|
|
Post by tuesdaymine on Apr 25, 2009 22:29:49 GMT
Changed my ISP last week, appears i no longer need a password to log on.
My PC is not protected with out one.? 
Can i have your opinions please
Tuesday 
|
|
|
|
Post by kubik8 on Apr 25, 2009 23:39:06 GMT
Not protected from what? Other people using your machine to access the internet?
|
|
|
|
Post by computing50yrs on Apr 26, 2009 8:12:18 GMT
Password only needed to stop other people using your ISP account. Many ISP use your Tel No to authenticate that you are logging in from the correct number. This of course stops you from logging in with a laptop from another location on a different phone no.
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Apr 26, 2009 8:24:06 GMT
Even on direct access on cable, it only excepts access from the MAC address of the modem. If you have to change your cable modem, you have to phone India and tell them your new MAC address.
KC
|
|
|
|
Post by computing50yrs on Apr 26, 2009 8:45:59 GMT
Ken not found that myself - I test modems and routers by connecting to my ISP and I can use my normal login and password on any of them and can connec t every time. In some cases I take my ADSL modem router to an other location where client cannot connect to their ISP due to faulty modem and I just program my own modem/router with their logon and password and connect without problems
|
|
|
|
Post by mikkh on Apr 26, 2009 8:54:45 GMT
Changed your ISP to who?
As Ken says, if you've changed to cable, internet access is only granted via the MAC address on the modem, which is tied in to your home address and customer account number as well. Therefore no password required
Most ADSL connections work similarly too
Were you on dial-up before? That's the last time I can remember having to supply a password to get online
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Apr 26, 2009 8:55:54 GMT
Your talking about ADSL Graham, I'm talking about DSL. Then it has to be MAC address as theres no phone involved in the system. Theres no password or anything, just boot and your online. Everything hangs on that MAC address. It also stops the guy downstairs putting a spitter in my cable.
KC
|
|
|
|
Post by mikkh on Apr 26, 2009 9:00:57 GMT
Graham that's definitely not the case with cable modems, they will only work in the location the customer account and MAC address are tied to
|
|
|
|
Post by tuesdaymine on Apr 26, 2009 17:32:31 GMT
When i used Wanadoo( Freeserve) i had to use a password.
Now using TalkTalk for line,calls,broadband but no password is asked for.
I also had to contact India for Mail server @, once this was installed alls been OK.
I don't have Mac.
Reading thread it appears it works from my phone number?
Thanks so much Tuesday
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Apr 26, 2009 17:55:12 GMT
We don't mean Apple Mac Tuesday. The MAC address is transmitted by all online components, like computers, routers and modems. It makes them all traceable, in a vain attempt to catch naughty people who send out viruses and things.
KC
|
|
|
|
Post by mikkh on Apr 26, 2009 18:46:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Apr 26, 2009 19:38:17 GMT
That was very interesting reading Mikk, I particularly like this bit and found it fascinating:
IEEE 802.6 send the bits over the wire with most significant bit first, confusion may arise where an address in the latter scenario is represented with bits reversed from the canonical representation. So for instance, an address whose canonical form is 12-34-56-78-9A-BC would be transmitted over the wire as bits 01001000 00101100 01101010 00011110 01011001 00111101 in the standard transmission order (least significant bit first). But for Token Ring networks, it would be transmitted as bits 00010010 00110100 01010110 01111000 10011010 10111100 in most significant bit first order. If care is not taken to translate correctly and consistently to the canonical representation, the latter might be displayed as 482C6A1E593D, which could cause confusion. This would be referred to as "Bit-reversed order", "Non-canonical form", "MSB format", "IBM format", or "Token Ring format" as explained by RFC 2469. Canonical form is preferred, generally because the more modern implementations do not use non-canonical form.
KC
|
|
|
|
Post by nike on Apr 27, 2009 0:02:45 GMT
Hahahahaha !!!! ;D KC, sometimes you crack me up..... lol 
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Apr 27, 2009 3:54:38 GMT
I would love to know how many people have been sitting there trying to get their head round that Kev.
KC
|
|
|
|
Post by mikkh on Apr 27, 2009 9:07:03 GMT
You obviously forgot this........ "as explained by RFC 2469" It would have made it totally lucid (as mud)
The first paragraph or so was the only required reading - the rest was for people without a TV, or as a substitute for taking sleeping tablets
You shouldn't mock the helpful nature of Wikipedia, do you realise someone has spent literally seconds copying and pasting that from another site in a bid to appear knowledgeable?
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Apr 27, 2009 11:49:33 GMT
Document RFC 2469, finishes thus Mikk:
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
It is apparent that the author obviously spent a great deal of time padding his time sheet and expense account. He certainly wouldn't want anyone less knowledgeable than himself, questioning his figures.
The document itself is worthy of the great Einstein.
KC
|
|
