Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (
More info?)
"Tom M" <TM@nospam.escapees.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:E6Dtd.1053998$Gx4.321155@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> HI George,
> Well, it partly has to do with my lifestyle. Right now, I'm at home and
> have a cable modem at my disposal, but I'm retired and spend about 8
> months traveling the country in an RV. My normal means of internet
> connection while traveling, is via a cell phone in the evenings and
> weekends, with an occasional hot spot thrown in.
> What I primarily wanted to do was link my wife's new computer for file
> sharing, as well as internet. All the while keep the power draw as low as
> possible. Most of the camping I do is in the boonies so my only source of
> power is my set of solar panels and my batteries. So a router isn't much
> power or money, but I figured I didn't really need it.
> I can't argue with you about the router firewall protection as I have no
> experience there. However my computers are always software firewall
> protected. The default is Zone Alarm free, unless I connect the ad-hoc,
> then I must turn off Zone Alarm and activate MS firewall. Also the wifi
> link is running WEP.
>
> I really wish someone could tell me how or if I can operate Ad-Hoc ICS
> with Zone Alarm Free on all the time in place of MS. I prefer the two way
> firewall.
>
> --
> Tom M
> (To reply, remove *deletenospam* from my address)
> "f/f george" <george@yourplace.com> wrote in message
> news:5j0dr0p09i85g7uk4u2iogoopgv36p3q9u@4ax.com...
>> So you did this without a router?
>> Why?
>> A router provides both connectivity for both computers, you can get
>> them with BOTH wired and wireless ports, AND a router has a built in
>> firewall. The firewall is NOT as good as a software or even better yet
>> a hardware one.
>>
>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 02:34:58 GMT, "Tom M"
>> <TM@nospam.escapees.com.nospam> wrote:
>>
>>>Well, it's been a long day. First I put XP SP2 on my old machine
>>>(500MHz)
>>>and 3 hours later it was done. Then on to Internet Connection Sharing
>>>and
>>>ad_hoc between 2 laptops. It was a bit of a scrimmage for a while, but
>>>eventually I got it up and running. Two laptops sharing a USB connected
>>>cable internet, via wifi. Got printer sharing working after a couple of
>>>attempts. File sharing is tomorrows project.
>>>The link that Bendit provided:
>>>Follow the steps on this Microsoft publication to setup your ad hoc
>>>network:
>>>
>>>http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=fac8708e-3762-4e78-b372-8404eeb7f41a&displaylang=en
>>>
>>>was excellent. However, be advised that it is written and seems to work,
>>>only with MS Firewall. Some of the screen options you need to have and
>>>change are not available if you have MS Firewall turned off. So, my Zone
>>>Alarms (free) are for now turned off and MS Fire is on.
>>>PS. Now that the wifi network is operational, netstumbler sees all, as
>>>you
>>>guys predicted.
>>
Tom, the Windows XP SP2 firewall IS two way. It will notify you (by a popup
window) if a program tries to access the internet. You can program
exceptions (it will not warn you and will allow outbound traffic for that
program) in the firewall control panel. I have been running it since it came
out, and I think it is pretty stable and sturdy. I ONLY run that firewall
and nothing else, just in case you'd like to ditch your Zone Alarm.
Also, some people claim that HARDWARE firewalls are better (the ones found
in cheap routers and access point). This is not entirely true. Those devices
at heart run software also (that you can flash to upgrade with patches from
their manufacturer). If you look at netgear routers for example, go online
and check out their patch logs. Some of them had severe problems with their
internal softwares that allowed possible attacks. My point is that software
is software, and Microsoft has regular patches coming out from its testing
team. Now which testing team is bigger? Netgear's or Microsoft's? Just a
different angle here. CHEERS!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram