TCP/IP Connection via Remote

[IraSeigel]

When connecting with the Remote, I can't make the connection when entering the host's name. I can only make the connection when entering the host's IP address.

I'm sure of my typing. Is there something else I should look at?

Also, is Port #12 recommended, or does it matter?

Does anyone bother using WPA or other security if the machines are not connected to the internet?

Thanks,
Ira

[gdougherty]

The recommendation for wireless is to not bother with wireless encryption to eliminate the overhead and resulting performance degredation. You can setup MAC filtering if you'd like and that's probably a good idea though it'll take more work to add new computers to the network.

[Guitarkeys.com]

I rcently went through this. I would say to use MAC filtering as a security feature as you can't just have a network hanging out there. It took me about an hour to figure out the share, mac, and to get a connection going and I have zero networking experience. Much of it is automatic if you start playing with the router and it's different screen and options.

The tough part is keeping the wireless connection. I pretty much had to shut down anything that had to do with a power save or performance enhanced feature as they all seem to turn off the wireless card to extend battery life.

I think I have it figured out now, but I still have a 150' cat 5 that will be a part of my rig.

Jamie

[Phil]

I don't bother with any encryption. I just shut down the access point when it is not in use to keep the "muggles" out. Really if some one was to connect to the access point they could access the machines since security is quite laxed. I think the suggestion about mac filter is best. Keep the connection for establishing. the data isn't really sensitive.

[DominicPerry]

I don't think wireless encryption is much of an overhead these days. And with so many people wandering around with iPhones and similar, the chances of someone picking up your network and trying to attach to it are high. Whether they will do any damage is another question, but there are lots of hackers/idiots out there. Personally, I wouldn't put a network our there without encryption, but all the time you are fiddling around trying to set up shares and permissions etc, there's perhaps some value to leaving it off. I'd just turn it on and test it with all devices before gigging.

Dominic

[dbarrow]

I don't think wireless encryption is much of an overhead these days. And with so many people wandering around with iPhones and similar, the chances of someone picking up your network and trying to attach to it are high. Whether they will do any damage is another question, but there are lots of hackers/idiots out there. Personally, I wouldn't put a network our there without encryption, but all the time you are fiddling around trying to set up shares and permissions etc, there's perhaps some value to leaving it off. I'd just turn it on and test it with all devices before gigging.

Dominic
I don't think they can connect if you only allow your remote's MAC address. Is there some way to hack that? I guess someone could "sniff" your MAC address as it went by and then spoof it, but then what would they do? Oh, guess they could erase your drives. Are the chances high that someone would be able to sniff and spoof?

[DominicPerry]

I don't think they can connect if you only allow your remote's MAC address. Is there some way to hack that? I guess someone could "sniff" your MAC address as it went by and then spoof it, but then what would they do? Oh, guess they could erase your drives. Are the chances high that someone would be able to sniff and spoof?

Yes, you're right, that would stop it, and the chance of casual users sniffing and then spoofing a MAC address are very low. It just means that any new remote who wants to join has to have their MAC address added to the router, which is slightly more painful than giving them a slip of paper with the network name and password on it.

Dominic

[Brent Evans]

I for one can testify to the fact that encryption can add enough overhead to cause problems in SAC. While this may not be universally true, until I disabled encryption, I was having a problem with remotes disconnecting and not being able to reconnect. I am not qualified to say why exactly, but that fixed it.

Another security measure that prevents a lot of hacking and doesn't compromise speed of the network is simply hiding the SSID. This does require a bit of extra setup but (like MAC filtering) it keeps out the casual snooper.

[gdougherty]

Another security measure that prevents a lot of hacking and doesn't compromise speed of the network is simply hiding the SSID. This does require a bit of extra setup but (like MAC filtering) it keeps out the casual snooper.

Not worth the effort IMO. Windows won't show the network, but other utilities will. Simply having MAC filtering will keep others off the network.

[Doug_Danforth]

Not worth the effort IMO. Windows won't show the network, but other utilities will. Simply having MAC filtering will keep others off the network.

Is hiding the SSID the same as not broadcasting it?

[IraSeigel]

Is hiding the SSID the same as not broadcasting it?

Yes. Or choosing to make it "invisible" on some router setup pages.
Ira

[gdougherty]

You can "not broadcast it" but it's still sent out with the traffic, can't get around that. Software that respects the "hiding" will not show the network. Software written to find everything will still show it.

[Phil]

When connecting with the Remote, I can't make the connection when entering the host's name. I can only make the connection when entering the host's IP address.

I relized I missed this part. That is usually a netbios problem if I'm not mistaken. Windows will use netbois over tcp/ip to resolve computer names and workgroup things. "Things" is a technical term here :cool:

I think that is part of the network device setup. Using the IP address is really quite alright.