If you can connect, but can only get a web page telling you that you need to set up your router and how to do it, you won't have a reason to call. ;) Of course, that will require the router makers to employ people who can write in complete sentences. :eek:

Linksys has a setup utility for its bridges and some other stuff, so it shouldn't be hard to make one for the routers. However, even with bridges they get a lot of calls from idiots who don't read enough to know that they need to run the utility. They were talking about shipping the bridges with "connect to anything" turned on by default.

Make something idiot-proof and the universe will counter with a better idiot.

Nothing beats plug and play, unless you can come up with a fiendishly clever marketing spin to sell the extra security as being a feature rather than an annoyance +and+ get it right so it won't induce too much tech-support calls.

Not seeing any regulation coming neither, at least not until RIAA and friends have yet another brilliant inspiration and get a bill passed to shut down all those p2p-sucking WLAN-parasites ;) . Getting access points with crypto on by default would indeed -for the wrong reasons- be a Good Thing.

Thing is, they'd probably try to outlaw community Wi-Fi as well while they're at it, so finally not such a good idea...

The liability in the long run is likely to cost much more than the tech support calls. It's really just a matter of time before somebody sues router makers over this. When that happens, you'll see them lock down every system they sell.

Apple ships computers with everything locked down (ports and services) and this is, in part, why OS X is considered so secure. I see no reason why router manufacturers can't do the same. Advanced needs always require extra knowledge so users with advanced needs should be prepared to educate themselves or pay someone who has the skill to help them.

Furthermore, even though I'm generally against passing more laws and regulations, I feel that in light of all the zombie computers out there, all computer users who plan to connect to the Internet should be required to pass a basic, security related test before making the connection (it should be required by ISPs instead of relying on legislators who know little about computer/network security). With that said, I certainly don't see the need to accommodate users' lack of knowledge by installing a wide open router.

-- Rob (activating flame shield)

Because a locked-down Mac can still initiate outbound connections and do what the average user wants to do.

A locked-down wireless router would appear "defective" from the end user perspective. I mean, if the user is too lazy or ignorant to read the "quick start" and enable security, then the user is probably not going to figure out how to connect to a secure router either. Nobody calls the router vendor to complain that it worked out of the box. They will call when it doesn't.

Rob, we share the conviction that more red-tape is probably a bad idea.

The problem for crypto on APs is not that much the fact that it would generate slightly more tech-support-requests, but the competetive advantage for those who don't bother. If the major vendors can get their act together and agree on a common agenda, that would probably be the best solution.

And before requiring an internet-permit, it might be just as efficient to have a closer look at the security model (or complete lack thereof) of that other operating system with a scaringly high market share. If a default-install of a Windows PC directly connected to the internet only has few minutes to live before it gets converted into a botnet-drone, it is probably not the user who is to blame for more than the poor buying decision he made.

If manufacturers sell something as easy, well the customer expects it to be easy to set up/use/maintain.

If manufacturers sell something as "this product takes a bit of know how, but once you know the how it's a rocking product" then the customer knows what they are getting into.

Computers (and all the goodies that go along with them) still are sold as something easy, when in reality they are not. They are complex machines that are built to do many things while most machines are built to do one thing and one thing only. Manufacturers/sales people/etc aren't going to explain to the buyer that they might need to learn something to use it properly because people (in general) will not buy it then. They don't want to invest all the time and money is something like that. That drives up cost and lowers profits.

Right! It's the guy who recommended he get that system who's at fault. :D

Then maybe the router manufacturers need to add a Little Snitch-like feature where even outbound requests are initially questioned.

I'm sorry but given the amount of money that is spent addressing the problems created by zombie computers, I feel that there is no obligation to make it easy for ignorant people to connect to the Internet. If they refuse to be responsible for their own equipment, they shouldn't be allowed to connect. I have family and friends who fall into this category and I would be happy to unplug them. We (USA) require permits for stuff with far less impact on the world in general (fishing, hunting, cutting hair, garage sales, etc.) so why not for something that allows a user to inflict damage that can cost millions/billions of dollars to repair or guard against. It's time for people to be responsible for their own actions/inaction, even if it costs them extra time and money, instead of requiring equipment/software to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

In the end, I reckon all of us will always be required to pay for the ignorance of others since it's the easy way out.

Peace. :)

-- Rob (who plans to avoid a drawn out debate on the issue)

I have just disconnected from my own wireless connection and taken my pick of my neighbours wireless connections to write this message! :D


really.... I am serious..... I have choice of 4!...... idiot windoze users!

How would you implement that? How can you put up a screen on the user's computer when it can't even connect because the AP is secure?

I agree 100%. Somewhere around 1996 I saw that it was getting easier to connect to the internet, and we were the worse for it. I had a poster over my desk saying "You must be at least this smart to use the internet" and it had an arrow right between "mollusk" and "ape." I firmly believe it should be harder to get on the internet, because when it was, it kept out the riff-raff. Same with driving and other things which people should make an effort to learn. Not by licensing, which is pointless (does anyone really believe a driver's license confirms skill??).

However, there is still the issue that it is better for the manufacturers to make the product easy rather than secure. The dumbest people are also the cheapest, and won't pay more for the better product.

Between my house, my parents house, and my girlfriends house I have a pick of over 13 different wireless connections. It's easier for me to commit a felony than ever!

Will keeping stupid people off the net make them smarter ?
 

If I could get back to the golden days of the internet when Jon Postel +was+ the IANA, AOL users couldn't yet post to usenet and your e-mail actually consisted of meaningful, non-html messages you wanted to read from the first to the last, yeah, I would.

However, I'm afraid that is not going to happen before time-travel gets ready for prime time.
So far, the net has proven to be quite efficient in doing its own net.police thing and the only problems it has a hard time to deal with are botnets spamming and DDoSsing like there was no tomorrow essentially because it is so scaringly easy to 0wn Windows.

In a world where microwave-oven-makers feel compelled to explicitly discourage the use of their product to dry cats, dogs or anything else still alive, something has clearly gone terribly wrong.
But preventing dense people from using the net and thereby potentially wisen up is probably not the best way to go neither.

I don't know how it might be implemented. Maybe access from the LAN side to the router could be allowed for the purpose of throwing up an informational page that advises (a) of the evils of insecure connections and (b) how to secure the WAP. I'm not ignorant nor am I an expert, so I'll leave it to the experts to come up with a solution. :p

Sad. :(

-- Rob

I fully agree that forcing someone to log in via wired would be IDEAL. However, the support burden for the company doing that would go through the roof, as would product returns. I don't think you could argue that. People would say it's defective because they plugged it in and can't see it.

So what's the motivation for the manufacturer?

BTW, how does an Airport Extreme or Express come configured? I've never used one.

To reduce liability and avoid some very expensive lawsuits. Naturally, they won't begin to act until they start to see suits being filed, but that's just a matter of time. ;)

Carlos, my son-in-law has airport and uses the Airport Admin utility to configure it.

See this page for info on how to set up AirPort Express. It makes use of a connection wizard that apparently interacts with the Network preferences (you can use the AirPort Admin utility, too). During this process, you can name your network and set up security. So that's the way Apple has handled it -- not exactly plug and play -- and it would seem that other Wi-Fi router providers could do the same, maybe even interacting with the AirPort Admin utility.

So when you plug in an Airport router it doesn't work at all out of the box? Does the config have to be done by cable?

Anybody who sets up a router himself, can also set it up to have an encryption (even if it is weak,it's enough to blow off most).
The problematic cases is the ones that don't know, when the neighbour kid did it or some bad tech service that never filled em in.

I personally think if someone leaves his network open, it's not like leaving your car keys, it is more if you are in a park and invite everybody to have a seat on one of the benches and use the beautiful sunlight and air. Appropriate behaviour expected, please don't crap on the bench or assault the others.

Those who are not conscious of these dangers and leave their network open anyway, they need to be filled in. In some regions it is dangerous to sit down in certain parks too and not everyone knows about it. Information on these topics should be mandatory.