| Post 41 made on Tuesday July 1, 2008 at 11:38 | ...it's new! |
Chris Horn Founding Member |
| |
| On Tuesday July 1, 2008 at 09:26, SimonO said... |
| they could release it tomorrow as an option, but what would be the point? |
The point is simply that I could choose to use it.
Having it as an option alongside with WEP is everythink I'm asking for!
All the problems like additional delay on reconnecting after deep sleep and latency on transmission are fine with me as long as my and my client's networks are secure.
And we are talking about a couple of seconds here, not half a minute!
Are you talking about CEDIA UK last month? I'm sorry, workload prohibited being over there but I would have loved to. |
If you don't want to get better you stop being good. | [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 42 made on Tuesday July 1, 2008 at 13:24 | ...it's new! |
SimonO Long Time Member |
| |
| Yes CEDIA UK, I'd be surprised if it was removed for a couple of seconds delay - my guess is that there is something more fundamentally 'wrong'!? |
SO AV™ Level 3 Certified | [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 43 made on Tuesday July 1, 2008 at 20:11 | ...it's new! |
sbwright Regular Member |
| |
I have to agree with Chris on this. It should be an option for those that want it. Our remote is rarely out of the cradle and we could live with it being kept alive at all times, rather than leaving our network open.
Currently we run 2 routers in series, the pronto equipment hifi gear, and Squeezecenter along with entire music collection are on the not secure WEP router. All of this is available for hacking along with a broadband internet connection.
Frankly in my opinion its irresponsible for anyone to even produce a device with only WEP today, and it certainly shouldn't be called security.
Before we all start if you don't like it buy something else, when we bought this device it was advertized as supporting WPA as well as WEP. |
Brian
Pronto TSU9600, RFX9600, (RFX9400 - retired), SlimPronto | [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 44 made on Thursday July 3, 2008 at 13:41 | ...it's new! |
Prontosw Junior Member |
| |
| +1 WPA support, please |
| [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 45 made on Thursday July 3, 2008 at 14:55 | ...it's new! |
SimonO Long Time Member |
| |
| On Tuesday July 1, 2008 at 20:11, sbwright said... |
| Before we all start if you don't like it buy something else, when we bought this device it was advertized as supporting WPA as well as WEP. |
That's interesting, I wasn't aware that Philips ever advertised WPA support :-(.
I have the same issue with our kids Nintendo DS which is also WEP only :-( |
SO AV™ Level 3 Certified | [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 46 made on Thursday July 3, 2008 at 20:02 | ...it's new! |
aminchew Long Time Member |
| |
I guess I won't be buying a Nintendo DS either.
I would have bought one of the new Pronto Pro's months ago if it had WPA support.
Alan Minchew |
| [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 47 made on Monday July 14, 2008 at 04:52 | ...it's new! |
Chris Horn Founding Member |
| |
| On Tuesday July 1, 2008 at 08:11, Lyndel McGee said... |
| You should instead email prontoteam at philips dot com. |
Just to update this thread I'd like to throw the following infos at you:
- neither the Pronto Team nor an individual from Philips did reply to me.
- there is going to be a whitepaper describing networking stuff (supposed this week).
So much for that. |
If you don't want to get better you stop being good. | [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 48 made on Monday July 14, 2008 at 23:19 | ...it's new! |
Roti Junior Member |
| |
My 2c worth.
The Squeezebox Controllers support WPA just fine. They stay connected when in the cradle. Approx 15 secs to reconnect when you pick them up and they have been left out of the cradle.
Disappointed with the Pronto and Philips support with this. |
| [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 49 made on Tuesday July 15, 2008 at 06:17 | ...it's new! |
Chris Horn Founding Member |
| |
I am told that reconnecting with WPA takes longer than with WEP but is not the main issue. Pressing a button would have a propagation delay of around 4secs until the action is executed (eg IR is send).
Makes me wonder if it's a bad implementation of WPA, too small a processor for the additional number crunching or simply the fact that Philips is shooting an enormous lot of data across the wifi link to make the transmission reliable. Getting the complete command to the receiver reliably is one of the things they promote (there is a paper about this called 'How we made WiFi reliable').
Anyway, this is my guess only. The Pronto Team prefers not to answer my e-Mails.
I expect my name to be kind of a red flag there. I don't care since this topic belongs to my profession and I'm only satisfied if all problems are solved.
This message was edited by Chris Horn on Tuesday July 15, 2008 at 06:28. |
If you don't want to get better you stop being good. | [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 50 made on Tuesday July 15, 2008 at 11:23 | ...it's new! |
Chris Horn Founding Member |
| |
| Since I try to be as open as I can, I'd just like to post that I was contacted by the Pronto Team and have gotten a preliminary release of the whitepaper to comment on. |
If you don't want to get better you stop being good. | [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 51 made on Tuesday July 15, 2008 at 20:26 | ...it's new! |
Lyndel McGee Loyal Member |
| |
Chris,
I was copied on an email sent to you today from Mr. Roels in Belgium that included a 6MB whitepaper in PDF format on the subject of WEP inside a WPA network. Please check your mailbox.
Lyndel |
Lyndel McGee
Philips Pronto Addict/Beta Tester
View EscientPronto 1.0.2 Docs - http://www.mediafire.com/do...hp?yyfzfzzok5z | [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 52 made on Tuesday July 15, 2008 at 21:14 | ...it's new! |
Kevin Magee Regular Member |
| |
| On Tuesday July 15, 2008 at 11:23, Chris Horn said... |
| Since I try to be as open as I can, I'd just like to post that I was contacted by the Pronto Team and have gotten a preliminary release of the whitepaper to comment on. |
Do tell what it says. |
| [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 53 made on Wednesday July 16, 2008 at 02:08 | ...it's new! |
Chris Horn Founding Member |
| |
I was given the whitepaper without signing any kind of NDA but I don't think it's in the best interrest of all parties if I lurk information that are not ready for the masses yet.
@Lyndel:
That's what I meant. Got it and sent back comments already.
Since I was complaining in this forum publicly I felt that I had to post a statement that things get rolling. I consider this just being fair. |
If you don't want to get better you stop being good. | [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 54 made on Wednesday July 16, 2008 at 20:22 | ...it's new! |
Kevin Magee Regular Member |
| |
| On Tuesday July 15, 2008 at 06:17, Chris Horn said... |
| Makes me wonder if it's a bad implementation of WPA, too small a processor for the additional number crunching or simply the fact that Philips is shooting an enormous lot of data across the wifi link to make the transmission reliable. Getting the complete command to the receiver reliably is one of the things they promote (there is a paper about this called 'How we made WiFi reliable').
Anyway, this is my guess only. The Pronto Team prefers not to answer my e-Mails. |
This is the part where I usually discover that I have purchased a product with a major flaw that I don't like, security, that can not be corrected. Then the company release a new product with that feature, WPA, and my old product is just SOL. My guess it that the WPA thing is not going to be corrected and maybe addressed in a next generation? |
| [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 55 made on Thursday July 17, 2008 at 12:25 | ...it's new! |
mjrlocal1 Junior Member |
| |
| I recently sat down with a Philips Pronto trainer. He basically explained it to me like this. They could very easily support WPA, however your adding a lot of over head in the packet transmission that could slow down the remote. Also if someone really wanted to get into your network you can very easily download a program off the internet that can hack WEP encryption or WPA encryption within 1 1/2 to 3 mins. So if some really wanted into your network it wouldn't matter what encryption you have. I think the over head is probably the main issue. Seeing as a WEP encrypted connection takes about 3 secs to establish a WPA encryption connection, while I don't know the exact number, would take significally longer. |
| [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 56 made on Thursday July 17, 2008 at 20:44 | ...it's new! |
nyjklein Long Time Member |
| |
Once again, that's complete c**p. Anyone equating the capability to crack WEP and to crack WPA, is just plain wrong.
I apologize for the language, but enough of this. WEP is totally insecure and is barely above an unencrypted wireless network. WPA has NOT, repeat NOT been broken when reasonable keys are used.
Jeff
|
| [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 57 made on Thursday July 17, 2008 at 20:54 | ...it's new! |
Chris Horn Founding Member |
| |
| On Thursday July 17, 2008 at 12:25, mjrlocal1 said... |
| So if some really wanted into your network it wouldn't matter what encryption you have. |
..only if they are not using the wireless link to hack in.
I don't know about WPA encryption hacking time (is it hacked yet?),
WEP actually takes a couple of seconds. Not even half a minute.
Currently uncracked encryption is WPA2.
Encryption techniques are pretty similar to IPsec which is considered to be safe as well. |
If you don't want to get better you stop being good. | [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 58 made on Friday July 18, 2008 at 18:12 | ...it's new! |
Kevin Magee Regular Member |
| |
| I have been doing a lot of reading on this subject. WEP is completely unacceptable. I am reconfiguring my router to WPA2 and just disabling my extender. I guess the price you pay for such low cost equipment with such great features is basically no security which is what WEP is. The trade-off is unacceptable. |
| [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 59 made on Friday July 18, 2008 at 22:51 | ...it's new! |
Kevin Magee Regular Member |
| |
| I'm stuck with two networks right now, one WEP that has nothing but my TSU9600 and one WPA2 for everything else.
Jeff |
Maybe this is my solution, two networks. Opinions? |
| [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
| Post 60 made on Friday July 18, 2008 at 22:55 | ...it's new! |
bcc Long Time Member |
| |
| On Thursday July 17, 2008 at 20:44, nyjklein said... |
| I apologize for the language, but enough of this. WEP is totally insecure and is barely above an unencrypted wireless network. WPA has NOT, repeat NOT been broken when reasonable keys are used. |
I second this. Enough unsubstantiated excuses already (first WPA not being standardized, then battery consumption, now WPA not secure enough?!) |
| [ Reply | Quote & Reply |
