"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:%23$6uEDVDGHA.2912@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> From: "Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org>
>
> | Try it, see if you like it.
> |
> | Generally, it is recommended that at least one machine be
"hardwired" to the
> | router for maintenance, but otherwise try it and see if it works for
you.
> | It's handy if you don't like running cabling, and from own
experience there
> | is no significant noticable difference in access rate between
wireless and
> | wired.
> |
> | Note too that if you plan on upgrading the firmware for a router
(something
> | that should be done only if the machine is having issues that will
be
> | resolved by doing so), the machine used for this purpose must be
hardwired
> | to it. Loss of connectivity during the upgrade can result in a dead
router.
> |
>
> Rick:
>
> How can you make such a recommendation without expressing the security
concerns and
> ramification of "War Driving" and taking advantage of an unsecured WAP
?
>
> --
> Dave
> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
>

What Dave says. Do some serious looking at wifi security since
without any encryption (the default) you have put an ethernet
"jack" outside your house for anyone who wants to to simply
connect. This typically also allows them access to your side
of the network (as in it bypasses the firewall and allows them
to snoop/hack your computer). As a start, check out the
microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless newsgroup
and the following links ...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/index.php?p=43
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...0.mspx?pf=true
(watch for a wrap on the above link)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u..._03july28.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...i/default.mspx
http://www.ozcableguy.com/wireless.html

mikey