Wireless networks -- How secure are they?

[sendero]

I could definitely see the value of wireless on a laptop/notebook - but I don't use them /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I wasn't really saying that wireless is bad, I'm just saying that it will never be as easy or fast or reliable as a wire. That is all /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[sendero]

It is not illegal to listen to conventional cordless phones such as those used in many homes.

I'm an amateur radio operator and have had a long interest in radio technology. The courts ruled long ago that there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" that applies to cordless phones, since they are so trivial to intercept. Now, late model cordless with spread spectrum might engender a different opinion from the courts, but as yet I've heard of no challenge of the precedent.

Cellular phone interception is another matter, and is in fact illegal, just as tapping into someone's phone wire would be.

 

[Inspector507]

<font color="blue"> Cellular phone interception is another matter, and is in fact illegal </font>
Not if you bought a scanner before the ban /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[sendero]

Sorry, you are incorrect. It is legal for you to own the scanner, it is not legal for you to listen to cellular traffic.

As a practical matter, the point is probably somewhat moot. Unless you divulged what you heard or acted on it in such a way that it proved you heard - how is anyone going to catch you? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif However, a hapless couple from Florida once caught a well-known slimy politician making a liar of himself on cellular. The slimy politician got off, but they were prosecuted.

One of the first difficult computer programs I ever wrote controlled an Icom reciever with a computer interface. Back then, lots of people listened to cellular because it was easy. With the advent of digital phones, it's not so easy anymore /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[MossRoad]

Lately, the costs have made it pretty attractive, though.

Take a wired connection, for example...
NIC for computer... usually comes with computer, so free.
Patch cord is 3 bucks.
Wallbox is a buck.
Walljack is 5 bucks.
Wire to patch bay is a couple bucks.
Jack on patch bay is a couple bucks.
Patch cord to switch or hub is 3 bucks.
16 bucks plus labor which includes cutting wall holes, drilling holes, fishing wire, tacking it in place, etc...
Cost could easily be 25 bucks per connection.
This doesn't include the cost of the switch or hub.

Wireless, you need one wireless access point and one wireless card to get started.

Price=free. That's right. FREE!!! They are giving them away at Tigerdirect.com. FREE, FREE, FREE(after rebates /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif).

One wireless router, access point 802.11g and one card for a notebook= FREE!

They also have wireless cards for PCI slots for as little as $4.99(after rebates /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif).

I wired my whole house a few years ago. Got away with it pretty cheap as I bought bulk. I think I ended up about $10 per connection + the cost of the switch. Back then, wireless was just coming up. I think it is now to the point of being acceptable in speed and reliability for home use. And let's face it. Most of us here have figured out how to get on the internet, repair our damaged operating systems and help ourselves by finding the right technical resources when needed. Wireless is no different. Just read up on it, make it as secure as you want it to be and use it if you want it.

In my next home, I will hard wire a few places, but I will definately have wireless around just for the convenience of putting a computer anywhere in my house without having to run network wires to wall jacks in every bedroom, office, the kitchen, the garage and so on. It makes fiscal sense to use the cheaper alternative as long as it performs at the same level. I think wireless is now or soon will be the cheaper, alternative, based on 100Mps speeds. Now if you need gigabit speeds, you'll have to stay hard wired for a while. I don't need gigabit speeds at home... yet. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[MikePA]

<font color="blue"> I wasn't really saying that wireless is bad, I'm just saying that it will never be as easy or fast or reliable as a wire. That is all. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font>
I respectfully disagree. With 802.11n speeds of up to 108 Mbps and a range of 800 feet are possible. I am using the Belkin version of 802.11n now. I found it to be easier, just as fast and just as reliable.

The place where I work spent a small fortune a few years ago to re-wire when we went from Token Ring to Ethernet. When companies look to upgrade their Ethernet infrastructure, wireless, IMO, is now a real alternative. Wireless is also the best solution for conference rooms and 'hoteling' areas, where the need for a variable number of connections makes installing multiple runs of Cat 5 cable impractical, or impossible, depending upon your cable trough. Yes, there will always be a need for a wired network, but with the next generation of wireless, (when 802.11n is ratified) it moves from primarily a SOHO solution to a real corporate solution.

 

[OkeeDon]

In addition to the excellent points you make, I'd like to point out that speed is a relative issue. If you are comparing a wireless network to a Fast Ethernet network between computers, for data sharing, then yes, the wired might be marginally faster. If all you are doing is using the router to connect to the internet, it shouldn't make a bit of difference. My cable broadband connection is really fast, up to 6 megabits in the small hours of the night. As fast as it is, it's only half the speed of my 802.11b connection at 11 megabits. So, the wireless does not provide a chokepoint; neither it nor the wired connection can be any faster than the internet connection. That's part of the reason why I stayed with the less expensive 802.11b spec instead of ...g or whatever, because I really can't use the extra speed. The other reason is because I have been reliably informed through my research that 802.11b is better able to handle amplification and external antennas, which will be really important to me when I wire our Okeechobee property. As I mentioned somewhere, I intend to have the entire 280' x 1170' (7.5 acres) as a wifi hot spot.

 

[MossRoad]

That's a good point, Don. However, speed does matter to me at home, as I back up my files beetween PCs. I have several GB of photos to copy every once in a while from my workstation to my server. At 10M it takes a long time compared to 100M. We're talking hours VS minutes. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

At work we have the same situation... A T1 line to the internet, which is relatively slow, compared to our 10/100/1000 internal network. The 1000Mps over fiber is silly fast /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif. But it saves us time and labor and was worth the cost.

 

[Cacinok]

In Oklahoma, it is illegal to use another persons wireless internet connection without permission. I don't have the statute bookmarked here at home, but I've got it at work if anybody is interested - exciting reading let me tell ya. From what I've read other states have or are drafting similar statues.