|
Lost today
Wordle 302 X/6
🟩⬜⬜🟨⬜
🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩⬜⬜🟨⬜
🟩⬜🟨⬜⬜
🟩⬜⬜⬜🟩
🟩🟩⬜⬜🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 302 4/6*
🟩⬜⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟨🟨⬜⬜
🟩⬜🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 302 4/6*
⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜
⬜🟨⬜🟨⬜
🟨⬜🟨⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 302 6/6
⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜
⬜🟨🟨⬜⬜
⬜🟨⬜🟩🟩
🟩⬜🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 302 4/6
🟩⬜⬜🟨⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟩
⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
I've just discovered a bunch of these that evidently I had stashed away when computers started having WIFI capability integrated onto the motherboard, and was wondering if I should just throw them out.
|
|
|
|
|
You could use them as local WiFi to connect all things that is nice to have connected but that do not require / are not safe enough to connect to the internet...
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
They should still work, provided your router is backward compatible (and most are, in my experience).
IEEE803.11n (up to 600Mbps with a tailwind) was introduced in 2008, and they may support that.
If not, they would almost certainly support 803.11a/b/g (up to 54Mbps).
The "dongle" is insignificant in the security chain, so that's not a consideration.
btw I am typing this on a 2007-8 vintage laptop. The processor is slow by today's standards but it is fully functional (and beats the pants off my more modern laptops for weight and battery life.)
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Many (most?) home wi-fi access points are, in my experience, backward compatible to the b/g/n standards. Your old wi-fi receivers should work fine with such an access point.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that because they can send so much less data/time they'll suck up a disproportionate amount of your routers theoretical capacity.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously new devices would have better throughput, but if the OP is using them for low-bandwidth functions, it may save him/her a bit of cash.
I can imagine a configuration where the OP uses a 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi channel for the old stuff and a 5 GHz channel for the modern stuff, thus having no interference between the old and the new.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
They may work fine, but security and speed arent great enough for modern times. For some low power use cases they may fit, but I wont invest the time and let them go into the trash.
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Could you please explain what the security issue is?
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
I'm curious too.
As long as the old router isn't being used to connect directly to the internet (eg, you essentially just use it as a range extended, and let you main router manage the outside connection), you should be okay. I wouldn't worry one bit about remote hacking (as in, halfway across the world).
However if you live in a crowded area where a neighbor could use the old router's connection as a way into your internal network...that would absolutely be a concern.
|
|
|
|
|
WiFi routers are a primary attack point for those that are distributing malware and building bot-nets. For that reason they get frequent updates for security issues in their firmware. New models handle newer, more secure protocols.
Not using a router to connect to the Internet is almost pointless. It can still be used as an access to other machines on your network, machine which may have Internet access. Given it's weak security you may have false confidence in its level of protection.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
As I understood OP's question, he's talking about the wifi "dongle" we plugged into a USB port before there was motherboard wifi support.
Sure, routers are a major attack target for the baddies, but that isn't what this thread is about.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Gary R. Wheeler wrote: It can still be used as an access to other machines on your network, machine which may have Internet access.
Not necessarily if you white list the connection pool pool, mapping only fixed local IPs to concrete MACs in your LAN subnet where thy are involved (and IIRC that was already possible in many router brands back in 2006)
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Gary R. Wheeler wrote: For that reason they get frequent updates for security issues in their firmware.
Wifi routers get frequent security updates? That's certainly not my experience. And definitely not the opinion of Steve Gibson, host of the Security Now podcast...he's rather dismayed at how quickly routers are abandoned by their manufacturers and hardly ever get updates.
Unless you're talking about expensive commercial routers for which you pay a "subscription" fee - not consumer units.
|
|
|
|
|
Security under WPA2 is cracked and unsecure. On top a lot of wifi devices have known flaws like bugs or fix passwords.
Google for details
ps: I work for an established wifi vendor
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the wide range of vulnerabilities in wifi networks, but I am yet to see one implicating a wifi "dongle" which is what the original question referred to.
ps I have been building computer networks since well before wifi was invented.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
I think you have enough time to for learning by "bad experience" when using trashy hardware and risk security flaw.
As Bear Grylls said: "I am too old for that sh*t" 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Given that wifi routers still support B/G/N which were all available back then, I wouldn't call them obsolete. I remember getting a USB attached Linksys device that routinely connected at 300MB/s. It became obsolete due to incompatible drivers/lack of support from Linksys. this was OK since at the same time, systems came with built-on wifi.
On the same note, I was pondering something similar about my h/o server. The case/cpu/mobo/fans/psu are all around 13 y/o. The original 64GB SSD and spinning data drive have both been upgraded. (the spinner actually died an unrecoverable death at the 6 year mark) So current SSDs are around 7 y/o and everything else is original. Performance-wise, it still seems snappy enough...occasional monitoring during peak hours doesn't show anything to be alarmed about. I'm considering replacing it with an Azure VM to handle the dozen or so web applications/domain it is currently hosting and using an older laptop for a file/printer server for the local stuff I've come to rely on. Hardware is lasting a lot longer these days, especially with the advent of SS drives.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
yes, it will work but the speed won't be that great
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
.... wow