Microsoft need not QA the patches, simply provide a vendor interface for distributing them to detected installed software. The Vendor needs to QA their own patches before pushing them through. This could easily be distinguished in the update GUI as "patches from 3rd parties" clearly disassociating responsibility. The idea is simply a unified solution, which can be centrally controlled, scheduled, and which users would know that patches are coming from legitimate sources (not a mailware pretending to be a patch).
As for the iPhone/iPad, itunes itself, and the other supporting apple products should be patched (on windows) through Microsoft update like any other. On OS X it's patched through Apple's central resource. Further, it's patched when you dock it, not when it fells like notifying you of a patch, as an action of syncing and backing up, and all updated apps are patched at once, through a central resource.
Yes, you also get notifications on the iPhone of app updates and can patch directly, but it is still a central system, and still an all-at-once operation. Also, the iPhone has no known vulnerabilities to exploit outside of the OS itself (apps can't access OS and other resources, and background operation of viruses and bots is not possible). Even the "theorized" exploits require the hacker to know your phone number, and for you to have an SSH server running on the device, and still all they might be able to do is access your calendar and contact files. It's a simple solution and has little or no security risk. If PCs updated like the iPad I'd be happy.
Its not about deciding whether or not to update, it's about how and when I'm notified, understanding the nature of the patch, and the various systems that all abuse my network pinging against 50 different resources (and all consuming CPU cycles to do it) which can all be centralized and made much more secure.
yes, there may be some issues with posting delays due to patches. However, if a back end system were properly designed, top vendors with worldwide distribution should be able to easily interface, and post their own patches and control the severity level, so same day patching should be viable. The mechanism is there, it just needs to be USED!
Confusing isn't the issue, knowing when it's important and not important to actually install the patch, and knowing when the patches requires/doesn't require a reboot is a problem. In many cases it may also be confusing to know if a patch notification is legitimate or a scam as well.
I leave a LOT of stuff mid-process. It REALLY pisses me off when I find Windows has automatically rebooted my machine, and I've gone to great pains to choose browsers and applications that can auto-resume or auto-save when this happens. It's also annoying when you get prompted trying to open an app, it needs a patch that's non descriptive, and then it insists on rebooting the machine before you can proceed, in many cases causing you to loose the link you clicked on in the first place that launched said app.
If all of this was centralized, provided as a service, schedulable, and clearly defined both priority and impact of the patch, it would be better. More so if multiple patches from multiple vendors could be concurrently installed.
microsoft already extends the Microsoft Update system to their own apps, as well as 3rd party drivers, why can't they further extend it to 3rd party APPS!
It's not confusing, it's infuriating...
Apple Update, Microsoft Update, Java, Adobe, browsers, Steam, games, apps, antivirus, anti-spyware, VM engine, and then all the patching inside the VMs... This is the reason I want an iPad so bad: one less fucking system to patch.....
It's not even about "support." In a lot of cases, it's about bandwidth. IE patches from within Windows, and can be directed at a local in-house server. FF patches by checking a web site when you open it. Imaging 15,000 users coming in an a Monday and between 7:30 and 9AM all of them hit the web with FF to download a several tens of megs update... Add plug-ins, Java, Flash, and half a dozen other apps that do the same thing, and you have a shit-load of traffic to manage...
Sure, this can be handled through image management, Config Managers (system center, etc), firewall blocking of updates, and more, but that's a cost too, and IE has none of it.
it may totally suck as a browser, but it's one that's enterprise manageable.
Some of them belong to NeXT Computing, Apple's wholly owned subsidiary, who is also a complainant in this case. Some of them were filed under shell companies, a common practice for Apple and other big technology companies who wish to both file patents but keep early developments secret from their competitors.
Some of them are only a few years from expiring, well before GUIs were even common. The rest, the iPhone itself was the first mobile device to use such technology. Just because you drew the idea on paper, or because it applied to a different category of device matters not. If you didn't patemt it, or produce an actual functional prototype, a drawing on paper is not technology and does not count for prior art.
Yea, some are going to get thrown out, but this is patent 101, if you have it, whether you believe even yourself if it should stand or not, put it on the pile...
"some" are questionable. Others (most) appear rock solid. It;s simply common practice in ANY patent squabble that when you take a shot, you pile in the gunpowder. No, most of these patents will get smacked down, but the remainder are insurmountable and that's the point.
Apple rarely fires these shots, typically they're defending from themselves trolls or companies that can't compete more traditionally. However, occasionally you do have to trot out the lawyers, if not more just to remind the remainder of the competition that just because a few companies have done something already, without challenge, doesn't mean you can too.
At least the bulk of these patents are not some stupid GUI functions, and are related to hardware and systems developed by Apple honestly.
I'm not a fan of patent suits, and I call for patent reform, but HTC has crossed a few lines recently, and yea, I agree with many others, this is equally a shot directly at Google that can't otherwise easily be made.
The ethical guidelines for participating in medical research is for research done on, for, or to the patient in question. They can't GIVE you something, or TREAT you without informed consent, but they CAN use data about you, and cells from you, with or without your permission. It's done every day in medical facilities around the world.
The basic premises of the Declaration of Helsinki is that patients make informed decisions about medical procedures that effect their welfare, and refers to research PARTICIPANTS.
If they want to take your blood for research, they need to ask your permission to take it. However, if they're taking your blood for other purposes, and you're informed and consent to the removal of the blood (the risk factor top the patient), whats done with that blood above and beyond the initial medical need you consented to is irrelevant, unless it were to be re-introduced somehow to your system.
Don;t quote things that do not apply just because you'd LIKE them to apply. If you don't like the practice, just say "i think this law needs to be changed and here's why" but don't go around spreading FUD, only assholes do that.
Much of the data is to be secured, however, much of it is in fact already on 3rd party systems or outsourced to start with, so i don;t see a change in risk.
Also, the bulk of the systems i believe they're talking about here, that could be outsourced (non-military owned), are almost exclusively simply web apps tied to databases. yea, the IRS and a few others peg pretty high, but all those tiny little underfunded departments that currently run their own servers should not do so, and that's the low hanging fruit to start with....
Good thing this has little to do with software, it's about hardware, system image, operations support, and physical consolidation. Once it's all done, they can work on the software.
I'm not disagreeing with your post, you;re dead on for massive software projects. Just pointing out this isn't one...
We just went through a massive consolidation like this, for about 3,000 servers. it was mostly smooth, and run under budget in terms of the project cost (and saved us tens of millions by going through it).
I don't know, we started with a network of well over 3,000 servers, and in less than 2 years we've moved almost entirely off Win 2K, virtualized over 1,000 servers, moved to AIX 6 and VIO, delpoyed a VMWare infrastructure, deployed an Exchange architecture in place of a legacy e-mail system, and converted more than half our web apps into SOA and put it on IFLs in a mainframe. We cut from over 3,000 systems, nearly all physical, to under 2500 with near half virtual, and saved significant money in the process vs budgeted outlays. We've reduced our data center footprint by 60-70%, and our power draw is down dramatically.
The forward looking TCO now that the bulk of the migrations are done is impressively smaller.
We did all this while holding to DOD network standards.
The problem the government will have, which we fought with a bit but was no where near as big of a deal, is getting hundreds of small business units to agree to consolidate to central systems, and to convert from "these servers are mine, see, here's where I paid for them" to a metered utilization budget system where hardly any smaller government agency owns it's own infrastructure.
USB 1.0, back in 2003. Just wasn't a viable option. I'm not that dumb. If I didn't require a PCMCIA connector for other reasons, I'd have used that. Wired also was not an option due to a slab foundation and vaulted ceiling in the home. I really did try to avoid this, but when no other options were available, I tried to simply turn down his antenna gain so I'd not pick it up but it would not effect his signal inside the home. His router (and most of the ones he replaced it with) didn't support that.
We did try other methods. messing with his router was about a last resort. He was offered help through the HOA securing it otherwise, and I tried to approach him and he flipped me off. (we had battles over his yard maintenance and parking on the street issues previously with the HOA and him, which he blamed on me, when in reality the complaints came from the Mexicans next door to him).
Not on USB 1.0. This was quite some time ago... (ya know, before remote admin over wifi became default disabled, today i could never do this without hard wiring in).
A lot of people have also pointed out this "asshole" thing. Not exactly my most shining hour, but we really did pursue other friendly arenas first...
i could have simply called TWC and informed them he was providing open wifi and they'd have cut off his service... I figured relatively harmless tinkering would get the point across (I didn't think it would take nearly that long, but he was a stubborn ass).
I honestly thought it would only be once or twice before he'd ask someone for help. And eventually we did help him, once he was pissed off enough to start a conversation. Some people are just too stubborn for their own good, and in the end he learned a valuable lesson, and it still cost him less than BestBuy installing it for him.
Maybe after replacing/exchanging 5-6 routers, he should have simply read the manual, since if he actually did that, he would have secured it...
At least it was only an annoyance. We cost him no damage, less money that BestBuy would have charged for in-home support, and though we could have screwed with his computer as well, that would have actualyl violated laws...
Not my finest hour, but some people only learn through trial by fire, and this guy was one of those.
nbot easy to replace a near $2K notebook, but I eventually did, less than a year after the initial discovery of it's faults. Not the kind of thing you run out a pick up at Walmart on the spare change lying around...
All the asshole had to do was either take the HOA's advice and secure it, like we had printed in the newsletter, or decide to give me the time of day instead of the finger (we had battles already over his yard upkeep and his parking on the street).
This was proprietary, non-standard hardware. XP could not control it, believe me I tried!. Shit, first thing I tried to do when we got the machine was remove all of Gateway's crap... The WiFi card, NIC card, and the ATI drivers were exclusive to gateway, and could not be otherwise replaced (everything else was). I dealt with gateway and Microsoft on it...
1) laptop was a propritary driver issue, nothing I could do. other systems as i mentioned had no issues. XP's wireless utility could not operate the card, could not use the PCMCIA slot (due to other requirements), and the machine was way too expensive to simply replace (very high end gaming notebook). 2) We tried the nice route with this guy before on other issues, and we also had the HOA send out a newsletter about securing wireless to prevent identity theft. The guy, and his friends, were frat-boy assholes, and a problem for half the neighborhood. 3) I provided a lot of free network support to other friendly residents, and he knew that. I initially though it would be a once or twice thing, but his stubborness became a game... If he wans't already an asshole, i'd have helped.
great, Verizon, AT&T. it's a start... you'd think now that Cisco owned Linksys it might have improved, but no.
i can understand to an extent, people treat complex network systems and security as a $30 commodity component businesses. A single support call kills the profit from 10 units sold. If it wasn't a "plug in, turn on" install, they'd be unprofitable.
Yea, actually tried going through the HOA first. Talking to the guy directly was something we'd done before with no success on other issues. He was a real asshole to start with. Kinda felt good doing that.
i also lacked mentioning (since I didn't think anyone cared), that I was primary network support for about 10 houses in the neighborhood, and help a lot of folks with their gear for little or no charge, after they met me at a garrage sale and saw all my used gear and inquired as to my job. If he was open to that kind of chat, we would have. he proved ignorant and aggressive to start with... Might have shed some context on that.
Yea, had the HOA deal with that first... Even sent a letter to all residents discussing proper home network security and identity theft risks... I got into the fight several months later.
The issue was a gateweay proprietary wifi driver, XP actually could not control the card at all with it's own tools. I mentioned my other machines had no issues.
He was actually a punk frat boy, with a loud ass truck, loud ass friends, and we'd had confrontations about his yard and about parking on the street at night already. The only reason he even talked to me was he was so pissed I think he needed to vent.
We did eventually replace it, about a year later when i could afford to replace the machine (a rather high end machine for a gateway, closest specs i could find to replace it cost me over $1800). Some dumb ass gateway driver, default windows drivers could not operate the card at all. Nothing in XP could prevent the connection. Notebook would not take Vista. Seriously, i tried for weeks before I resorted to other measures, including opening a support call with Microsoft and multiple with gateway. I'd also changed my own SSIDs and network settings numerous times thinking that might work. It was a driver issue, and gateway no longer supported it. The PCMCIA port was in use by another device, so an alternate adapter was not an option.
Honestly, because he was a punk a-hole with a loud ass truck, loud ass friends, and we'd already had a few fights about how he (failed to) upkeep his yard and home.
Also, the HOA had sent letters out to all residents about 3 months earlier regarding securing open networks.
The drivers on that machine, regardless of the settings in XP, could not ignore a network for anything. Delte it and it came back, approve it but lower the priority and it would come back. Something about the logic looked for open networks and prioritized them first, then did additional searches listing secure networks, then finally looked for approved networks with hidden SSIDs it knew about. Since it would always find his first, it always connected. My other machines had no such issues. It was a GateWay POS...
Yea, it would thanks, but her wireless adapter (built in, nothing i can do about it) and it's driver set, apparently chose the first system it could conenct to, regardless of XPs settings. As i stated, no issues with other machines. i even had a Microsoft support case opened for it and they blamed it on the hardware.
My problems with my neighbors were not them stealing my WiFi, but in how they set up their routers... One specifically had a wide open router that for some damned reason my Wife's XP notebook would exclusively connect to, even when the signal was weaker than available preferred networks. I did everything I could to make XP either forget or disregard his network, but it would not. Something in XP (even after re-installation), simply insisted on connecting to his SSID over my secure one. This really pissed me off as the wife would establish VPNs to work, then try to print something to our printer only to find out she was not on our network, and would have to redo significant work, or the connection would just drop because his signal was weak.
Well, needless to say, he was a computer moron. Took the router out of the box, plugged it in, and went. It took about 10 seconds to log onto his device and turn the antenna off, then set a complex admin password. Every couple of days it would be back, so I'd break it again. After a few weeks, i noticed it was a new model, so I repeated the same process on it after XP continued to insist on connecting to it. (and just HER damned notebook, not any of my other 3 XP machines). I talked to him one day while I was mowing the lawn and he complained about the damned thing, and several calls to support, but they couldn't fix it, and apparently at no time ever suggested him to secure it either.
This went on for a while. He apparently rarely used his wireless (he was rarely home), and actually, i think it wasn't even his notebook, but a friend's he had the wireless for, so when I'd turn off his device, it would be a while till it came on. One Saturday though I turned it off, and it came back on quick. So, I did it again, several times in that day. He went out for a while after about the 4th time, and came back an hour later with a blue BestBuy bag with what looked like another new router. This was going to be fun...
By the end of Sunday afternoon, I had that poor bastard back to the store not less than 5 times, each time with a different router. I was practically camped by the family room window waiting to see him come and go, and had his unit shut down within minutes each time he got a new one up and running. Eventually, the wife made me go out and talk to him (honestly, even i was getting bored of the routine, and also noted this wasn't seeming to be coming to an end, he wasn't getting the hints), so I wen out and "inquired" as to the repeated trips to BestBuy. He told me his side of the story...
I said, "Oh, you're probably getting interference from someone else's system in the neighborhood, didn't support tell you that? You should secure your device" Then i offered he pay me $50 to do it for him (BestBuy was charging $149 at that time, and apparently got quite insistent that if he returned anohter device they'd not give him his money back unless they did an onsite install of the next one). he agreed, I secured it, set his SSID to hidden, and didn't have issues again (with him).
I've had other neighbors who were complete morons too. One apparently went around telling everyone else to hard set their access points to channel 2, since it was statistically the clearest channel. (I have NO idea where he got that one). It didn't phase me, but every one of them had issues... This only caused me issues because all their damned devices were only seeing my router, with all the other interference, and although it was secure, my log files occasionally filled up with people trying and failing to log on. Another convinced all the people in an apartment complex to pay him for Internet access, and set himself up as a mini ISP. Well, besides it being a huge hassle, as 15 people trying to hit his AP at once caused issues for sure, apparently one of them called support and spilled the beans. My, not being a dumb ass, maintained my own connection on a secure router, however, i had a HELL of a time proving to TWC that I was not the one sharing my conn
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft need not QA the patches, simply provide a vendor interface for distributing them to detected installed software. The Vendor needs to QA their own patches before pushing them through. This could easily be distinguished in the update GUI as "patches from 3rd parties" clearly disassociating responsibility. The idea is simply a unified solution, which can be centrally controlled, scheduled, and which users would know that patches are coming from legitimate sources (not a mailware pretending to be a patch).
As for the iPhone/iPad, itunes itself, and the other supporting apple products should be patched (on windows) through Microsoft update like any other. On OS X it's patched through Apple's central resource. Further, it's patched when you dock it, not when it fells like notifying you of a patch, as an action of syncing and backing up, and all updated apps are patched at once, through a central resource.
Yes, you also get notifications on the iPhone of app updates and can patch directly, but it is still a central system, and still an all-at-once operation. Also, the iPhone has no known vulnerabilities to exploit outside of the OS itself (apps can't access OS and other resources, and background operation of viruses and bots is not possible). Even the "theorized" exploits require the hacker to know your phone number, and for you to have an SSH server running on the device, and still all they might be able to do is access your calendar and contact files. It's a simple solution and has little or no security risk. If PCs updated like the iPad I'd be happy.
Its not about deciding whether or not to update, it's about how and when I'm notified, understanding the nature of the patch, and the various systems that all abuse my network pinging against 50 different resources (and all consuming CPU cycles to do it) which can all be centralized and made much more secure.
yes, there may be some issues with posting delays due to patches. However, if a back end system were properly designed, top vendors with worldwide distribution should be able to easily interface, and post their own patches and control the severity level, so same day patching should be viable. The mechanism is there, it just needs to be USED!
crap, forgot the printers, iPhone, camera firmware, god it just keeps going!
Confusing isn't the issue, knowing when it's important and not important to actually install the patch, and knowing when the patches requires/doesn't require a reboot is a problem. In many cases it may also be confusing to know if a patch notification is legitimate or a scam as well.
I leave a LOT of stuff mid-process. It REALLY pisses me off when I find Windows has automatically rebooted my machine, and I've gone to great pains to choose browsers and applications that can auto-resume or auto-save when this happens. It's also annoying when you get prompted trying to open an app, it needs a patch that's non descriptive, and then it insists on rebooting the machine before you can proceed, in many cases causing you to loose the link you clicked on in the first place that launched said app.
If all of this was centralized, provided as a service, schedulable, and clearly defined both priority and impact of the patch, it would be better. More so if multiple patches from multiple vendors could be concurrently installed.
microsoft already extends the Microsoft Update system to their own apps, as well as 3rd party drivers, why can't they further extend it to 3rd party APPS!
It's not confusing, it's infuriating...
Apple Update, Microsoft Update, Java, Adobe, browsers, Steam, games, apps, antivirus, anti-spyware, VM engine, and then all the patching inside the VMs... This is the reason I want an iPad so bad: one less fucking system to patch.....
It's not even about "support." In a lot of cases, it's about bandwidth. IE patches from within Windows, and can be directed at a local in-house server. FF patches by checking a web site when you open it. Imaging 15,000 users coming in an a Monday and between 7:30 and 9AM all of them hit the web with FF to download a several tens of megs update... Add plug-ins, Java, Flash, and half a dozen other apps that do the same thing, and you have a shit-load of traffic to manage...
Sure, this can be handled through image management, Config Managers (system center, etc), firewall blocking of updates, and more, but that's a cost too, and IE has none of it.
it may totally suck as a browser, but it's one that's enterprise manageable.
Some of them belong to NeXT Computing, Apple's wholly owned subsidiary, who is also a complainant in this case. Some of them were filed under shell companies, a common practice for Apple and other big technology companies who wish to both file patents but keep early developments secret from their competitors.
Some of them are only a few years from expiring, well before GUIs were even common. The rest, the iPhone itself was the first mobile device to use such technology. Just because you drew the idea on paper, or because it applied to a different category of device matters not. If you didn't patemt it, or produce an actual functional prototype, a drawing on paper is not technology and does not count for prior art.
Yea, some are going to get thrown out, but this is patent 101, if you have it, whether you believe even yourself if it should stand or not, put it on the pile...
"some" are questionable. Others (most) appear rock solid. It;s simply common practice in ANY patent squabble that when you take a shot, you pile in the gunpowder. No, most of these patents will get smacked down, but the remainder are insurmountable and that's the point.
Apple rarely fires these shots, typically they're defending from themselves trolls or companies that can't compete more traditionally. However, occasionally you do have to trot out the lawyers, if not more just to remind the remainder of the competition that just because a few companies have done something already, without challenge, doesn't mean you can too.
At least the bulk of these patents are not some stupid GUI functions, and are related to hardware and systems developed by Apple honestly.
I'm not a fan of patent suits, and I call for patent reform, but HTC has crossed a few lines recently, and yea, I agree with many others, this is equally a shot directly at Google that can't otherwise easily be made.
Bingo, mod parent up.
The ethical guidelines for participating in medical research is for research done on, for, or to the patient in question. They can't GIVE you something, or TREAT you without informed consent, but they CAN use data about you, and cells from you, with or without your permission. It's done every day in medical facilities around the world.
The basic premises of the Declaration of Helsinki is that patients make informed decisions about medical procedures that effect their welfare, and refers to research PARTICIPANTS.
If they want to take your blood for research, they need to ask your permission to take it. However, if they're taking your blood for other purposes, and you're informed and consent to the removal of the blood (the risk factor top the patient), whats done with that blood above and beyond the initial medical need you consented to is irrelevant, unless it were to be re-introduced somehow to your system.
Don;t quote things that do not apply just because you'd LIKE them to apply. If you don't like the practice, just say "i think this law needs to be changed and here's why" but don't go around spreading FUD, only assholes do that.
Much of the data is to be secured, however, much of it is in fact already on 3rd party systems or outsourced to start with, so i don;t see a change in risk.
Also, the bulk of the systems i believe they're talking about here, that could be outsourced (non-military owned), are almost exclusively simply web apps tied to databases. yea, the IRS and a few others peg pretty high, but all those tiny little underfunded departments that currently run their own servers should not do so, and that's the low hanging fruit to start with....
Good thing this has little to do with software, it's about hardware, system image, operations support, and physical consolidation. Once it's all done, they can work on the software.
I'm not disagreeing with your post, you;re dead on for massive software projects. Just pointing out this isn't one...
We just went through a massive consolidation like this, for about 3,000 servers. it was mostly smooth, and run under budget in terms of the project cost (and saved us tens of millions by going through it).
I don't know, we started with a network of well over 3,000 servers, and in less than 2 years we've moved almost entirely off Win 2K, virtualized over 1,000 servers, moved to AIX 6 and VIO, delpoyed a VMWare infrastructure, deployed an Exchange architecture in place of a legacy e-mail system, and converted more than half our web apps into SOA and put it on IFLs in a mainframe. We cut from over 3,000 systems, nearly all physical, to under 2500 with near half virtual, and saved significant money in the process vs budgeted outlays. We've reduced our data center footprint by 60-70%, and our power draw is down dramatically.
The forward looking TCO now that the bulk of the migrations are done is impressively smaller.
We did all this while holding to DOD network standards.
The problem the government will have, which we fought with a bit but was no where near as big of a deal, is getting hundreds of small business units to agree to consolidate to central systems, and to convert from "these servers are mine, see, here's where I paid for them" to a metered utilization budget system where hardly any smaller government agency owns it's own infrastructure.
USB 1.0, back in 2003. Just wasn't a viable option. I'm not that dumb. If I didn't require a PCMCIA connector for other reasons, I'd have used that. Wired also was not an option due to a slab foundation and vaulted ceiling in the home. I really did try to avoid this, but when no other options were available, I tried to simply turn down his antenna gain so I'd not pick it up but it would not effect his signal inside the home. His router (and most of the ones he replaced it with) didn't support that.
We did try other methods. messing with his router was about a last resort. He was offered help through the HOA securing it otherwise, and I tried to approach him and he flipped me off. (we had battles over his yard maintenance and parking on the street issues previously with the HOA and him, which he blamed on me, when in reality the complaints came from the Mexicans next door to him).
Not on USB 1.0. This was quite some time ago... (ya know, before remote admin over wifi became default disabled, today i could never do this without hard wiring in).
A lot of people have also pointed out this "asshole" thing. Not exactly my most shining hour, but we really did pursue other friendly arenas first...
i could have simply called TWC and informed them he was providing open wifi and they'd have cut off his service... I figured relatively harmless tinkering would get the point across (I didn't think it would take nearly that long, but he was a stubborn ass).
I honestly thought it would only be once or twice before he'd ask someone for help. And eventually we did help him, once he was pissed off enough to start a conversation. Some people are just too stubborn for their own good, and in the end he learned a valuable lesson, and it still cost him less than BestBuy installing it for him.
Maybe after replacing/exchanging 5-6 routers, he should have simply read the manual, since if he actually did that, he would have secured it...
At least it was only an annoyance. We cost him no damage, less money that BestBuy would have charged for in-home support, and though we could have screwed with his computer as well, that would have actualyl violated laws...
Not my finest hour, but some people only learn through trial by fire, and this guy was one of those.
nbot easy to replace a near $2K notebook, but I eventually did, less than a year after the initial discovery of it's faults. Not the kind of thing you run out a pick up at Walmart on the spare change lying around...
All the asshole had to do was either take the HOA's advice and secure it, like we had printed in the newsletter, or decide to give me the time of day instead of the finger (we had battles already over his yard upkeep and his parking on the street).
This was proprietary, non-standard hardware. XP could not control it, believe me I tried!. Shit, first thing I tried to do when we got the machine was remove all of Gateway's crap... The WiFi card, NIC card, and the ATI drivers were exclusive to gateway, and could not be otherwise replaced (everything else was). I dealt with gateway and Microsoft on it...
1) laptop was a propritary driver issue, nothing I could do. other systems as i mentioned had no issues. XP's wireless utility could not operate the card, could not use the PCMCIA slot (due to other requirements), and the machine was way too expensive to simply replace (very high end gaming notebook).
2) We tried the nice route with this guy before on other issues, and we also had the HOA send out a newsletter about securing wireless to prevent identity theft. The guy, and his friends, were frat-boy assholes, and a problem for half the neighborhood.
3) I provided a lot of free network support to other friendly residents, and he knew that. I initially though it would be a once or twice thing, but his stubborness became a game... If he wans't already an asshole, i'd have helped.
great, Verizon, AT&T. it's a start... you'd think now that Cisco owned Linksys it might have improved, but no.
i can understand to an extent, people treat complex network systems and security as a $30 commodity component businesses. A single support call kills the profit from 10 units sold. If it wasn't a "plug in, turn on" install, they'd be unprofitable.
Yea, actually tried going through the HOA first. Talking to the guy directly was something we'd done before with no success on other issues. He was a real asshole to start with. Kinda felt good doing that.
i also lacked mentioning (since I didn't think anyone cared), that I was primary network support for about 10 houses in the neighborhood, and help a lot of folks with their gear for little or no charge, after they met me at a garrage sale and saw all my used gear and inquired as to my job. If he was open to that kind of chat, we would have. he proved ignorant and aggressive to start with... Might have shed some context on that.
Yea, had the HOA deal with that first... Even sent a letter to all residents discussing proper home network security and identity theft risks... I got into the fight several months later.
The issue was a gateweay proprietary wifi driver, XP actually could not control the card at all with it's own tools. I mentioned my other machines had no issues.
He was actually a punk frat boy, with a loud ass truck, loud ass friends, and we'd had confrontations about his yard and about parking on the street at night already. The only reason he even talked to me was he was so pissed I think he needed to vent.
We did eventually replace it, about a year later when i could afford to replace the machine (a rather high end machine for a gateway, closest specs i could find to replace it cost me over $1800). Some dumb ass gateway driver, default windows drivers could not operate the card at all. Nothing in XP could prevent the connection. Notebook would not take Vista. Seriously, i tried for weeks before I resorted to other measures, including opening a support call with Microsoft and multiple with gateway. I'd also changed my own SSIDs and network settings numerous times thinking that might work. It was a driver issue, and gateway no longer supported it. The PCMCIA port was in use by another device, so an alternate adapter was not an option.
Honestly, because he was a punk a-hole with a loud ass truck, loud ass friends, and we'd already had a few fights about how he (failed to) upkeep his yard and home.
Also, the HOA had sent letters out to all residents about 3 months earlier regarding securing open networks.
The drivers on that machine, regardless of the settings in XP, could not ignore a network for anything. Delte it and it came back, approve it but lower the priority and it would come back. Something about the logic looked for open networks and prioritized them first, then did additional searches listing secure networks, then finally looked for approved networks with hidden SSIDs it knew about. Since it would always find his first, it always connected. My other machines had no such issues. It was a GateWay POS...
Yea, it would thanks, but her wireless adapter (built in, nothing i can do about it) and it's driver set, apparently chose the first system it could conenct to, regardless of XPs settings. As i stated, no issues with other machines. i even had a Microsoft support case opened for it and they blamed it on the hardware.
My problems with my neighbors were not them stealing my WiFi, but in how they set up their routers... One specifically had a wide open router that for some damned reason my Wife's XP notebook would exclusively connect to, even when the signal was weaker than available preferred networks. I did everything I could to make XP either forget or disregard his network, but it would not. Something in XP (even after re-installation), simply insisted on connecting to his SSID over my secure one. This really pissed me off as the wife would establish VPNs to work, then try to print something to our printer only to find out she was not on our network, and would have to redo significant work, or the connection would just drop because his signal was weak.
Well, needless to say, he was a computer moron. Took the router out of the box, plugged it in, and went. It took about 10 seconds to log onto his device and turn the antenna off, then set a complex admin password. Every couple of days it would be back, so I'd break it again. After a few weeks, i noticed it was a new model, so I repeated the same process on it after XP continued to insist on connecting to it. (and just HER damned notebook, not any of my other 3 XP machines). I talked to him one day while I was mowing the lawn and he complained about the damned thing, and several calls to support, but they couldn't fix it, and apparently at no time ever suggested him to secure it either.
This went on for a while. He apparently rarely used his wireless (he was rarely home), and actually, i think it wasn't even his notebook, but a friend's he had the wireless for, so when I'd turn off his device, it would be a while till it came on. One Saturday though I turned it off, and it came back on quick. So, I did it again, several times in that day. He went out for a while after about the 4th time, and came back an hour later with a blue BestBuy bag with what looked like another new router. This was going to be fun...
By the end of Sunday afternoon, I had that poor bastard back to the store not less than 5 times, each time with a different router. I was practically camped by the family room window waiting to see him come and go, and had his unit shut down within minutes each time he got a new one up and running. Eventually, the wife made me go out and talk to him (honestly, even i was getting bored of the routine, and also noted this wasn't seeming to be coming to an end, he wasn't getting the hints), so I wen out and "inquired" as to the repeated trips to BestBuy. He told me his side of the story...
I said, "Oh, you're probably getting interference from someone else's system in the neighborhood, didn't support tell you that? You should secure your device" Then i offered he pay me $50 to do it for him (BestBuy was charging $149 at that time, and apparently got quite insistent that if he returned anohter device they'd not give him his money back unless they did an onsite install of the next one). he agreed, I secured it, set his SSID to hidden, and didn't have issues again (with him).
I've had other neighbors who were complete morons too. One apparently went around telling everyone else to hard set their access points to channel 2, since it was statistically the clearest channel. (I have NO idea where he got that one). It didn't phase me, but every one of them had issues... This only caused me issues because all their damned devices were only seeing my router, with all the other interference, and although it was secure, my log files occasionally filled up with people trying and failing to log on. Another convinced all the people in an apartment complex to pay him for Internet access, and set himself up as a mini ISP. Well, besides it being a huge hassle, as 15 people trying to hit his AP at once caused issues for sure, apparently one of them called support and spilled the beans. My, not being a dumb ass, maintained my own connection on a secure router, however, i had a HELL of a time proving to TWC that I was not the one sharing my conn