crap? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      but if you make modifications, you are volutarely working for Microsoft

      Surely that's a good thing, if it results in more MS software being released under more open-source friendly licences?

      (It's also no different to any open source project - contribute fixes/features to red hat packages and you're voluntarily working for RH, etc)

    7. Re:What the crap? by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1, Funny


      This is just the prototype. The real thing will be a DRM'd, patented, closed source win-modem like thing that will encourage Windows only HW.
      </conspiracy>

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    8. Re:What the crap? by R.D.Olivaw · · Score: 1

      there is a little difference though but my personal opinion is that it's an important one. under the GPL (for example) anybody can use the end result for whatever they feel like (commercial use mainly) while here only microsoft can do that. So you can use it at home but not at work for instance. I do not believe this is 'open source friendly' licence. It's an 'open source' licence but is it friendly to other licences?

    9. Re:What the crap? by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      what more could I ask for?

      Linux support?

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    10. Re:What the crap? by rsborg · · Score: 1
      Compared to what? Google GMail Beta? Firefox with its endless trail of patches? WU-FTPD? Sendmail?

      1. Your examples suck. GMail is fully secure. try using it with https... no other major free webmail provider has that. Firefox is probably the most secure, functional browser you can use today.
      2. GP post refers to Microsoft's security outlook which spawned their current dilemma. It's a fricking joke, deal with it.
      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    11. Re:What the crap? by FST777 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, it is not friendly to 'real' OSS-licenses. The good point here is that they are showing the backbones of what might become key technologies here. But what I meant in my previous comment is that everything you do with their sources is essentially subject to the license, which clearly states that no one may use the source or deriative binaries commercially, except Microsoft.

      One good point in the license is the copyright and patent protection which it gives to each and any contributor. It also does not prevent anyone (like Sun's Java-licensing and Qt's commercial license I believe) to make 'competitive' products after you have 'signed' the agreement. So technically, one could take a good look at it, trying to figure out how they did it for Windows and do the same for Linux / *BSD. I like that.

      Fact remains, this is not OSS, and IMHO, Apple is doing this better.

      --
      Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
  4. Great Idea by pinkocommie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I currently use dual nics to connect to my home and office network as I presume a lot of other people do, this should help reduce costs in similar scenarios. I didnt install it cause of the WEP/WPA limitations, did anyone else try it? If so does this allow bridging connections?

    1. Re:Great Idea by somersault · · Score: 1

      why dont you connect to the net through your home network then VPN into your workplace?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Great Idea by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Informative
      I currently use dual nics to connect to my home and office network as I presume a lot of other people do

      Why? Do you need to connect to both wireless networks at the same time? All WiFi cards should have some profile management software, even if it is the basic stuff that comes with the OS.

    3. Re:Great Idea by springbox · · Score: 1
      currently use dual nics to connect to my home and office network as I presume a lot of other people do Why? Do you need to connect to both wireless networks at the same time? All WiFi cards should have some profile management software, even if it is the basic stuff that comes with the OS.

      Maybe he lives in his office ;)

    4. Re:Great Idea by b0bby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My wife uses 2 cards; her office network requires Cisco authentication which isn't supported by the built in wireless card, but at home the built in gets a better signal & you don't have the card hanging out the side.

  5. Not SDR...? by ottffssent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The blurb makes it sound like this is essentially a way to quickly switch the hardware from one AP to another, buffering packets until the hardware is connected to the proper AP. I'm curious how efficient this process is, as there's bound to be some switching latency. For low-bandwidth non-latency-bound tasks, I assume it's virtually seamless, but I wonder how non-latency-bound you'd need a task to be before it starts becoming problematic.

    Wouldn't a proper software-defined radio be the real solution, allowing connections to 2 APs simultaneously with only one antenna? Obviously Microsoft's working with what they've got, and it's certainly an interesting capability, but I'd rather see real effort on SDRs, particularly the regulatory issues therewith.

    1. Re:Not SDR...? by Cylix · · Score: 1

      Notice, when you do a scan with your card it steps through the channels. It is tuning just like an FM radio would do or even a television set.

      On a lot of cards the tuner is more then likely limited to one frequency at a time.

      Now, the way I understand the A,B,G cards... they are software tuned... but I really doubt the whole mess just sends everything to the driver.

      The concept is fairly simple. Filter out everything you don't want to hear, lock onto a carrier and adjust slightly for any signal drift. A sliding window of sorts really. While I haven't delved too deeply into wireless cards I'm going to assumme they abide by the same engineering that most of radio communications do as well. So if you want multiple channel reception it has to be designed that way and that costs extra.

      So, provided both AP's are on the same frequency, then you could of course do all of the communication in real time. (assumming the card doesn't do anything in hardware or is capable of a pure raw dump which the virtual driver could sort)

      I could be entirely wrong though... but then I start thinking about bus limitations with two frequencies at the same time.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    2. Re:Not SDR...? by Otto · · Score: 1

      I'm curious how efficient this process is, as there's bound to be some switching latency

      They actually talk about that on the page.

      From: http://research.microsoft.com/netres/projects/virt ualwifi/faq.htm

      Q: What is the time taken by a card to switch to another wireless network?
      A: This number varies across cards. It also varies across networks, and across ad hoc and infrastructure networks. In our experience, switching delays vary from 100 ms to 600 ms across commercial cards. Over special Native WiFi cards, this delay was a few tens of ms. Ideally, as has been pointed out by recent research in solid state circuits, and the values that have been used in our SSCH paper, this switching delay should be of the order of 100 micro seconds.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  6. Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    p0wn3d by two k1dd13z at the same time!

    1. Re:Awesome! by Zardus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Double penetration takes a whole new meaning....

      --
      You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
  7. With Source ??? !!! by Gopal.V · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Microsoft releasing tech previews with source code ? I mean, what has the world come to ?. Oh, sure it is under Shared Source license - but it raises serious questions about the way MS is dealing with the latest challenge from F/OSS. After all students are the major inflow of talent into F/OSS (starting from Linus Torvalds ...).

    The only thing that scares me is that their website has an image that is 960x720 px resized using img tag height and widths - Which looks like it was done in powerpoint using 3DText. I wanted to pull the code and read it to see if it was some kind of trojan or something. All in all, it looks too unprofessional (website mainly) - at least compared to all the open source project sites I've run into.

    1. Re:With Source ??? !!! by lisaparratt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're probably too busy finishing their software to finish their website. Shame the same can't be said for a lot of open source projects.

    2. Re:With Source ??? !!! by be_kul · · Score: 1

      "The free software" - what does that mean? No, I can't believe it is FREE software - "free as in free speech" - only "free" as in free beer, right? Aha: shared source. Ok, done. be_kul, stay kul :-)

    3. Re:With Source ??? !!! by wangotango · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They likely created the page in about two minutes. It looks like a page which was originally created for internal employee access, functional only with no intent towards glamour.

    4. Re:With Source ??? !!! by ilitirit · · Score: 1

      Microsoft releasing tech previews with source code

      Why is this such a big deal to everyone all of a sudden? Have a look at their online research lab.

      There's a (relative) wealth of information on there (and yes I do know other companies provide online access to their research projects) in the form of reseach papers, technology previews, and yep, you guessed it, source code.

      Link to downloads

    5. Re:With Source ??? !!! by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Hmm, what's with the surge of attacks on open source lately? Not even particulary good attacks.
      I'm getting paranoid I think.

    6. Re:With Source ??? !!! by thesnarky1 · · Score: 1

      I can think of a lot of projects, FOSS and otherwise that I'd rather them have spent more time on the code then the website. Perhaps, the few number of people Microsoft has working on this couldn't be bothered to spend a lot of time in some big WYSIWYG and did it by hand? *gasp* No... look at the source, either they removed the tags that most WYSIWYGs throw in (encoding, etc) or they just did it by hand. It sure looks like the latter to me the way the html and head/body tags are spaced. For that matter the logo they're using looks like it was done in paint with #d text and a few concentric circles, also a good, five minute job. All-in-all, I think this is a good first version website, meant to just get the information out there, not impress anyone. They don't have to worry about that until their software is functional. Notice the ""Multiple cards: The kernel implementation of VirtualWiFi supports multiple cards. However, we have not incorporated this support in the user level code of this release."" at the bottom? Good indication that this isn't near ready, and the site is probably used either internally, or externally for a few people that they want to test the software, and to be open with their research.

    7. Re:With Source ??? !!! by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      They're probably too busy finishing their software to finish their website. Shame the same can't be said for a lot of open source projects.

      Yes, that's right. Open Source projects are famous for only caring about presentation and nothing else.

      At least in the fucked up parallel universe your mind apparently inhabits. Keep taking the tablets.

    8. Re:With Source ??? !!! by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1

      Is that why 90% of projects on sourceforge are moribund?

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
    9. Re:With Source ??? !!! by spitzak · · Score: 1

      The moribund ones do not have nice websites, dummy.

      However as to the original poster, I do trust software with working code and crummy looking websites over something with a fancier website than the code. So both this Microsoft effort and a lot of the non-moribund-but-crummy-website open source projects look good to me.

  8. The right hand and the left hand... by AthenianGadfly · · Score: 3, Funny

    In related news, another Microsoft department is releasing a new DRM scheme that will prevent "unauthorized duplication of your wireless card, virtual or otherwise."

  9. WTF by 0x4B494C4C · · Score: 3, Funny

    Innovation. From the beast..... I need to sit down :-)

    1. Re:WTF by cduffy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, but as pointed out in another post, the actual innovation happened before the fellow was hired.

    2. Re:WTF by ryanov · · Score: 1

      This is actually something I've been looking for the ability to do. Can one have a wireless card on, say, someone else's wireless network and re-transmit it on a local network with a single card?

  10. Not free software by frp001 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is Shared Source NOT free software.

    --
    May I use your sig please?
    1. Re:Not free software by xtracto · · Score: 1

      This is Shared Source NOT free software.

      So what?
      Your post has nothing to do with GP anonymous post:
      Cloned version appearing as a loadable Linux kernel module in 3... 2... 1...

      where he indeed makes a point, I would like to make a recount of the number of posts on /. that state that "microsoft does not inovates". This is innovation, that although it may not have been developed inside "microsoft labs", it is being released/implemented by Microsoft.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    2. Re:Not free software by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So what? As long as it's not patented, how does that prevent a clean-room implementation for Linux?

    3. Re:Not free software by gowen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And even if it is patented, those of us in the Land Of The Free (i.e. outside America) are still free to create a clean room implementation.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    4. Re:Not free software by twitter · · Score: 1
      So what? As long as it's not patented, how does that prevent a clean-room implementation for Linux?

      A Non Disclosure Agreement in the EULA can own your code regardless of you having read it. Read the EULA carefully if you want to use this and do something useful. If it's not free software, I don't use it because I've got better things to do with my time than read a EULA.

      --

      Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    5. Re:Not free software by gowen · · Score: 1

      I love America too, although the NYPD robbery report I just got to send to my insurance company means I'm not too keen on certain parts of it right now.

      I just wish it'd quit this "Land Of The Free" propaganda schtick.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    6. Re:Not free software by DeadMeat+(TM) · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't need the code. The author has written multiple papers on its inner workings. He even gave a talk to our CS department that gave more than enough information for someone to duplicate his work, were they so inclined.

    7. Re:Not free software by akhomerun · · Score: 1

      when i submitted the story, i meant "free" as in "you don't have to pay for it to use it and you can use it as much as you want for free" not free as in open source.

      it's about as close to open source as microsoft gets.

    8. Re:Not free software by twitter · · Score: 1
      The author has written multiple papers on its inner workings.

      Thanks, Mr. Meat, this author is very cool. Those are some informative papers.

      Others authors are not, especially those who use Shared Source and other nonsense like that.

      --

      Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  11. Original Page... by perlionex · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... found using Google, at: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/ranveer/multinet/ software.htm And the author's page, which follows quite naturally: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/ranveer/ ...which, if you look at it, will explain the origins of this "Microsoft" project :) His papers on "MultiNet" date back to June 2003.

    1. Re:Original Page... by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why is it drug addicts and computer afficionados are both called users?

      Stop asking silly questions and just boot up already.

      KFG

    2. Re:Original Page... by EddyPearson · · Score: 1

      :p take a look at the differances
      MultiNet Logo = Nice VirtualWiFi = Word Art!!!

      --
      You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
  12. Oh! Sources! by dud83 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Microsoft released something with sources...
    Quick! Someone brutally abuse their trust by ripping off the design and idea. Release a fully (and better) working Linux VirtualWiFi driver by tomorrow!

    Hack evil minions! Hack hack hack!!!

    1. Re:Oh! Sources! by Darth+Daver · · Score: 1

      Abuse Microsoft's trust? First, that implies they are capable of trust. History indicates otherwise. Liar's don't believe in anyone else. Second, the point of providing source code is so others can improve it and benefit from it. Why provide source if you don't want to allow others to use it?

  13. Re:is it NDIS ? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    lol, wtf are you on about ?

    Wish I knew who I was a fanboy of, it would help me be more predicatle!

    moov over and let me at the fire, I'm fresian !!

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  14. Association and authentication delays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The comments on the website indicate that the code buffers traffic meant for another AP between switching networks. This of course is hindered by the time it takes to complete the 802.11 authentication and association exchange as indicated with the suggested timer values for the supported wireless cards.

    Intel Centrino cards are well-known in the industry as being particularly aggressive at associating and authentication to an access point after being deauthenticated, thereby shortening the time needed to switch between different networks. It's unfortunately Centrino cards aren't on the supported list yet, they would make for an interesting evaluation target to use this kind of technology in a sort of mesh wireless network.

  15. Thanks by thedarkone64 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thanks, Microsoft (geez I still feel wierd saying that....)

    Why should you feel weird saying that? I say it all the time. Oh wait, I normally say it sarcastically.

  16. I wonder... by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How much use this will really get. Connecting two wireless networks may be 'cool,' but how many offices maintain two separate wireless networks? I am sure there are some, as some of you will surly point out. If you want an internal wireless network, that should already exist since you wireless network should be behind your router/firewall anyways.

    --
    There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    1. Re:I wonder... by svanstrom · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could use it to share a WLAN with a second computer/PDA/whatever, which can't connect directly... either because it's too far away, or isn't allowed (hasn't paid, not part of the company or simply blocked because some idiot login-requirements forcing people to use IE).

      --
      perl -e'print$_{$_} for sort%_=`lynx -dump svanstrom.com/t`'
    2. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Plopping two WiFi devices (or more) between some type of routing app and I have _much_ faster bittorrent/LinuxISO/whatever downloads. This way I am working over two (or more) networks so not only do I have speed I have redundancy.

      The fact that you can acquire it MUCH cheaper while connected to say 4 diffrent WLANs, with only one PCMCIA card, then you can say with 3 diffrent physical PCMCIA, makes it I would say pretty popluar. (I'm not sure about you but my laptop only came with two slots.) ...or am I missing a spork in my lunchbox?

    3. Re:I wonder... by svanstrom · · Score: 2, Informative

      "NAT, usb-powered etherenet switch and a couple cables" or software that makes it work without all that... not really something you have to think twice about, esp. not if you don't want to be forced to sit next to the WLAN-connected computer (or if you don't want everyone else to see what you're doing); besides, there's a lot of stuff out there which handles WLAN but not ethernet...

      --
      perl -e'print$_{$_} for sort%_=`lynx -dump svanstrom.com/t`'
    4. Re:I wonder... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Informative

      Plopping two WiFi devices (or more) between some type of routing app and I have _much_ faster bittorrent/LinuxISO/whatever downloads.

      I doubt it. The two virtual WiFi devices will probably run at less than half the speed each.

      Or if you're only worried about doubling the speed of the internet connection, and not the wireless, you're better off with a dedicated router hard wired to both internet connections with a single wireless network on the other end of the NAT.

    5. Re:I wonder... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Connecting two wireless networks may be 'cool,' but how many offices maintain two separate wireless networks?

      Seems more likely to be used for using two wireless networks from different people than from a single one. Now you can have your laptop talk to your internal network at the same time you leech internet access off your neighbor. In a roaming application you can search out new wifi connections while maintaining your original one, and then hand off the connection seemlessly (for UDP or other non-connection based apps, anyway). Actually, with a properly established NAT network (using some help from a computer on a permanent link) you could hand off a live TCP connection.

      My laptop currently has two wireless cards in it. One has Verizon Wireless Broadband Access and the other is plain old 54 meg wifi. When public access wifi becomes as widespread as Verizon's service I could drop the Verizon card and either add a second wifi card or use this software and have the extra PCMCIA slot. Then again, a better solution in that situation would be to set up a wifi card on my desktop machine and hard wire that machine to my wireless base station. So I guess roaming is the more practical application.

    6. Re:I wonder... by thesnarky1 · · Score: 1

      I'll use it. I have an internal wireless network of my own, and I also use the neighbors wireless internet sometimes (when ours goes down). I know them, they're cool with it, before anyone jumps on me for that. But using this I can use my laptop as a bridge between the two networks when our servie goes down very nicely, I hope. You're correct in pointing out that most businesses won't use it, I think, but I also think that home users might get a kick out of it for the reason specified above. Also, it might be good to set up an ad-hoc network to a PDA or like device, to bring it on the local network.

    7. Re:I wonder... by adnoid · · Score: 1
      Connecting two wireless networks may be 'cool,' but how many offices maintain two separate wireless networks?


      1) I don't think that was the purpose, but

      2) We do - one for employee use and one for vendors/customers/other visitors. The one for visitors is just for internet access so they can check email, etc. and they get the WEP key from the receptionist (who also does their tech support, and is pretty good at it). I've set the DHCP lease period so that I can look at the leases in the morining & see who tried to leach from the parking lot the previous night.
      --
      No sig
  17. Re:nothing new by frostw · · Score: 1

    Grow up dude. It's something I've never seen before I found it interesting.

    --
    http://www.sydney-webcam.com
  18. Whats Microsoft Smoking? by rollonet · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I was suprised when they made an MSN Search plugin for Firefox (http://blogs.msdn.com/msnsearch/archive/2005/09/2 9/475316.aspx) But this...

  19. Re:Linux equivalent by tomstdenis · · Score: 3, Informative

    While I'm a linux fan, if the summary is accurate, you're comment is off-base.

    Layer 3 aliasing is not the same thing as multiple physical/radio connections. If anything it's more like channel bonding than aliasing.

    That said, I don't know how useful this would be. I mean for a windows box it is. I could see the usefulness of this for a repeater but in such cases I'd just use linux and save the license fees.

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  20. Re:Linux equivalent by dasOp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Except that the above creates an alias, using the same connection.

    The above allows you to associate to more than one wireless network using just one wireless card. Try plugging your regular nic into two switches at once and see how it goes...

  21. nice find by drewxhawaii · · Score: 1

    that does explain a lot. i'm still very suprised that a webpage looking like that is part of microsoft.com

  22. Re:nothing new by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 1

    Care to point us to where you've seen this before?

    --
    Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
  23. Re:Linux equivalent by pixr99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yep, at the tender age of five, Linus Torvalds conceived a method by which to clone network interfaces in the, as of yet, nonexistent Linux kernel.

  24. Re:Linux equivalent by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 1

    If I recall well, you're only able to do that since 1998's version of net-tools' ifconfig.

  25. Interesting... by EddyPearson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Its very strange that Microsoft would be doing this, totally out of chatacter for them which makes me think that using multiple wireless networks is something that going to play an integral part of a future product.

    Watch this space.

    --
    You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
    1. Re:Interesting... by EddyPearson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i hate to double post but look here:
      Multiple cards: The kernel implementation of VirtualWiFi supports multiple cards. However, we have not incorporated this support in the user level code of this release.

      Meaning its going to be, if not already implemented in the Longhorn kernel. They're definatly aiming this at something, and since there's a user level implementation being created it means that whatever it is will probably be out before Vista has fully taken hold.

      --
      You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
    2. Re:Interesting... by zIRtrON · · Score: 1

      Yep. Basically, it'll be 2 networks. 1 which will run on windows and will be under attack from all sorts of malicious users and code. The only thing that will be secure from these things will be an open source virtual link to the second network card. What is then attached to this network is all your private gizmos.

      in effect, a huge network of all the bad stuff in the world is attacking each other so that machine fights machine whilst us humans can use the net for what we need. the simple stuff.

      warfare has gone virtual (as well as corporate). no more blood on the battle field

  26. Not necessarily a good thing? by Illserve · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At the moment, wireless AP's don't have to worry about frequent switching.

    But if everyone and their brother started using these things, suddenly a given AP is going to have to deal with a huge amount of hookup requests.

    Now admittedly I don't know much about the guts of an AP, and how limited their processing ability is (apart from bandwidth)... but this certainly isn't what they were designed for. I would be surprised if they could handle this kind of abuse from multiple users.

    Or am I completely off base?

    1. Re:Not necessarily a good thing? by pla · · Score: 2, Informative

      But if everyone and their brother started using these things, suddenly a given AP is going to have to deal with a huge amount of hookup requests.

      I think this would depend more on how the wNIC behaves than on the AP's abilities...

      As the simplest case, why officially disconnect from AP #1 to join AP #2? Due to the flaky nature of wireless in general (not to mention sleep mode (the radio, not the PC) as part of the 802.11 standard), APs need to gracefully deal with vanishing clients all the time. This just looks like a client has gone missing for a few packets - So it would just buffer them and retransmit when it reappears.

      On the wNIC side, though, you could well have some NASTY latencies, depending on how quickly the card can change its entire configuration.

  27. Awesome by Fortress · · Score: 2, Funny

    If I connect them to each other, not only can I send files, email, pictures, etc to my computer from my computer, but with this technology I can do it wirelessly.

  28. Bonding? by Fortress · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm really only interested if I can bond the two connections together and stea^H^H^H^H borrow twice as much bandwidth.

    1. Re:Bonding? by hkb · · Score: 1

      Uhm, if you mean combine the two pipes (on separate subnets) into one, no, that won't work. If you mean take two interfaces and multiplex the gateways, well, that would have so much latency as to not be worth it.

      --
      /* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
  29. Innovation from Microsoft? About time! by Kranfer · · Score: 1

    Well this is the first good piece of innovative software I have seen come out of Microsoft in awhile. Being able to connect to numerous Access POints at once not only creates an Aux connection but may also allow for relaying of wireless signals over larger areas. Is this going to create the ability for large scale wireless networks for places like... The middle of no where, which is where I am from so that when I head home to see the parents I can have wireless and not have JUST dialup as an option. Oh god I hope so. I hate dialup with a passion, how did I deal with it when I lived at home?! HOW?!?!

    --
    -- Josh
    "Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
  30. It's not a feature, it's a bug. by twitter · · Score: 1, Interesting
    I've read reports of XP home making "bridges" between networks without being asked. Sales men walking into a business would "bridge" the network with a neighbor's. Needless to say, the person who reported this was not happy they could suddenly see all of their neighbor's windoze network and vice versa. Thanks, Microsoft, indeed.

    This just doesn't look like typical Microsoft, and IMO that's a good thing...Source code, a simple web site, and command line operation.....what more could I ask for?

    You could ask for the ability to modify and redistribute the code. I'll believe Microsoft has changed when they embrace the GPL, quit paying people to badmouth everyone, stop pulling SCO stunts.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  31. Re:Brute force removal by regedit...ugggh by Bandman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    come on, this software isn't even anywhere near actual release. Give the guy a break. It doesn't come with a gui and the ability to check mail yet either.

  32. Double speed by JDStone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm wondering if you could effectively double your speed by connecting to more than one access point. Wireless access is everywhere today, you could set up your laptop and instantly get at least 2 access point connections almost anywhere, like San Francisco for example.

    1. Re:Double speed by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 1

      Hehehe, this is funny.

      The problem is that a single WiFi card can only transmit 54 Mbps. This card "virtualizes" itself into multiple cards by time-switching. Thus, if it is on two networks, each one gets a maximum of 27 Mbps, and probably much less with the delays in switching. You can't get more than 54 Mbps through a 54 Mbps pipe, even if you direct it at two different destinations.

  33. Actually useful by Dekortage · · Score: 1

    There are a number of actually useful reasons for this kind of driver, security being one of them. E.g. you could split out your LAN from your Internet connection and allow users to log into different access points simultaneously to get the work done that they need: stuff on the Internet versus stuff on the local network.

    OTOH, if you can set up one of your virtual WiFi cards to be an ad hoc access point routing to another virtual WiFi instance that is connected to an internal network, then other people could hop on and use your computer as a WiFi router.

    The real question is, can you virtualize Slashdot opinions?

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    1. Re:Actually useful by ogiller · · Score: 1

      If I was an Network Admin I would not want each employee creating a connection that could be used to leap frog over my firewall. Most office computers are not running a firewall (ei Zone Alarm). So these computers would be connecting to the Internet unprotected. Imagine each of those connections as another way for a virus to get on your intranet.

      Would you not want to control how the connection is made to the Internet at one location?

  34. Encryption is overrated anyway apparently.. by jkind · · Score: 1

    The # of encrypted networks here in Eastern Canada are greatly outnumbered by the # of wideopen networks. This is a cool piece of news.. Nice way to start the day :)

    --
    ~jennifer.k~
    1. Re:Encryption is overrated anyway apparently.. by jkind · · Score: 1

      oh and why is this in the hardware section? :)

      --
      ~jennifer.k~
  35. can this be done on OS X with bridging? by v1 · · Score: 1

    I don't have a wifi cardbus card to play with but maybe someone else does. Mac OS allows network sharing, where you can for example, run an ethernet cable to your mac, and "share" that network on your wireless nic, to other nearby wireless users. The opposite is also possible, to pull in a wireless signal and share it on your ethernet port. (useful for when you have a 2nd computer that is not wifi capable, and no way to run a cable, but you have another mac with wifi and ethernet to act as a bridge)

    Would it be possible to plug in a wifi cardbus card into say, a powerbook that already had wifi, and bridge between the built-in and the add-on wifi? I don't see any reason why this wouldn't work, besides maybe interferance.

    Not as cheap as doing it with one nic, but maybe more efficient?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:can this be done on OS X with bridging? by Pius+II. · · Score: 1

      It seems like this can be in OS X by rather clicking the "Duplicate" button in your network settings while having your Airport card selected. I don't have two wireless APs to test, but it sure works for connecting to two networks transmitting over the same ethernet wire.

    2. Re:can this be done on OS X with bridging? by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      I just tested this theory, it doesn't seem to work. The "AirPort Copy" doesn't get an IP address assigned while you're connected to another access point.

    3. Re:can this be done on OS X with bridging? by v1 · · Score: 1

      also in 10.3 anyway, Duplicate is not an available button when airpot is selected. available for everything else though...

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  36. Roaming? by Tune · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The blurb makes it sound like this is essentially a way to quickly switch the hardware from one AP to another, buffering packets until the hardware is connected to the proper AP.

    Great idea! That would allow you to switch access points while you're on the move; similar to ordinary cellular networks. The buffering would indeed create some latency, but if both connections are already established it should hardly be noticeble.
    Wouldn't a proper software-defined radio be the real solution, allowing connections to 2 APs simultaneously with only one antenna?

    Yes, but if I remember correctly it is pretty complicated to actually handle parallel radio signals using 802.11b. More likely, it would come down to a form of time sharing with consequently higher latency. Guess they just choose the way of least resistance given that Wifi cards are a relatively cheap component in perspective of longhorn/vista's hardware requirements.

    Anyway, being able to switch AP with low latency would considerably close the gap between wireless voip and gsm phones.
  37. Now if Windows would connect to one network... by Prototerm · · Score: 1

    ...without dropping the connection at least once a day, I'd be happy. Microsoft, makers of the finest semi-functional software in the world!

    --
    "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
  38. Re:Brute force removal by regedit...ugggh by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
    I don't like having to edit the registry to remove things, it is annoying to say the least.

    Did you read what you posted? "Is there a brute force method?" is asked by someone for whom the regular uninstall isn't working. They offer the registry instructions to help people do a complete manual clean-out should things go wrong. Fairly standard stuff, especially for pre-release stuff.

  39. Re:nothing new by pla · · Score: 1

    Care to point us to where you've seen this before?

    Sure: ifconfig eth0 alias 192.168.2.10 netmask 255.255.255.0

  40. Re:WinModem by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
    Do you also remember that they did not work on Linux? I remember trying some Linux drivers made for a Lucent modem and don't think I got it working on my laptop.

    Sigh. "They did not work on Linux" is entirely wrong. The phrase you are looking for is "Linux drivers were not available". There is NO reason why Linux cannot work with a software based modem. Your beef is with the modem manufacturer for not having drivers, not Microsoft trying to "discourage people from using a different OS".

  41. Re:Brute force removal by regedit...ugggh by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    I know I am just ripping on it.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  42. Winmodem Drivers for Linux by ogiller · · Score: 1
    Then what is this?

    "On this page you'll find Linux driver (sources, binary packages) and documentation for so called Winmodems"

    http://www.physcip.uni-stuttgart.de/heby/ltmodem/

    Microsoft is creating a proprietary software WiFi simulator. The point is that once you move the processing of a WiFi signals to a proprietary software simulator the hardware will no longer work under Linux. This is what happened with the WinModem.
    1. Re:Winmodem Drivers for Linux by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      I believe it was the Linux community that coined the phrase "Winmodem". Offloading modem processing to the CPU is not an cornerstone of Microsoft Global Domination Plans (TM).

      The point is that once you move the processing of a WiFi signals to a proprietary software simulator the hardware will no longer work under Linux.

      No No NOOOOO! The moment you add new capabilities to a windows driver, then the linux driver won't have these capabilities. Sheesh. So, let me get this straight: By your logic if I add a car stereo to my Ford, I am directly attacking BMW as their cars won't have my stereo? Does that make sense? Of course not!

  43. Re:Brute force removal by regedit...ugggh by goldspider · · Score: 1

    As opposed to editing a variety of obscure .conf files? Thanks, but no thanks, I'll take the registry. At least it's all in one place.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  44. Re:Brute force removal by regedit...ugggh by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    You mean .ini files. Don't confuse MS bashing with Linux zealotry.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  45. ok a strong question, no humor needed by Itanshi · · Score: 1

    What are the benefits of such a thing? If I had a bittorrent going on each connection, would it make it faster? As in saving them both to the same file.

    1. Re:ok a strong question, no humor needed by vrioux · · Score: 1

      Well I didn't RTFA but my guess on this is that it would permit things like an over-the-air Internet. That is simply the future of all wireless communications. Every computer connects to all available network devices around it and then automatically announces and routes packets between peers. All peers doing this means peer A can contact peer C through peer B since A and C both see B and B is announcing to A that it also sees C and vice-versa.

      Now, the implications of such a thing on a software level is pretty deep. Instead of connecting to an ISP providing you with an IP address, such a peer would have to be able to route and operate without IP addresses, routing packets based on their MAC addresses alone. IP is still possible, but this is a very different story.

      Many scenarios are possible where such a technology would have great value : in-car computers communicating with each others to gather traffic and road-quality data from a few hundred cars in front of you (your in-car computer communicating with the next one in front of you and so on).

      I am sure Microsoft is trying to get there very soon as they are pushing their mobile development very hard since a few years. After all, they want to be with people everywhere they are, from their Family Room (Xbox), to the Office (Windows), and everywhere in between (Windows Mobile, Smartphone, etc.)

  46. no, windows started at version 3.x by jasonhamilton · · Score: 1

    1 is alpha, 2 is alpha, 3 is beta, then you move on to 95 as your first official release.

    --
    SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
  47. Re:No WEP or WPA? by soloport · · Score: 1

    SO true. With Linux & *BSD, WEP and WPA are top priority. Getting WiFI to actually work happens much later. ;-)

  48. Re:nothing new by Jack+Porter · · Score: 1

    Explain how that command allows you to simultaneously connect to a multiple different wireless networks, each with their own SSID and/or channel numbers.

    Windows has been able to alias an interface at the IP level since at least NT 4.0 (TCP/IP section of network configuration, Advanced...)

  49. Who's got non-WEP, non-WPA? by Danuvius · · Score: 1
    So who's got a non-WEP, non-WPA wireless network we can test this on?
    My next-door neighbour does--as evidenced by my post. ;)
    --
    Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
  50. Re:Double speed (Why Funny?) by SithLordOfLanc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not sure the poster meant this to be funny.

    Servers use multiple NICs to increase bandwidth. Why shouldn't a wireless user do the same?

  51. Re:neat, let's test it by davidmcw · · Score: 1

    I could point you to a few subdivisions around here with a veritable plethora of testing opportunities, as it were...

    --
    Just because your paranoid doesn't really mean they aren't out to get you
  52. Re:nothing new by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 1

    This is not what the Microsoft tool does at all.

    --
    Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
  53. /. 'ed by xWastedMindx · · Score: 1

    as of this posting.. the link provided in the article is non-responsive :D

  54. Re:Brute force removal by regedit...ugggh by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    I can write my own uninstaller! It's called 'select all' and 'delete.'

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  55. It's already implemented in Linux by bulbbulb · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's already implemented Linux IEEE 802.11 stack supporting multiple BSSID ( Virtual AP ) and multiple client mode ( Virtual STA ) connections on the same radio interface simultaneously. And it supports WEP/WPA/WPA2 encryption on every virtual interface. And it's linux thing!!
    This is yesterday's press release I found http://i-newswire.com/pr48263.html
    and link to their site http://www.wilibox.com/index.php?id=wili

    1. Re:It's already implemented in Linux by FathomIT · · Score: 1

      The wilibox....that name is kinda hard to forget.

  56. monitor mode in windows by farker+haiku · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the source code will give me some insight into how to impliment a windows equivelant of linux's monitor mode for wireless nics. As far as I can tell, that functionality doesn't exist on windows thus far.

    --
    Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
  57. Cross Polination by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,390204 18,39231005,00.htm/

    YAY Microsoft!

    You knew it was happening, it would be really nice if serious open source projects stayed away from this stuff until there is a decisive technological leader/standard.

    With Wi-Fi equipment hitting $20 only 2 years after it was created there will definitly be a push by the Hardware Manufacturers to try to implement a more expensive standard, lets not let that happen.

    ./team HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

  58. Here's an idea I had.... by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 1
    Since I spend about 5 hours/week in airline "Red Carpet Clubs" (btw, the carpet's never red, but that's another story), and "Admiral's Clubs", some of which have Wi-Fi, I've always thought of this idea:

    1. Receive Wi-Fi (or use my EV-DO card for a a connection)

    2. Reserve it, making it look like the airport lounge's version

    3. Replace every google ad served with my own!

    4. Steal credit card numbers, etc

    5. Profit!

    Of course, I wouldn't really do this, but since such an attack is very possible, I'm VERY careful what I do in an airport lounge. No banking, or work, just the usual kill-time-by-viewing-pr0n-and-slashdot type of thing.

    1. Re:Here's an idea I had.... by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      But you can't do such an attack on an encrypted session -- neither endpoint will divulge their private key to you.

      Just to prevent this attack. Your bank DOES use an end-to-end encrypted communication, yet?

      Otherwise, internet banking wouldn't work at all...

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    2. Re:Here's an idea I had.... by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 1

      You can serve your own "encrypted session" and then re-encrtypt to the bank. Most people won't check the certificate.

  59. Re:neat, let's test it by Americano · · Score: 1

    If you're looking for an un-encrypted wireless signal, come on over... the guy upstairs from me is wide open... the family down the hall is also... one of the apartments on the first floor of my complex is too... the Panera Bread down the street, the public library a couple miles away... all of these are unsecured wireless networks, and that's all within a few miles of where I live. I suspect the results would be much the same in lots of residential areas where high speed connections are in use... I think I'm just about the only person in my building who actually has encryption & MAC address filtering turned on.

  60. New meaning for M.I.T.M. by lildogie · · Score: 1

    Microsoft In The Middle

    1. Re:New meaning for M.I.T.M. by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one singing "You're not the boss of me now[..] and you're not do big"?

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
  61. 802.11b SDR by po8 · · Score: 1

    For some steps toward 802.11b SDR, check out my student's Summer of Code project. Volunteers gratefully accepted!

    An issue we didn't recognize when starting out is that 802.11b actually wants 120MHz or more of bandwidth for a single low-speed channel; it really does spread a lot. Our current hardware really only gives us 60MHz, which will capture the main lobe, which should be enough. Eventually, we might have to go to a hybrid "soft" radio where the despreading is done with some kind of front-end magic, although obviously this is a last-resort solution.

  62. double bandwith by nicotriana · · Score: 1

    does this mean that I can get two connections with the same address and have double bandwith, may be I will be just using to indemendet channels at the radio transciver level? Or would the efective bandwith of each channel drop dramatically (even lower than half of) I dont no but if the we the first is posible at hardware level, may be they can not provide support for WEP becouse the need of decoding the double... just wondering...

  63. Similar to cell networks. by jlseagull · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In cell networks, each handset retains a low-level session to at a minimum two cell towers. When the signal from one tower gets too low, it pops over to the other.

    Good things about this technology:

    - I see this technology being used to reduce handoff delays between networks, or even between access points. The neat thing is that it does it on the client side, not the infrastructure side.

    - The thing that this is going to be best at is mitigating the problems streaming video or audio across a network, where delays of 50ms can kill your stream.

    - Solutions like MobileIP where each AP becomes aware of a care-of address that the client was previously associated with help handoff, but require new firmware on the access point or router. This puts that intelligence on the client side. Increasing the queue depths on both sides couldn't hurt, however.

    - Because 90-95% of the handoff time between access points is a rescan for new channels, keeping a session going between two different networks and being aware of the channels around you will actually reduce congestion and handoff time because there is no rescan and its consequent flood of PROBE frames which clog the channel with BROADCAST responses!

    - Because the clients will retain knowledge of who's around them, the access point's BROADCAST frames can come less often than the present ~100ms, increasing the available bandwidth.

    Not-so-good things about this tech:

    - Not a lot.

    - Subnet resolution might be a problem, no, wait, it wouldn't because they maintain a separate IP address for each virtual adapter. However, if those IP addresses are on the same subnet and someone pings the broadcast address of the subnet, the clients on the other network might respond as well... but I guess that would only happen if the virtual adapters were bridged.

    That's usually the problem with things like MobileIP - some routers don't get the message and update their routing tables so packets get duplicated all over the place.

    - Available IP address space problems. If everyone is opening two sessions...

    - Doesn't support WEP, but who cares. Everything important should be encrypted at the application level anyway. Thing that concerns me is the lack of 802.1x support.

    All in all, not a bad idea. I hope to see more out of these guys. I'm taking this down to the lab to run tcpdump and airopeek on it.

    --
    'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
  64. What a surprise... by thesnarky1 · · Score: 1

    A new Microsoft product... with no security enabled... didn't see that one coming! In all seriousness though, this looks like it might be decent once its gets out of 1.0

  65. Re:neat, let's test it by pclminion · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So who's got a non-WEP, non-WPA wireless network we can test this on? Oh, no-one on the planet.

    I do. You're welcome to associate to it, hell, you can even sniff my traffic if you want. Anything of any real value is already going over SSH or SSL.

    WEP/WPA is for tinfoil-hat wearers. If you wanted security, you would not be using wireless.

  66. cool idea from microsoft. by romerom · · Score: 1

    haven't tried this yet, but this seems like an innovative idea.. sorta like virtual wifi nic bonding. wireless networks are unreliable on their own but if we had a conncetion to multiple wireless networks.. we might actually be able to depend on that connection and maybe build reliable services around that.

    --
    http://www.awwsheezy.com
  67. Re:Double speed (Why Funny?) by JDStone · · Score: 1

    no, I didn't mean this to funny. Exactly, SithLordOfLanc, servers use it, why can't wireless users do the smae. Most people's internet connections aren't higher than 3 or 4 Mbps, so a wireless card should be able to handle it.

  68. Not to bash M$ as this is actually cool by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    In truth this is a very cool if obvious idea. I had considered this myself, not to imply I have the skill to implement this sort of thing. I can see priority mode access being next to impossible this way, because the timing to ensure you don't miss the coordination info; but CSMA/CA seems like it would not take much modification to the driver beyond a round-robin setup to listen to each network for a fixed time, and a queues hold packets to be sent until the card is on the appropriate network. Sure you would drop tons of packet that are sent while you are on the other network but we can always count on TCP to re-send those if the durations of time quantum are shorter then the senders sliding window for the given transmit rate.

            Now for the cheap shoot at M$. If it can't support WEP or WPA then you basically can't connect to any network besides Bubba's default Linksys from the street. In such place there is likely only one network anyway. So leave it to M$ for frosting more useless bloat on to the winders cake. Hopefully someone will make an OSS version that is usable.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  69. Re:Linux equivalent by lidocaineus · · Score: 1

    Not only are you wrong (IP aliasing is not what this is doing, as everyone else has pointed out), but the way you're doing IP aliasing is deprecated in Linux. You should be using ip (the command line tool) instead of ifconfig, and reading the Linux Advanced Routing how-to.

  70. OPN by belial · · Score: 1

    Microsoft MultiNet (Virtual WiFi) could be used to do some really tricky things if the AP buffering were enabled.

    What would be much more interesting of course, is if this were implemented in OSS and not just a Microsoft Research proof of concept. Take a look at OPN, an idea I've been kicking around for some time to see just what you could do with virtual interface support and WiFi.

    http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?doci d=27396&group_id=124603

    You can do a lot more with this than just man-in-the-middle attacks.