Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Wireless Networking Hardware

Comcast Plans Cable Boxes with Integrated Wi-Fi and Snooping 427

Kaa writes "Short version: Comcast's cable modem/802.11g base station that is made by Linksys has capabilities to 'phone home' to Comcast and tell them how many devices are connected to your WiFi base station, how much bandwidth they are using, etc. It also has the capability to 'disable LAN segments' which, I assume, means they can kick your devices off your home network if they choose to do so. Something tells me this particular device won't make it into my house..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comcast Plans Cable Boxes with Integrated Wi-Fi and Snooping

Comments Filter:
  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Friday May 07, 2004 @03:51PM (#9088211)
    Sure, the /. user won't want this in their house...

    But the user who is too dumb to configure WiFi without Comcast's help needs this. This technology could let Comcast's techs lock down any access point who's not running WEP, and see to it that all the devices the customer has are taking their DHCP assignments properly. Of course, anybody reading this will know how to do these administrative tasks on their own, but those who are clueless can have trust Comcast configure their router and firewall to optimal settings.

    If this cuts down the number of worm-vunerable computers on the Internet by letting those who don't know what they're doing hand the controls over to Comcast, I won't complain.
  • Unplesant (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MrRuslan ( 767128 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @03:53PM (#9088242)
    But that type of feature could be usefull such as blocking a worm ridded PC from the Internet until it is cleaned and remote assisance and configuration with permision...if your ISP want to spy on you they can if they REALLY want to.this type of stuff has its uses.
  • Yea, you won't complain until Comcast won't give you service unless you have "compliant" hardware. It's a big potential benefit to Comcast's bottom line, and the "lusers" aren't going to know enough to try and kill it. Do you think they'll give a crap if you want it or not?

  • problemo senor (Score:3, Interesting)

    by unformed ( 225214 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @03:54PM (#9088260)
    This has the capability to 'disable LAN segments'.

    Something tells me there's going to be a new worm out once someone finds a hole in this router.
  • by siberian ( 14177 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @03:55PM (#9088273)
    Their goal is to sell these expensive "home office" packages.

    The way it works now is that they make it difficult to get a device online, you have to use their software to register the service.

    I forget the details but I had to do some trickery for each machine on my network to get the cable modem to route traffic to them via my router. Occasionally devices 'unregister' and I have to run the comcast software again and pretend like I am a one system home.

    I'm ditching comcast, my local ISP has fixed wireless now and I'm gonna go with the little guy and I've already picked up DirectTV AND I'll save $30 a month. Seeya comcast.
  • by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @03:56PM (#9088275) Journal
    While this could have beneficial effects, (i.e. Comcast offering better tech support...though from past experience I HIGHLY doubt this.. "Yes we need you to unplug your computer 10 times, do the hokey pokey and turn yourself around."), I can also see the major disadvantages (monitoring my computer, having access to my computer, etc.) While I could prevent this with a firewall (and frankly I hate installing a firewall when I have my nice router firewall) most people just do not know what the deal is with computers and protections. Eh, while I use comcast (not really a better choice in my area) I can't say that I like them.
  • by Roark Meets Dent ( 650119 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @03:57PM (#9088294)
    Call 1-800-Comcast and tell them that you won't be buying this garbage and are less happy with Comcast for even thinking of using this kind of big-brotherish technology on their own paying customers. If a lot of people call in to complain, they may think twice about rolling this out. For awhile, at least.
  • by gabbarbhai ( 719706 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @03:58PM (#9088302)
    Umm.. If you trust them enough, sure. What's to stop them from analyzing your work habits/surfing habits, and start pumping specific ads to the devices, or worse?
    I wouldn't let comcast, of all people, to administer my computers. Nor would anyone else want to, no matter how technically-alternatively-enabled.. And there might be (I don't know) some products specifically designed to keep your computers patched properly (no, NOT M$SFT) that one might want to subscribe to separately, with proper disclosures and agreements signed.
  • I'm out. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Schezar ( 249629 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @03:59PM (#9088319) Homepage Journal
    I'm done with consumer/residential broadband. Blocked ports, slow connections, poor customer service, arbitrary limitations on use... It's just not worth it anymore. I've dealt with dead lines and clueless techs for too long.

    Instead, I'm springing for commercial/business class service. The support is better, the speeds are higher, and the service is usually excellent (since businesses won't put up with the same garbage residential users will).

    Consider this: a cable modem usually costs about $40-$50 a month for residential service including a single IP address and bandwidth caps. I can get 1536k x 256k commercial DSL for about $80 a month that includes web hosting, DNS, and 5 IP addresses. The extra $40 is not much, and you can offset that by selling access to your neighbor if you're so inclined (perfectly ok with most providers).

    The above costs about as much as most people pay for a cable modem and cable TV, and quite frankly, I've found that lots of bandwidth is far more entertaining than lots of TV stations.

    I'd list some companies that offer comparable service plans, but I don't want to look like an astroturfer. Hit Google and you'll find lots of nice options (as long as you live somewhere civilized ^_~)

  • by jameskojiro ( 705701 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @03:59PM (#9088323) Journal
    If you are a user like an old grandma this prevents the neighbor kids from hacking into her network and using her connection to invoke the wrath of the RIAA against nanna. Now if you are a power user you go out and buy your own danged cable modem, it is as easy as that!

  • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ciroknight ( 601098 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:00PM (#9088347)
    Well in theory this technology could be good if they only charged you for the bandwidth you actually pulled through your modem, but they could do this without their level of snooping.

    My guess is that they just want more control over your modems, making sure that there's no way you can modify the bandwidth you use (uncapping), automatically updating firmware ([[could be good: block certain ports during a virus emergency]]), etc etc etc... but the fact still remains: they could do all of this from their side of the network.

    So really, you have to question what they're going to do with this..
  • Re:Continue BOYCOTT (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:01PM (#9088353)
    ummmm....since they bumped up their download speed here in the Bay area, we are getting 3 Mbit/sec for $19.99 per month (a 3 month promotion). Is that a good enough reason? :-) We have our own wireless G WAP so it's not an issue anyway.
    And I've never seen TechTV, so I could care less about that.
  • by mrwonton ( 456172 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:01PM (#9088363) Homepage
    I have comcast internet access at my home. It is unfortunately the only broadband available in my town. I'd love to try to tell them what I think of decisions like this by switching, but its just not an option, as without them, I'd be without broadband (God Forbid!).

    How can a good slashdot geeks in my position give comcast a piece of their minds in terms they can understand?
  • I can't use just any old modem I want for Adelphia. It has to provide certain *ahem* "features" that let them do some level of snooping. Of course, this is all in the name of helping me troubleshoot my connection.... yea.. sure... depsite the fact that they've never successfully found a problem remotely...

    They can't make you use any specific modem, but they CAN mandate that your modem must have certain "features" and "standards" under the guise of helping you out. Then, they can push that this tech gets standardized and start requiring it for new connections.

    Never underestimate the power of a monopoly to get it's way when it comes to raping consumers.

  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:03PM (#9088383)
    From the press release...
    Users who sign up for the service can receive a Linksys wireless gateway, along with network adapters for connecting up to five computers, professional installation, multiple levels of security, and increased downstream speed of up to 4Mbps.

    Comcast's current peak downstream bandwidth for most customers is 3 Mbps. So, so far Comcast is actually offering to tweak upwards the bandwidth of people who pay for this service.

    Of course, I've rarely found a website (other than my own) that actually feeds me data at a speed that's anywhere near 3 Mbps, so that extra space within 3 to 4 Mbps is rarely going to be used. Still, if you are somebody who frequenly maxes out the downstream on a Comcast modem, this might be of interest to you.
  • by frankie ( 91710 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:04PM (#9088408) Journal
    Comcast gets away with huge amounts of anti-consumer crap because they're the only game in town for most of the USA. And they got that status by openly paying bribes (euphemistically called fees) to state & local telecom regulators. In return, Comcast (or TCI or whoever in your area) gets a guaranteed monopoly on each region's cable service.

    This has got to stop.

    I'm sure someone here will post about one of the lucky few localities with cable competition. The prices are lower, the house calls are faster, etc. And I seriously doubt they would get away with spying on their customers' home networks.

  • Re:Smoothwall (Score:3, Interesting)

    by strictnein ( 318940 ) * <{strictfoo-slashdot} {at} {yahoo.com}> on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:05PM (#9088414) Homepage Journal
    That's a good question. I setup port redirecting on my firewall to access my home systems to avoid problems (people scanning for common open ports and my ISP blocking them). That coupled with dynamic DNS works pretty nice. Of course they could block obscure ports like 39492 (not the one I actually use, wouldn't want to give away my top secret network secrets!), but why would they (other than to be evil)?
    Of course... I don't use their service (TimeWarner owns the cable around my house)... but I have friends that do.
  • by jandrese ( 485 ) * <kensama@vt.edu> on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:05PM (#9088427) Homepage Journal
    Man, I wish my comcast was that nice. Last time I checked, my local Comcast office was still charging $10 per additional IP. Naturally all of my boxes are behind a NAT box since there is no way I want to pay Comcast an additional $10 a month for a fileserver that is only available on the LAN anyway.
  • Re:I'm out. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Minwee ( 522556 ) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:12PM (#9088498) Homepage
    "I'm so angry at my ISP that I'm going to give them even more money so maybe they will provide the kind of service I was supposed to be getting in the first place."

    I think you're their kind of customer. How much more will you cough up when they start screwing with your "business class" service?

  • by Mateito ( 746185 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:14PM (#9088526) Homepage
    No they wont.

    Theyll make a big song and dance in the media about listening to their customers, then roll it out in six months anyway.

    Corperations and governments know damn well that its almost impossible to get "the people" to rally around a cause a second time.

    Look at Live Aid and ethopia. When was the last time you saw a starving african child on TV?*

    Matt

    * No. SouthPark doesn't count.
  • Re:Smoothwall (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:17PM (#9088549)
    SSH and Terminal Services are not outside of the Terms of Service. The Comcast terms of service specifically prohibit you from running a public service of any-kind, so SSH is only dis-allowed if you're offering shell-accounts to the public.

  • Re:Easy fix. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cpt_Kirks ( 37296 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:19PM (#9088571)
    There is a nice *NEW LAW* going around state houses that makes it illegal to plug anything into a cable companies network without their permission.

    I forget what it's called (probably something like the "Save the Children From Predators Act"), but it has been reported here before. IIRC, it carries big fines, civil penalties and jail time.

  • Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:19PM (#9088575)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:21PM (#9088589)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Minwee ( 522556 ) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:25PM (#9088629) Homepage
    I see things differently. Consider this: Big companies don't _want_ technically knowledgable users as customers. They're too much trouble.

    Nerds tend to think they can get away with paying a flat rate for basic service and then actually using it. They don't buy extras like additional email addresses, they don't pay for a service that blocks all incoming packets with the evil bit set, they won't bring their computers in twice a year to have the hard drives rotated and they keep harassing the monkeys on tech support with awkward questions and don't accept that every network outage is really their fault and can be fixed by just turning their modem off for long enough.

    The kind of customer a company like Comcast wants has no clue what he is doing but only that he has to pay for it. He believes that if he pays an extra $10 a month for a 3Mb connection instead of 1.5Mb then his instant messages will come in faster. When programs like Kazaa stop working for him because his ISP is blocking ports at random without telling anybody he will think it's his own fault. And he'll probably be too embarassed to say anything about it.

    I don't think that Comcast as a company would be shedding any tears at all if they drove away all of the technically knowledgable trouble-makers and were left with nothing but clueless users who don't know what they're doing and don't complain about anything.
  • "Dumb"? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:26PM (#9088642)
    I love how you can characterize anyone who isn't intimately familiar with wireless networking hardware and protocols "dumb" and get modded up for it on Slashdot. I have friends who are doctors, lawyers and some who hold doctorates in engineering fields, yet they give up on setting up wireless networks after about maybe 10 minutes of trying and being frustrated. Do you know why they don't persist? Because the world is full of high school dropout IT monkeys like yourself to do this, so that the truly smart and educated can concentrate on important problems in society and science.
  • Re:problemo senor (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:27PM (#9088661)
    Nice. How about one that shuts down the LAN segments of every moron sending out spam from their unpatched, virus/worm infested Windows machines.
  • it wont' happen (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kardar ( 636122 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:32PM (#9088712)
    It won't happen. That's just wrong. Everyone hates Comcast; that's what's going on.

    Please remember that there are people who use Comcast on a daily basis and by targeting Comcast with these nonsensical imaginary worst-case scenarios that everyone does, the end-users of Comcast are being taregeted as well.

    So while you may not like Comcast, you should respect that many people who use Comcast don't have a choice in the matter ATM.

    Linux is OK. Home networking is OK. If you go to Comcast's home page, and if you go to their online forums, you will see that these things are widely talked about and widely discussed. Comcast encourages and enables it.

    Remember, when you "bash" Comcast, you are also affecting the users of Comcast, many of which don't have a choice.

    I just try to encourage everyone to chill out and not over-react, like everyone does, when it comes to Comcast. Everyone hates Comcast, but most of the people that use it don't have a choice! That's what really kind of makes it a bad situation.

    On the one hand, "bashers" expect Comcast to "get a clue" about respecting other people's privacy, but while "bashing", these folks don't respect that people who use Comcast DON'T, often times, have a choice. So it's like getting reamed twice: Once by Comcast, who insist on providing everyone the "broadband for dummies", and don't "officially" recognize that there are non-dummies out there who can't get DSL, and twice by the "bashers", who try to imagine the worst horror stories imaginable in order to prove how awful Comcast is. What they don't realize is that many folks just DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.

    Like it or not, what most users want is broadband. With Comcast, that's what you get. It's fast, it's reliable, and it kicks. Home networking, no problem. Linux, BSD, no problem. Gigs upon gigs upon gigs of download, no problem.

    Now, OK, they don't allow servers, but most ISPs don't allow servers.

    Comcast is OK. I think what's going on is that it's just such a huge company that one hand doesn't realize what the other is doing sometimes, so they come up with stupid policies like "no VPN" or trying to set bandwidth limits that don't exist, stuff like that. But in both of those cases, they backed down. So it's a bumpy road, but overall, the worst thing is having to try to get the facts when everyone is trying to scare the living daylights out of you with doomsday scenarious. Honestly, it's other people's posts that have to be the worst thing about being a Comcast customer not by choice. Seems like it, anyway.

  • Re:Easy fix. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by anachattak ( 650234 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:39PM (#9088813)
    The "SDMCA" (retitled by the MPAA and Cable Cos. as the "Cable Theft Prevention Act" or somesuch) is making the rounds in several states. Until recently, my home state of Tennessee was a battleground state, but the lobbyists finally got their way and pushed a version through the state legislature. Right now, it's sitting on Gov. Bredesen's desk, waiting for his signature.

    I encourage everyone to monitor your own state legislatures and make sure this kind of thing isn't happening behind your back. If it is, several groups have formed in opposition to this type of legislation [TNDF] [tndf.net]. While your cable company may not be able to force their particular brand of device down your throat, they can ban devices that don't use their "let me snoop" technology and criminally prosecute you if you use a device to filter their snoops. Check out the TNDF site and see what the Tennessee version will do to violators.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:48PM (#9088919)
    "They can't make you use any specific modem, but they CAN mandate that your modem must have certain "features" and "standards" under the guise of helping you out."

    Obvious answer # 642: Decline the help.

    "Then, they can push that this tech gets standardized and start requiring it for new connections."

    Obvious answer # 638: Decline their service, and let them know why.

    "Never underestimate the power of a monopoly to get it's way when it comes to raping consumers."

    Obvious fact # 243: Never underestimate the power of NO!
  • Just a thought..... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by d4rkmoon ( 749223 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @04:48PM (#9088920)
    Do you think that Comcast is trying to control WiFi sharing? Some people are not as tech-savvy, but wish to share their connections with the world. Now I could be totally off-base here, but if you happen to share your cablemodem connection with your neighbor, then they can "disable" that LAN segment...
  • Re:Speakeasy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Creepy ( 93888 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:16PM (#9089217) Journal
    Yeah - I did the same.

    Speakeasy even allows you to sell wi-fi net access to your neighbors [speakeasy.net] and gives you a 50% discount to run it and provide the support. I wonder what they'd do if I paid my neighbor $20 monthly to do this, tho - thus decreasing my net cost from $90 to $65 and giving him access for free :P
  • by koa ( 95614 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:21PM (#9089264)
    You have a good point. As there are always legitamate uses for most types of router configurations. However, the scope of my argument addresses the network installations put forth by unknowlegable end-users who either dont bother to secure their networks or just flat-out don't care.

    This is why there is a "vacuum" so to speak in the industry for cable administered wireless routers for home users. Which at the same time allows for the "give them an inch, and they will take a mile" ability of the major carriers controlling these devices.

    This could be solved, however, by the Netgears, Lynksyses, and D-links, to put more emphasis on security on their products. And have the installation wizards start out secure and open up with installation, not close down with installation if you follow me.

  • Re:Smoothwall (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gujo-odori ( 473191 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @05:49PM (#9089517)
    Just to clarify, what I mean by "doesn't fluctuate at all" is I have all my bandwidth, all the time. I downloaded the 4 GB DVD image of the latest Fedora Core 2, and it was solid at 240 kbps, give or take just a few kbps, from start to finish.

    My dad has standard Roadrunner consumer service, and while I have seen speeds on his network far higher than mine (sometimes over 400 kbps, and often over 350, during off-peak hours), I have also seen speeds far lower.

    While I suppose I could live with fluctuation (I've never seen a speed below 100 kbps down on his network, and even that is rare), I do also like having a global static IP and no restrictions (save those imposed by law) on what I do with my connection.
  • Re:Smoothwall (Score:4, Interesting)

    by brsmith4 ( 567390 ) <.brsmith4. .at. .gmail.com.> on Friday May 07, 2004 @06:01PM (#9089618)
    There is something seriously wrong if you are paying for business class and only getting 240Kbps. I have regular plain-jane RR and get 366kbps constantly. Perhaps you should use that schnazy support to resolve that problem because for 90 bucks, it is a serious problem.
  • by javaxman ( 705658 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @06:44PM (#9089843) Journal
    I've looked at the issue a *lot*, and it appears the nastygrams really have been in what even I would categorize as extreme cases. NO service would let you soak up 100% of your bandwidth all of the time and not come knocking on your door about setting up a business-class service. Most would just kick you off and cite abuse clauses in the contract. The biggest problem with Comcast's policy is that they don't give specific limits- it's a "we'll send you a letter when someone else on your block complains" policy.

    Sadly, in a market when there are maybe only one or two players, your choices are often too limited for real competition to occur. I'm not any more excited about using Comcast for internet access than I am about using DirecTV for video content, but they're the best options I have.

    My alternative broadband service was/is Covad IDSL. I'm willing to bet I can use Comcast's service just like I was using my Covad service without getting close to the nasty-gram limit. Even WITHOUT getting my video via Comcast ( they tack on an extra ten bucks if you aren't a cable subscriber ), their cable internet is over $10/month cheaper than the Covad IDSL price... cheaper and at least 6-10 times faster.

    As much as I'd love to stick with Covad, I just can't justify doing so given Comcast's service being _both_ cheaper _and_ faster.

    I'm a few blocks out ( seriously only a few hundred feet ) of SBC DSL range, or I'd get that; as utlimately evil as SBC is ( really, really, really evil ), $25/month for dedicated DSL would do just fine, I'd really rather save myself on the monthly fee rather than have the faster cablemodem service. But SBC is *so* evil that they don't want to build out their network ( ?!? ), their stated reason being that companies like Covad would just leach of it, except, wait, they get to charge Covad a premium now and they're _still_ not building out their network... which reveals that the *real* reason they don't need to invest in their network is that they're a monopoly, but I digress.

    Seriously, my choice is IDSL (144Kb/sec) with Covad at $65/mo. or this "3Mbit/sec" Comcast service at $55/mo... you're seriously telling me I should keep the Covad service? Tell you what, you pay for it, I'll keep it...

    Oh, an interesting note... apparently you *can't* currently buy the Covad plan I have now, it'd be an $80/mo. service...

    In the exceedingly unlikely event that I do get a nasty-gram from Comcast, I think it'd be easy for me to cut back enough to keep them happy... also I know too many people who are happily using their Comcast internet service *a lot*, without issue, to think that I'm going to have problems. My household's use is probably going to be well within the limits, even with my son downloading flash games from noggin.com and my wife downloading gnutella content and myself downloading usenet binaries and OS X updates. We'll see... but from what research I've done into the subject, the folks getting letters really were saturating their connections in a big, big way... I'd have to buy some serious disk arrays to store half GB I'd have to download before getting in trouble with Comcast.

  • Re:I've got one now. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SnapperHead ( 178050 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @06:54PM (#9089911) Homepage Journal
    I have been using Comcast cable modems in Brick NJ for 3 years. Before that, I used Charter in Monroe Michigan for 2 years, then before that it was Comast in North Plainfield NJ for 4+ years.

    Guess what, never had a single issue with Linux. In fact, I have noticed an amazing increase in performance by using Linux as my gateway. Typically, some cable providers will install client side software which will slow down connections and cap them at certain times. I am not sure if this is very common anymore, but I did have a problem with this 2 years ago.

    Since that problem, I never install there software. Which is mostly useless anyway.

    Comcast has a big problem with there DNS servers. They are slow as shit. The response time on them slows the connection to a crawl durring peak time. My answer to this, was to use either

    a) My friends DNS server which is located on an OC-12.
    b) Run my own local DNS server, which speeds results even faster.

    In regards to the topic, I am disapointed at Comcast and Linksys "spying" on there customers from inside the LAN. This is just another reason I will use a Netgear Access Point and my Linux server as a gateway.

    At sometimes, you would see 15 computers connected on my LAN. I only own 4 physical boxes. (Linux dedicated server, Linux workstation, Windows workstation and my laptop which is dual boot).

    Why 15 ? Vmware ... so I can test some of my projects in many different enviroments.

    Thats all I would need is Comcast complaing about seeing 5+ computers and claiming I must be providing service for the neiborhood. Those vmware installs only really talk to each other.

  • by studpuppy ( 624228 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @06:59PM (#9089956)
    My Dad just signed up for this service, and when I was back home he showed me his brandy-new setup. First thing I did was ask "So... did they set up a network name or WEP for you?"

    Short answer... of course not.

    Comcast sent out a tech to install this stuff, but they never gave any indication to my dad that he was now hosting free internet access to the neighbors, et al. Warchalking, here we come!

    but seriously... you'd think that Comcast would ensure that their techs left a secure configuration, with SSID/WEP or some other form of security enabled on a customer-specific basis, instead of just leaving the default "linksys" configuration (not to mention admin:admin password on the box itself).

    Fixed that little issue quickly. If for no other reason that to avoid a panic phone call 3 months from now when my Dad finally reads an article about how folks can steal internet access through an unsecured WiFi gateway, and calls me in a panic that someone could be breaking into the home computer and stealing his high scores on solitaire and copies of the letter to Aunt Edna.

    Sigh... the things we do for our parents. Grin.

The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.

Working...