http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/auditing/wifi-backtrack_2038

<http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/auditing/wifi-backtrack_2038>Here
is a whitepaper on using the free backtrack bootable CD to audit and map
your wireless network or hire someone to do it.  I took the SANS 'Assessing
and Securing Wireless Networks' course a few years back and it was well
worth the money.  Of course, your head may explode by the end of the course
:-)

The short answer is to use 3 channels and double up on the pair of APs that
are furthest apart.  YMMV.

-Jeff Steward

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:36 AM, John Hornbuckle <
[email protected]> wrote:

> The theory behind auto seems good... Listen for a channel that's not noisy,
> then use it. But I get what you're saying--there may not be interference on
> a particular channel when the WAP boots, but that doesn't mean there won't
> be later.
>
> The trouble is that we have 4 WAPs in close proximity. If I should only use
> those 3 channels, what's my best approach?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen Johnson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 9:23 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Update: Group Policy Problems Over Wireless
>
> We just had a Cisco site survey done for our wireless and he said "never
> set them to auto" for the channel.
>
> Plot the waps on a map and manually configure the channels to 1 6 or 11 for
> minimum overlap. IE, waps on the same channel need to be separated to
> prevent interference.  We had previously had ours set to auto and following
> his advise helped quite a bit.
>
> His explanation is that, when configured for auto, the wap listens when it
> boots and selects the least busy channel.
>
> That may be good at boot time but could change significantly later on.
>
> Also, if a wap chooses any channel other than 1, 6 or 11, it can cause
> interference with on other channels.
>
> With these 3 channels selected, you get 3 non-overlapping channels.
>
> Any other channel will overlap with 2 of the above.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: John Hornbuckle [[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 8:50 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Update: Group Policy Problems Over Wireless
>
> No firm resolution on this yet, but possibly a bit of progress.
>
> I kept thinking about the problems we were having in this lab. The
> computers are the same computers we had in the lab last year, and last year
> we didn't have these problems. So, what changed? Two things: we replaced the
> WAPs that serve the lab with newer models, and more WAPs were installed in
> that area of the building.
>
> So I got to thinking that maybe the issue was an incompatibility between
> Broadcom NICs and the new WAPs, or an issue caused by too many WAPs being in
> the same vicinity. But we have another lab in a different area of the
> building that has the exact same WAPs and the exact same computers-but no
> problems. So that left the latter possibility-lots of WAPs stepping on one
> another's toes-as the prime culprit.
>
> The WAPs are Cisco/Linksys, and they all default to the same channel. I
> changed the ones in the area that was having the problem to "auto," but that
> didn't seem to really help. So next I forced the WAPs that serve the lab to
> "g" rather than "b/g/n." As moment, everything is working fine. My tech and
> I will be watching throughout the week, and if things are still working
> after a few days we'll consider the issue resolved.
>
>
> John
>
>
> From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[email protected]]
> Subject: Group Policy Problems Over Wireless
>
> Short version:
> Is there a trick to improving group policy processing when accessing the
> network wirelessly?
>
>
> Long version:
> We have a lab with machines that have Broadcom wireless NICs in them. Vista
> OS, connecting to Server 2008 R2 DC.
>
> I'm trying to deploy a piece of software to these machines via Group
> Policy. I have things setup so that if the machine is a member of a certain
> group, the software is deployed. Unfortunately, it only worked correctly on
> one of the machines-on all the rest, the software isn't being deployed.
>
> So I connect to any of the machines that didn't get the software, and run
> gpresult. It doesn't show me that those machines are members of the group
> that gets the software. But I know they are; I've confirmed in ADUC on the
> DC. They're just not picking up group membership.
>
> Looking at the event log for events that happen around startup, I see
> things that make me think group policy processing is trying to happen prior
> to the wireless network being initialized. Things like:
>
> Event ID 5719 (There are currently no logon servers available to service
> the logon request.) Event ID 129 (NtpClient was unable to set a domain peer
> to use as a time source because of discovery error.) Event ID 1129 (The
> processing of Group Policy failed because of lack of network connectivity to
> a domain controller.)
>
> Connectivity to the DC is fine once you get the [Ctrl] + [Alt] + [Del]
> window. You can log in (including as someone who has never logged into the
> machine before), ping the DC, browse to
> \\domain\syvol<file:///\\domain\syvol>, and so on. It's just that at that
> point, group policy processing seems to have given up. My machines aren't
> figuring out that they've been added to a new group.
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <
> http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to [email protected]<mailto:
> [email protected]>
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <
> http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to [email protected]<mailto:
> [email protected]>
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
> NOTICE: Florida has a broad public records law. Most written communications
> to or from this entity are public records that will be disclosed to the
> public and the media upon request. E-mail communications may be subject to
> public disclosure.
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <
> http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to [email protected]
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>
>
> NOTICE: Florida has a broad public records law. Most written communications
> to or from this entity are public records that will be disclosed to the
> public and the media upon request. E-mail communications may be subject to
> public disclosure.
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
>
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to [email protected]
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to [email protected]
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Reply via email to