# Types of Networking Media/Benefits/Security



## craigwhiteside (Dec 14, 2007)

Many people now have noticed a sudden increase in network security problems due to the fact of new technologies and bugs that come with those technologies.
in this guide i will tell you how to keep track of all the upcoming information about new networking technologies

Wireless vs Wired

most people are switching from using wires to connect to the network, to using wireless technology, wireless has many good points about it that it is very scalable, doesnt cost as much as a wired network would, it is quite fast, and supports a range of devices.

There are 5 main types of wireless networking

802.11a (54Mbps, mostly used for businesses, can reach 60m)
802.11b (11Mbps, was made primarily for home users and can reach distances of 100m)
802.11g (is a mixture of both a/b and does not become bogged down by high traffic, the frequency is also changed and can now reach 200m)
802.11g+/SuperG(uses the existing technology of 802.11g and overlaps the two broadcasted 54Mbps 802.11g to deliver 108Mbps, the signal from this is very strong and can reach over 300m) 
802.11n (this is a new technology that incorporates the 802.11g standard but is given a performance boost and a lot of tweaks, this can reach 500m under certain conditions and can sustain 300Mbps)

Types of Wired networking media


Cable utp/stp wired network connections now vary from 10Mb, 100Mb, 1Gb(cat 5,5e,6 and now 10Gb(cat 7) but is limited to 150m without a repeater.

Fibre optics use either singlemode fibre (packets of data are sent individually) or multimode fibre (large amounts of data are sent at the same time,this can do this because light can overlap itself and will have a very small degradation in signal)
The data bandwith it can achieve is 10Gb but can travel large distances, 5000m-8000m and is used for big company networks and large universities.

Wired Networks are generally regarded as being better for large high performance networks because of the data bandwith it can achieve and that it can reach large distances (by using fibre optics)
it is also seen as it being a lot more secure because it is has physical boundries between getting on to the wired network rather than a wireless were people can just walk past a building and be connected to the network (if no encryption is used)

Wireless Networks however are seen to become more popular because of its ease of use and that it does not cost a lot of money. 
people regard wireless networks as being "safe" because of it using encryption, the encryption now used on wireless networks is still shaky and very easy to get into, wep being the best example of how easy it is to break the encryption and grab the authentification key.

but with the introduction of wpa and wpa2 this is seen as less of a problem with it being a stronger encryption than wep, it can use either 

PSK (Pre-Shared Key, almost always use a symmetric key for encryption and is generally seen as the weakest form of encryption, since the strength of the key is important, and that the strength of a key is very much dependant on what characters you use and its length)

EAP (Extensible Authentication Protocol, is a universal authentication framework frequently used in wireless networks and Point-to-Point connections, it is also used for wired networks)

AES (Advanced encryption standard, this is fast in both software and hardware, is relatively easy to implement, and requires little memory to run)
but it can still be cracked!


----------



## craigwhiteside (Dec 14, 2007)

i hope this explains different types of connecting to the network and the security features of it also


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jan 4, 2008)

craigwhiteside said:


> most people are switching from using wires to connect to the network, to using wireless technology, wireless has many good points about it that it is very scalable, *doesnt cost as much as a wired network would*, it is quite fast, and supports a range of devices.



Care to post the math behind that?


----------



## regan1985 (Jan 4, 2008)

thats good easy to read


----------



## craigwhiteside (Jan 4, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Care to post the math behind that?



its common sense think about it, say a school network, with 20/30 computers
you have to pay for a switch/hub/router, the cables, then you have to get someone to lay the cables professionally, it adds up very quickly with the amount you have to pay and how time consuming it is compared to a simple wireless network


----------



## Ehstii (Feb 20, 2008)

craigwhiteside said:


> its common sense think about it, say a school network, with 20/30 computers
> you have to pay for a switch/hub/router, the cables, then you have to get someone to lay the cables professionally, it adds up very quickly with the amount you have to pay and how time consuming it is compared to a simple wireless network



but if your doing a school, im sure your not going to want to settle with slow speeds that wireless gives and the intermittent connection. and your also going to have to have range extenders or access points every so often, and wireless adapters in each computer. therefore the price racks up as well. so if your doing something like a school, you would want it wired. though you would be paying more it would make more sense.

though, if its a home network you may want to go wireless, but its not always the best route.


Edit: sorry for bring back a month old topic, but i just saw it.


----------



## craigwhiteside (Feb 20, 2008)

wireless networks where firstly designed for business's and large sites in mind, with the introduction of 802.11a for example


----------



## craigwhiteside (Feb 20, 2008)

and since wireless technology is advancing the speed difference and loss of connection seems to be less of a problem than it was 2-4 years ago


----------



## craigwhiteside (Feb 20, 2008)

think about it, in airports they use wireless communications more than they would with wired


----------



## Ehstii (Feb 20, 2008)

this is true. but than again alot of buildings now a days have cat5e run throughout the structure with the electrical wiring and stuff as oppossed to a couple years ago. but wireless and wired is like everything else, they both have their pros and cons and its all the customers opinion.

and in airports they allows customers to use wireless but they would never put there own computers and network wireless because it would be to much of a security risk. wireless is easy to hack and bypass. all of their computers(desktops) are probably wired, and if they arent, well than...hahahaha


----------



## Darknova (Feb 20, 2008)

Ok, just did a little calculation off the top of my head. A few years ago we set up a fully wireless network, but ended up going back to wired because of many many many problems, but wireless HAS improved. I just prefer wired.

Anyway.

We already had a router and modem, so all we needed was the wireless access point and network cards.

Router - £60
Network cards x 5 - £100 (£20 each)

Total - £160 for the wireless.

Wired.

Network card for older PC - £5
All other PCs have onboard LAN
2 switches -£20

We already have reams and reams of cable, just had to make it up. So all that cost was time.

Total - £25

Much cheaper for us to do a wired network. (this is my own personal example, please don't take this as red.)


----------



## craigwhiteside (Feb 20, 2008)

yes its true, for home networks, but what if your computers are far apart, and you dont have the knowledge to do it?

wireless can be both expensive and cheap in certain circumstances, and the same can be said for wired networks 

(need to correct my first post in light of this)


----------



## Ehstii (Feb 20, 2008)

yea, thats what sucks about networking. it all depends on everything. some situations would be better wired but you run into problems where you cant run certain cables or something and you have to go wireless. and same thing with wireless, the signal may not reach and you have no way to place an extender somewhere and what not...

hard to give quotes, its the only downside. otherwise i think its a shit load of fun to do.


----------



## craigwhiteside (Feb 20, 2008)

good point!


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Feb 20, 2008)

Wireless networks are known to be less reliable, lower performance. If you're talking about large corporate networks you require more bandwidth and reliable connections. Additionally wireless is a lot easier to hack, anyone could sit next to the fence and tap into it.
Also single mode fiber can do 10Gb over 60km.


On the other hand nearly everyone on this forum is a home user and therefor it is only fair to assume the reader is one.


PS fix your capitalization, there is no such thing as millibit.


----------



## craigwhiteside (Feb 20, 2008)

sorry did not intentionally mean that


----------



## wiak (Feb 26, 2008)

wireless isnt cheaper

also

wired = you only need a 100mbit switch, that that dosnt cost much, and you allways have a network card in your pcs by default

wireless = here you need a wireless acesspoint or a wireless router and they cost more than a switch and then you need wireless networks card in all your pcs

if your going wireless, go Draft N, its more stable, longer range and nearly as fast as 100mbit wired network


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jun 11, 2008)

very simple method, good work


----------



## Mussels (Jun 27, 2010)

isolaligree said:


> Hey, I just heard a rumor that XP SP2 will fix a lot of the Windows buffer overrun security problems, but that you will need either Itanium or K8 to take advantage of the feature.
> 
> Anyone else hear anything about this?



did you just wake up out of a coma? its 2010, FYI. XP is dead. bill gates mutated into a turtle, and bill clinton had a sex change and turned into a woman.


----------



## BUCK NASTY (Jun 27, 2010)

Wow, I guess he did not see the warning about bumping 2 yr old posts? BTW, I can't wait for XP SP3.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jun 27, 2010)

hey craigwhiteside, can you post your source on AES being cracked. i havent seen anything to suggest that is has been. TKIP has been, but only to the point of getting on the network, the data is still encrypted.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 27, 2010)

Hybrid_theory said:


> hey craigwhiteside, can you post your source on AES being cracked. i havent seen anything to suggest that is has been. TKIP has been, but only to the point of getting on the network, the data is still encrypted.



you're talking to a guy from 2007.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Jun 27, 2010)

Mussels said:


> you're talking to a guy from 2007.



is he no longer here?


----------



## Mussels (Jun 28, 2010)

Hybrid_theory said:


> is he no longer here?



even if he is, i think he's realised this thread may be out of date.


----------

