Invisible network?

[mojogil]

I'm sure I'm late to the party here. I just realized that I can hide my wireless signal so others can't see it. Is that what others are doing to prevent people from hopping on the sac signal? I know that wep or wpa is a no no, haven't tried mac filtering yet. maybe simply making the signal invisible is the answer?

[Brent Evans]

I'm sure I'm late to the party here. I just realized that I can hide my wireless signal so others can't see it. Is that what others are doing to prevent people from hopping on the sac signal? I know that wep or wpa is a no no, haven't tried mac filtering yet. maybe simply making the signal invisible is the answer?

"Hidden" networks are still easily visible to sniffing software. MAC filtering is a nice compromise of securing your network from casual snoopers and maintaining throughput.

[muzicman0]

why is WEP or WPA a no no?

[Brent Evans]

why is WEP or WPA a no no?

They have a tendency to restrict the available bandwidth, and since WiFi bandwidth is reduced with distance anyway, you want to keep it as open as possible. Encryption simply isn't needed anyway... there should be no sensitive data or internet access on that network anyway.

[muzicman0]

if your concern is bandwidth, then MAC filtering would be your best security.

[Donnie Frank]

"Hidden" networks are still easily visible to sniffing software. MAC filtering is a nice compromise of securing your network from casual snoopers and maintaining throughput.

+1. I have been using MAC Address filtering for years with great success - sometimes as stand-alone security or, if need be, in conjunction with encryption. My SAC rig utilizes MAC filtering alone.

[AntonZ]

I have hidden the network ID, set MAC filters and use WPA2 encryption. Remote working fine, other than loading and saving from the remote.

[SLJ Audio]

Going wireless when the air is saturated with users can be an issue in many ways...
This is a repost:


1. Wireless networking uses a single collision domain. like a 4 way stop sign, only one transmit or receive at a time, and a lot of waiting.

2. Limited bandwidth can be an issue. All connections share the speed. More connections means less speed. (Shared Connection)

3. Security. I would use Mac Filtering (WEP or WEA Possible). I would also Keep the router log info and I would review it regularly.

--Use in the US channel 1 or 6 or 11 for the best separation of frequencies.(and test them for existing wireless before using them)

I would use a wire and avoid all the wireless issues if I could.

Steve

[mojogil]

Is there a benefit to using the 5ghz signal?

[905shmick]

Is there a benefit to using the 5ghz signal?

The benefit to using 5ghz right now is that there are not many devices on that frequency, which means a better signal to noise ratio. For now.

[gdougherty]

I've switched over to 5GHz and had very good results. The downside is that 5GHz doesn't make it through solid objects as well as 2.4GHz meaning your range can be severely reduced if you don't have LOS. I need to rig up some way to get my router up high. My USB dongle has a 6ft extension I sometimes use and hang from the supports in a pop-up tent. Most venues I have a clear enough LOS as long as the host is raised and so is the remote. I typically get 100-150ft with no problem since 5GHz and wide band starts at 300Mb/sec.

[Brent Evans]

3. Security. I would use Mac Filtering (WEP or WEA Possible). I would also Keep the router log info and I would review it regularly.


This bears repeating... the only benefit to encryption (WEP/WPA) is to protect the data being transmitted. There should be nothing that needs this protection on your SAC network... no internet access, no credit cards, nothing. Therefore, the increased overhead and reduced bandwidth is more of a detriment than a benefit to the operation of the network.

[muzicman0]

not totally true. If you are running a B G network, of someone connects to your open network using a B card, then all connections slow to the B speed. Also, even if they connect via G, as previously stated, bandwidth is shared. Not that there would be an internet connection, but still, it could affect your thoughput.

[AntonZ]

This bears repeating... the only benefit to encryption (WEP/WPA) is to protect the data being transmitted. There should be nothing that needs this protection on your SAC network... no internet access, no credit cards, nothing. Therefore, the increased overhead and reduced bandwidth is more of a detriment than a benefit to the operation of the network.

I'm not worried about credit card details or internet access via my SAC system, but I don't like the potential of anyone messing around with files on my SAC host. There's a share on the SAC host that is wide open, read/write access (or even the entire C: drive shared). I don't want anyone nosing around in those directories on my SAC host with write access.

MAC filters are probably enough for that. Call me paranoid if you like :cool: I'm probably biased from being involved in IT in an environment where security is taken seriously.

[Russell Landwehr]

If you are running a B G network, of someone connects to your open network using a B card, then all connections slow to the B speed.

Easy to set your router to "G" only.


I'm not worried about credit card details or internet access via my SAC system, but I don't like the potential of anyone messing around with files on my SAC host. There's a share on the SAC host that is wide open, read/write access (or even the entire C: drive shared). I don't want anyone nosing around in those directories on my SAC host with write access.

MAC filters are probably enough for that. Call me paranoid if you like :cool: I'm probably biased from being involved in IT in an environment where security is taken seriously.


"Hidden" networks are still easily visible to sniffing software. MAC filtering is a nice compromise of securing your network from casual snoopers and maintaining throughput.

And it's the casual snooper who would get a kick out of tromping through the shared files with combats boots and crashing a gig.... wooohooo! much less jail time than the arson they were considering.

Now I'm rethinking MY wireless SAC network... just when I thought i'd tweaked the last thing...:)

(Hmmmm and my HOME network wireless bandwidth is crowded... Netflix... BitTorrent... SAC User Group forum... Windows update... XBox360... PS3.. Wii... Andriod phones... nubileFOHengineers.com... AngryBirds... Network Printers... so mebbe a little judicial MAC filtering instead of WEP... let's see now...)

rl

[Brent Evans]

And it's the casual snooper who would get a kick out of tromping through the shared files with combats boots and crashing a gig.... wooohooo! much less jail time than the arson they were considering.


Again... MAC filtering is plenty enough to keep out the casual snoopers.

[hkmorgan87]

The difference between no encryption and wpa on my netgear wgr614 v3 was only 15Kb/sec. That's not a huge difference. And IMO not enough to make SacRemote run that much better. The more important issue is wireless dropout, or interference.

[Brent Evans]

The difference between no encryption and wpa on my netgear wgr614 v3 was only 15Kb/sec. That's not a huge difference. And IMO not enough to make SacRemote run that much better. The more important issue is wireless dropout, or interference.

Its not only throughput that matters. Latency matters also. all of this is variable with distance. I have observed on several networks that performance is better without encryption.