Wireless Networks Causing Headaches For Businesses

ElvaWSJ writes "Wi-Fi was supposed to reduce complications, not create new ones. But in many offices Wi-Fi has been a headache. Like all radio signals, Wi-Fi is subject to interference. Its low power — less than even a typical cellphone — means that walls and cabinets can significantly reduce signal strength. Wi-Fi also creates networks that are more open than wired ones, raising security issues. And Wi-Fi has caused problems for virtual private networks. Some VPNs require a lot of processing power. If a wireless access point — at home, at the office, or on the road — isn't robust enough, a user often gets bumped off the connection."

Comments

Um...

[cromar]

Duh?

Well Then...

[AdmNaismith]

Make sure there are some bloody data ports where they are useful. The gods know how many office conference rooms I have walked into where there are two power/data/phone outlets on the far ends of the room behind heavy credenzas, instead of in the middle of the room accessible from the table top. Otherwise just blanket the place with WiFi and suck it up.

Re:Well Then...

[MightyMartian]

Having talked with a few guys in my neck of the woods that sell themselves as network architects, I have the feeling that most of these guys really don't have the vaguest idea how to properly plan and roll out a network. They're too lazy, or their bosses are too cheap, to put in, maintain and extend a decent wired network, and so buy into the idea that going out and buying some NetGear routers and access points will mean everything is hunky dorey. Then, as the months roll by, and people have an increasing number of problems both with security and with basic access, the whole pile of steaming crap starts to unravel.

To my mind anyone who comes up to me and says "Our network has problems, and I can't keep my VPN up because they put in a new partition walli n accounting" is pretty much stating that whoever it is that maintains and plans their network ought to be forceably removed from the building.

Surprising!

[gen0c1de]

Not really, if you are a business that is deploying wifi as a solution to allow laptop users to move around fine, however if it is cheap solution to installing hard wired cables to each desk then someone needs to be re-informed about the pitfalls.

Supplement not Replacement

[jeffy210]

Wifi should be a supplement for larger areas with changing configurations (meeting rooms, conference rooms, etc) not as a replacement for a typical wired setup. Unless you plan on constantly rearranging your cubes, there's no reason to do that. Also you should think of the two networks as being completely separate and treat the wireless network as a public access point (i.e. force VPN access to the wired portion of your network).

I see the problem coming in where people think it's a wired replacement.

Re:Supplement not Replacement

[The-Ixian]

Yep, that is exactly how I have it set up here. I cringe every time I go into a new client site and see them using OPEN wireless access points as an extension of their wired LAN. At the very least encrypt it....

Re:Supplement not Replacement

[Kadin2048]

Yep, that is exactly how I have it set up here. I cringe every time I go into a new client site and see them using OPEN wireless access points as an extension of their wired LAN. At the very least encrypt it....

There's no good reason to use encryption in a corporate environment. Put all the wireless APs in the DMZ, so that they're outside the network, and leave the APs open. That way you don't have to make users screw around trying to get WEP/WPA/whatever to work, or use crummy MAC-based authentication schemes (that are a steaming pile anyway; whoever decided authentication based on MAC addresses was a good idea should be shot). Until you do that, wireless security is (in my experience anyway) harmful, because it makes the PHBs think they're on a "secure network" and shouldn't have to VPN. And once you require everyone to VPN when they use wireless, there's no point in using WEP/WPA on top of it (particularly considering that WEP is so broken as to be useless, and lots of devices don't support WPA).

The problem isn't lack of encryption, it's putting wireless APs in on the trusted side of the network at all. Avoid doing that, and treat someone connecting from an AP just like you'd treat someone connecting from Kalamazoo (meaning they have to connect via a VPN and authenticate), and you avoid most of the security vulnerabilities that plague wireless installs.

Re:Supplement not Replacement

[wperry1]

This may be a good way to protect your servers and other internal systems but without encryption enabled you still allow anyone to hop on your WiFi and attempt to hack your clients.

low power -- less than even a typical cellphone

[niceone]

Good thing it doesn't have to work over as great a distance as a cell phone then. It's almost as it it was designed that way!

Metal objects block radio

[also-rr]

News at 11.

I used to do wireless mesh network algorythm development and we had (with 802.11b) acceptable, AES encrypted, coverage of a motor factory (think *lots* of wire and EM) with nodes running on 200mhz arm systems and 64mb of ram. No problems with VOIP either. You just need to do some (ok, expensive) system design and there's no reason why it wont work. In the demo system the nodes updated their routing tables using a ropey bash script even :)

Expecting that off the shelf gear can magically set itself up is the problem, not the protocol itself (which can be worked around in many interesting ways).

Security, security, security

[Anonymous Coward]

1 - No radio signal is safe from detection and decryption. There's no way I would trust my business secrets to wifi.

2 - There have been so many laptops stolen with highly sensitive files. There's no way I would let my employees connect their laptops to a network where they have access to such files.

So my solution is: A wired network for desktops. No floppies. No USB. The sensitive files stay within the building. Wifi is OK for people to browse the net and do e-mail. There. One wifi point in the lounge and another in the cafeteria. Problem solved.

Clarification

[Kadin2048]

There's no good reason to use encryption in a corporate environment.

I mean, there's no reason to use client-to-accesspoint encryption. Instead you should be encrypting directly from the client to the VPN gateway.

If there was a mobile phone base unit....

[Anonymous Coward]

hooked into the phone system of the office, Why wasn't there a simple ethernet jack along with it?

Re:Bullshit

[Mike Buddha]

VPN sessions are much more time sensitive than other applications. Any latency caused by, oh say, packet retransmission due to interference will cause the session to be invalidated. Try connecting a VPN through a satellite connection (HughesNet), or through an access point in an area with lots of other wireless networks overlapping. You WILL lose your connections. Heck, I've had problems using some dial-up services even.