Frank Tanner III
pctech at mybellybutton.com
Tue May 20 07:29:50 CDT 2003
You just agreed with what I said. EXCEPT for one thing. If properly locked down, nobody else can access your WiFi router. It sounds like your son's school has their wide open. Unfortunately this is normally the case. You can TECHNICALLY have as many connections to a WiFi router as you'd like. I never said you couldn't. I said that they RECOMMENDED not having more than ten. For the very reason you state. Because, depending on the amount of data passing through the connections, the bandwidth gets useless VERY quickly. Regardless, it sounds like your son's school needs to hire a computer security consultant. For several reasons, pretty much all stemming from the unsecured WiFi routers. Aside from the bandwidth issues, anyone accessing the school's network by using the router, pretty much has the same access as ANYONE else on the LAN. Which means, unless the classroom is seperated from the campus LAN, not likely it sounds like it, an intruder has "trusted" access to the INTERNAL campus LAN. It is relatively trivial once "inside" like this, to gain access to proprietary and/or confidential data, including any locally stored school records. Which could include student names, addresses, telephone numbers, etc. Most people aren't aware of the fact that this information is protected by law and violation of this law is subject to criminal and civil penalties. Your son's school is opening themselves up to a WHOLE big legal mess, not to mention a scary situation with the "world" having access to this condifential data. I *HIGHLY* recommend that you, or one of the other parents, contact them about this. If they won't do anything, I'd suggest contacting the school board of this district. As a parent, I wouldn't want my children's contact information OR scolastic information available to pretty much anyone that drives by the school with a laptop computer. It's a proven fact that most networks have LESS internal security than they do from the outside world. Meaning that most entities build a nice big fortress to keep the outwide world out, but once you're INSIDE the fortress, they left all of the doors unlocked. So anyone getting into their fortress via this WiFi connection, has access to the inside of the fortress and all of it's unlocked doors. --- Bruce Bruen <bbruen at bigpond.com> wrote: > Re: not more than 10 > > At my son's school they are using wireless routers > with much much more > that 10 connects. We reckon up to 60 active > sessions at a time - AND up > to more than 200 connect attempts per router at the > beginning of lesson. > > Result - performance during the times that the kids > try to log in = > absolutely useless! Some can take up to 20 minutes > of a lesson to get a > clean session negotiated - thus wasting most of the > students and > teachers available time. I estimate that the > negotiated connects never > get any higher than 10mbps based on the experience > of my wife who > teaches there and says that the school network speed > is less than out > p2p 10 at home. > > At my daughters school they use mini 5 port hubs in > the kids "work > stations" ( 4 desks screwed together) and a cabled > hub per classroom ( > or at least 1 per pair of rooms) Result - 10/100 > connections in the > same time it takes them to plug in their blue worms! > For 1200 kids, > connecting up to 6 times per day. > > OTOH - as we live 300m by road from my son's school > and probably <100m > as the crow flies it does give him access to the > school (and the net) > without costing me a phone line! But is this a good > thing - I think > not! (who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of > pubescent web > surfers!) > > So I suppose it depends on what you need to do with > wireless. If you > want it so you can cart the laptop out to the > doghouse when you are > accused of ignoring your better half for a great > AccessD debate session, > then I suppose its great. But I reckon $15 worth of > cat5 + a weekend of > blue language and a couple of beers is a lot better. > > JM20CW > > Bruce > > -----Original Message----- > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On > Behalf Of Frank Tanner > III > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:20 AM > To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com > Subject: Re: [AccessD] OT: Network over the phone > lines > > > Yes, you can. In fact I am considering this myself, > so that I can have network access in my back yard > and > driveway areas. Yes, I'm a geek at home too...ROFL > > Cabling can get very expensive, unless you can do it > yourself. It's not so much the cable that's > expensive. It's the labor. It's a b*tch to snake > that cable throgh the rafters of the house and then > down the inside walls. Especially if your inside > walls are insulated too, which most are anymore. > > I was talking with one of the engineers at DLink, > and > they recomment not using more that ten wireless > devices per wireless router. That's one of the > reasons I could never fully network my house via > wireless. I have too many network devices and will > be > adding more as I automate my home via computer. > > --- Rocky Smolin - Beach Access Software > <bchacc at san.rr.com> wrote: > > Frank: > > > > Here's another question: Can I daisy chain a > > wireless router to my wired > > router? I'm out of ports. > > > > Rocky > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Rocky Smolin - Beach Access Software" > > <bchacc at san.rr.com> > > To: <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> > > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 6:53 AM > > Subject: Re: [AccessD] OT: Network over the phone > > lines > > > > > > > Frank: > > > > > > Thanks for the heads up. I can get CAT5 to that > > room but it will cost > > > $500-600 because of where it is. :( > > > > > > Looks like wireless for me. > > > > > > Rocky > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Frank Tanner III" > > <pctech at mybellybutton.com> > > > To: <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> > > > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 5:29 AM > > > Subject: Re: [AccessD] OT: Network over the > phone > > lines > > > > > > > > > > I highly recommend against this. Most > telephone > > > > wiring in homes is CAT3 *AT BEST*. In alot of > > cases, > > > > not even that good. > > > > > > > > Most home telephone wiring is so splices and > mickey-moused > > > > together that you will be lucky if > > you > > > > get any connection at all. And if you do, it > > will > > > > probably be spotty, at best, due to > > electromagenetic > > > > interferance from other devices. > > > > > > > > Network engineering is what I do for a living. > > I'd go > > > > wireless LONG before I'd trust home telco > wiring > > for > > > > my LAN. Myself, I strung CAT5 in my house. > But > > > > that's because I know how to. For most home > > users > > > > wireless would be a perfect fit. If you're > > worried > > > > about people leeching your bandwidth or > > "sniffing" off > > > > of your wireless LAN, there are ways to lock > it > > down, > > > > simply. Will it stop the determined leech? > > Nope. > > > > But it would stop 90% of the leeches that are > > out > > > > there, because most are just looking for free > > > > bandwidth. Not to mention, I'd think you'd > > notice > > > > someone sitting in front of your house with a > laptop....hehehee > > > > > > > > --- Rocky Smolin - Beach Access Software > <bchacc at san.rr.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Dear List(s): > > > > > > > > > > Got a new computer to put into a room where > we > > can't > > > > > reach it with CAT-5. So I've been ready to > go wireless, except > > > > > someone suggested using the > > phone > > > > > lines in the house (just as a substitute > wire) > > > > > instead of wireless. Apparently, there's a > > device > > > > > that will connect the NIC and the phone jack > > and you > > > > > can use the phone wires in the house for > > networking. > > > > > > > > > > Sounds, easy, and cheap, and low tech. > Anyone > > know > > > > > about this? > > > > > > > > > > MTIA > > > > > > > > > > Rocky Smolin > > > > > Beach Access Software > > > > > > > === message truncated ===