6 Burning Questions About Wireless Networks

alphadogg writes "Answers to wireless network questions such as: What impact will 802.11n have? Which wireless security threats are scariest? What of wireless VoIP? Will your organization need to change to support enterprise mobility? How do you control costs in an expanding mobile and wireless environment? What can you do to stop wireless denial-of-service attacks?"

Comments

My question

[CastrTroy]

Here's my question. When are router manufacturers going to start requiring people to use WPA security? I got a Wii a couple weeks ago, and used the wireless part of my wireless router for the first time. Setup of WPA was very easy. I also found about 5 other open networks that I could have connected my Wii to. I find it amazing that people are leaving their connections open when setting up a secure connection is so easy.

Re:My question

[dattaway]

Those open connections are just part of the redundancy of the internet. And the next time RIAA come knocking on our door, we just point fingers again.

Re:My question

[morgan_greywolf]

Here's my question. When are router manufacturers going to start requiring people to use WPA security? I got a Wii a couple weeks ago, and used the wireless part of my wireless router for the first time. Setup of WPA was very easy. I also found about 5 other open networks that I could have connected my Wii to. I find it amazing that people are leaving their connections open when setting up a secure connection is so easy.

Is it up to Microsoft to require people to use secure passwords? Is it up to Oracle to require people with sensitive data to use the data encryption features of Oracle? Is it up to the postfix authors to require people to not run open mail relays?

As always, security is left up to those running the system. Similarly, wireless network security is up to those running the network. You can't force people to be secure. All you can do is strongly encourage it.

Re:My question

[danbert8]

Yes, but when you start Windows for the first time, it asks you to set a password. When you plug in your router, it does not ask you to set up wireless encryption. You can always leave the password blank for Windows, but you were at least given a prompt to set one.
 
Moral of the story: Never underestimate an idiot... They will always do nothing more than you make them.

Re:My question

[Anonymous Coward]

Require? Why the hell should they 'require' it? I can see turning it on be default, but no way should it be required.

I choose to share my wireless with anyone who might need to connect to check their mail etc. I VPN from my laptop to my OpenBSD gateway to keep my own work encrypted, and also allow access my wired home server.

I use the packet filter to ensure I get first dibs on traffic, but any spare bandwidth is open for others to use as the need.

Having it on by default is good. Having it required is not.

Re:My question

[CastrTroy]

I hope you don't regret it when the cops come knocking on your door because somebody has been using your wireless connection to do something illegal like trading child porn. Maybe you wouldn't get convicted because they won't find any other evidence, but I'm sure it would be a major inconvenience. Why risk it? I know you're just trying to be a good Samaritan, but I pay for my internet, and expect that my neighbors would do the same.

Re:My question

[c_woolley]

I agree. I also think we should point out the number of people that simply do not understand what they are doing or what is needed to secure a wireless connection. My mom is fairly tech-savvy for an older (I hope like hell she doesn't read this) woman. She understands quite a bit more than the average user. She was new to wireless connections, and decided to give it a try. When she called me to ask if there was anything to do besides plugging the provider's connection to her router, she was surprised when I told her she needed to secure it. She assumed (as someone else had already mentioned in a later post) that security was enabled by default. I walked her through the process without any problems, but it still remains that she did not know that enabling security was required. I asked her why she didn't figure it was needed and why wouldn't she feel that anyone could connect if the wireless connection. It didn't ask her for a password or some type of authentication, her computer was able to get to the Internet. Wouldn't that mean Joe Anyone could get there through her connection too. Her answer was simple, and yet effective. "Well, when I plugged my computer into my old router, it never asked me for a password either...smartass." And there is the answer. People are used to not having to secure their physical connections. If they do, it is usually much worse a situation for the average user, since their home is probably being burglarized at the same time. Now, it isn't the same situation for everyone. Some people know fully well that they need to secure their connections, and just don't. Call it lazy or whatever, maybe they just don't care enough or don't think their information is worth stealing. I have even run into one man who opened his connection up so that his neighbors could surf on his dime. He paid for a 12Mb connection and only used the Internet to surf the news. He didn't care that his neighbors were playing World of Warcraft or other online games. As long as his connection to the news was good, so was he. I suppose the bottom line is that there are reasons for everyone. Increasing some people's knowledge about it can help, others may just not care. Either way, I'll still be able to sit at home and open up my network connections and see unsecured networks. It's on me to decide whether or not to take advantage...and on my neighbors to figure out why they have to rebuild their systems every two weeks (just kidding).

Re:My question

[battjt]

And what will you do when the police come knocking on your door because someone filmed child porn in your backyard?

Why risk it? Put up a 20 foot fence!

What will you do when you find out that a homicide was committed with your hotwired car? How about the death threats made on your phone line (you should have bought a T1 and used encryption back to the CO)? What about the death threats to the president spray painted on your garage? The weed grown by the alley at the back of your lot? etc...

Get real! This is life. The benefits of open WiFi far outweigh the risks. Hell, I've used lots of anonymous connections in a pinch (most recently to look up the default IP of my radio, to configure it).

You drive down the street with a complete strangers approaching with a closing speed of over 110 mph, but you wont leave your internet connection open?!

Joe

Re:My question

[Deliveranc3]

Corrolary question, when will they give me a wireless security setup that matches what I want.

I want to share about 30-40Kpbs and have intelligent performance algorithms managing the rest, I want to have my transmissions encrypted while allowing others to SHARE my web-access. (I know that's a big word, like "communist").

When we move to 802.11n (Assuming the same number of wireless routers as currently exist there will be almost 80-90% coverage in urban areas, why would I need a cell phone if we all shared, how about intelligent sharing between networks as a mesh? Once we overflow the casual bandwidth limits we can stop dealing with this "expensive last mile" crap and start getting isolated fibre channels.

My computer is secure, my internet access is mostly encrypted or tunneled, but I don't have access everywhere for affordable prices, I don't think security and sharing have to be mutually exclusive.

Re:My question

[steveo777]

Well then, that is a good indicator that you are in the wrong neighborhood.

The neighborhood will never have anything to do with what kind of neighbors you have when they shut the front door. Sure, you can get a good idea by looking at the outside, and everything may look pleasant. "Never judge a book by its cover"

A friend of mine had a roommate for six months. Everyone agreed he was a pretty good guy. If not a bit obnoxious. A month after the guy moved out the police broke in with a warrant, took every computer and all his media. Movies, cassettes, CDs, DVDs, blanks, everything. They pull my friend into the station and put him behind a mirror and ask him tonnes of invasive questions about sexuality. After a couple weeks they call back. They talked to the old roommate, who confessed to trafficking child pornography. My friend got everything back, which I understand doesn't always happen.

I'd say it's a good idea to secure your network or at least keep some kind of log.

Re:My question

[crossmr]

Don't buy a residential device? If you want to do advanced set up, pony up the bucks and go purchase a device to do it.
As mentioned FON is a cheap solution to do that, it puts out 2 SSIDs, a shared one and a private encrypted on, and you can use the web interface I believe to rate limit people on your open shared line.

Otherwise go buy a high quality business device with more than one available AP and set it up to do whatever you want. Cisco has tons of devices that can deliver you that kind of setup. So the answer is, its already there. Go nuts.

Favorite question so far...

[hal2814]

Q: "Is wireless [Wi-Fi-based] VoIP worth the bother?"

A: "Generally, no."

Sponsored by AT&T

Which wireless security threats are scariest?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I voted for Tesla coils.

The real questions about WiFi:

[Opportunist]

1. Why can't Router manufacturers make WPA the default and use "no security" instead?

2. Why can't we get the information just how far away the "full bandwidth" works, instead of finding out without fail that most APs can hardly provide the promised bandwidth over distances more than 5 yards?

3. How long 'til we can't use WiFi anymore because all frequencies are already taken by your neighbors and the companies around you? Worse, can you soon be forced to discontinue your WiFi use because the company next door needs your frequency? (Because, yes, it's unusable past 20 yards but can easily interfere with networks a few miles away, it seems)

4. What's the legal implication when someone uses my WiFi AP without my consent by hacking into it and distributing illegal material through it? I'm waiting for the first verdict where you have a completely secure AP, someone still manages to break it and then...?

5. In turn, what about "free" APs, kept open deliberately. What about town wide WiFi networks, a few cities already started a project but they never went anywhere. Care to tell us why?

Re:The real questions about WiFi:

[Idbar]

1. Why can't Router manufacturers make WPA the default and use "no security" instead?

I say, why WPA, why not WEP or 802.1x? Because everything is based on Drafts not standards so everyone does what they want.

2. Why can't we get the information just how far away the "full bandwidth" works, instead of finding out without fail that most APs can hardly provide the promised bandwidth over distances more than 5 yards?
That mainly depends on both your router and your network card, therefore it's quite complicated to know exactly these distances. You might as well buy a 1W router and radiate everyone around you. They are only US$1000+

3. How long 'til we can't use WiFi anymore because all frequencies are already taken by your neighbors and the companies around you? Worse, can you soon be forced to discontinue your WiFi use because the company next door needs your frequency? (Because, yes, it's unusable past 20 yards but can easily interfere with networks a few miles away, it seems)
Frequencies around 2G are not licensed, reason why cordless phones and later WiFi routers were put into that range. As long as you don't radiate too much power, it shouldn't be a problem. You can switch among (at least) 3 non-interfering channels or 11 channels in total, without counting on the SSID. Of course the more devices you have attached, the worse the performance (which takes you again to your 2nd question).

What it comes to my mind is, WHY people keeps using SSIDs like "linksys" or "netgear", and the really poor implementation of the wireless connection managers in MAC and Windows (Linux is primitive, but at least does what you want).

What I want to know is

[rsilvergun]

What the heck are we going to do about everyone and his bro having his own wireless router? It's a special kind of heck when you've got an apartment complex with 7 or 8 or 10 wireless networks all in range and all competing. Add to that cell phones, wireless cameras, printers, etc, etc, and wireless is rapidly becoming useless...

Is 802.11n more reliable?

[jonnyj]

The article seems to assume that 802.11n offers so much more bandwidth that no-one will bother with ethernet any more. Unless the new standard is less susceptible to neighbouring networks, that's just not the case

18 months ago I set up a MythTV setup based around an 802.11g wireless network and, at first, it worked flawlessly - two clients and the server could simultaneously stream TV to/from the router. Then my neighbours started using own networks in anger and the bandwidth available to me gradually dissolved.

Now my network can't come close to supporting one streaming device. Even surfing the net wirelessly is painful, with regular 2-3 second dropouts when the whole street hits the airwaves simultaneously. I've long since given up on wifi and switched to homeplug.

I'm not alone. Most people I know who live in densely populated areas have the same problem. Does 802.11n suffer from the same problems? I imagine that the increased range will just lead to increased contention when its popularity increases. I'm not about to buy it.

Re:Is 802.11n more reliable?

[CallFinalClass]

N suffers from all these problems.

Let me be more specific - 2.4 GHz N suffers from all of these problems. For now, I expect the 5 GHz N implementations to be in much better shape.

Tip of the hat to Apple for making all of their N gear 5 GHz capable.

Wag of the finger to just about everyone else for making their stuff 2.4 Ghz only, likely for backwards compatibility and cost savings.

VoWiFi FUD

[mach1980]

The article mentions VoWiFi quality as poor, which makes me believe that the writer is handling the truth somewhat irresponsibly.

I work for one leading VoWiFi company that currently installs a lot of systems at US hospitals. Do you think the hospital administrations should accept anything than perfect performance?

A MOS of 4.2 using ETSI's own measurements and seamless handover is what we are talking about. Not FUD about dropped calls etc. Our i75 passed Cisco's own certification program before their own product and has won a number of prices for best product.

Y.T.