Curse

onerabbit · Nov 26, 2007, 07:06 PM // 19:06

i dont really suffer high ping, but in the last few days, everyday around 7pm GMT (now) til around 10pm i get insane ping.. but the weird thing is it goes like this:

35
freezes for 30 seconds
17k!
freezes
35
freezes
10k
etc etc

its gone over 100k some times.

ive never had this problem before.

im not downloading anything, i dont have any other programms running.

i do share wireless internet, but i dont think its that becuase my bro isnt logged on to his pc and its still happening.

Any advice please.
Edit: more info:

i get d/c and when i recconect it just stays at 100%..

also, if i restart the game, i can log in no problems, but asoon as i click on a char it just goes loading 0% ... and stays at that.

tijo · Nov 26, 2007, 07:19 PM // 19:19

When you say you share wireless internet, do you mean that you have a wireless network set up at your home? If so, is is secured? If it's not your lagg could be explained by some leeching on your wireless network.

onerabbit · Nov 26, 2007, 08:33 PM // 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by tijo

When you say you share wireless internet, do you mean that you have a wireless network set up at your home? If so, is is secured? If it's not your lagg could be explained by some leeching on your wireless network.

thats what i feared.

the problem is, when we put a password on it, i cant connect .. for some reason it just says connecting .. . . . . . . then says unable to connect.

so we had to take the password off.

Haskell · Nov 26, 2007, 08:36 PM // 20:36

There is another ping-thread just 2 lines under yours.

Encrypt your WLAN (check your router-setup and read the manual). - Don't use WEP and also make sure you have a long, strong password for WPA.

Josh · Nov 26, 2007, 09:00 PM // 21:00

Yeah, highly recommend encrypting your WLAN with either WEP/WPA (preferablly WPA if your router supports it)..

Only reason I don't use WPA is because then my sister's stupid Nintendo DS can't connect to the wireless.. Stupid things don't support WPA encryption, gotta use WEP..

Pft..

onerabbit · Nov 26, 2007, 09:06 PM // 21:06

ok, the problem has just gotten a million times worse. like i said, when i put a password on it, i cant connect.

i used the WPA thing ... i tried to connect, it connects, then kicks me off.

so i went onto my bros pc, hes alrdy connected, i try to get into my wireless network settings via http://192 etc... just says connecting... wont let me on.

now i cant remove my password and cannot connect to the internet on my pc.

onerabbit · Nov 26, 2007, 09:19 PM // 21:19

Ok. i just reset my internet. made a new password etc and now it all works

.. seems to be fine, for know.

ty for the help <3

Josh · Nov 26, 2007, 10:38 PM // 22:38

You reset the internet!? HOLY ****!

Haskell · Nov 26, 2007, 11:10 PM // 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josh

Only reason I don't use WPA is because then my sister's stupid Nintendo DS can't connect to the wireless.. Stupid things don't support WPA encryption, gotta use WEP..

Then I would not care about my sister and tell her to get a own WEP-AP just for her stupid NDS. Using WEP is like using no encryption at all. Any scriptkiddy can open a WEP-WLAN in under 5 mins.

cu

Master Ketsu · Nov 26, 2007, 11:53 PM // 23:53

Wireless in general does that kind of crap.

The first thing to look for if it continues is EMI. Something in your house other then your wireless card / router / some leecher may be the problem. For instance... things like stereo's and 2.4ghz cordless phones have a bad reputation of killing wireless signals. The less walls between you and the router, the better.

More importantly...what kind of wireless card do you have ? If your using a laptop with a built in PCI then thats the worst wireless configuration you can have. Built in wireless cards tend to have a lot more interferance problems then USB adapters. I actually have a built in wireless card myself but I disabled it because it had a problem similar to your's and simply use a USB Linksys wireless G. It never cuts out.

those are some things to consider in case it starts doing that again.

onerabbit · Nov 27, 2007, 12:32 PM // 12:32

I'm using a netgear router, with a netgear USB thiny for me.
its 108.0Mbps

Signal Strenght: Verygood/exellent.

Chthon · Nov 27, 2007, 06:29 PM // 18:29

Probably a more likely culprit than a leecher is simple electromagnetic interference. Cordless phones, television sets, CRT monitors, microwaves, and pirate radio stations, among many other things, have been know to interfere with wireless signals. Best advice here is to change the channel the router is using. Most routers support 11 frequencies to choose from.

Though, you should still secure your network from leechers anyway:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haskell

Encrypt your WLAN (check your router-setup and read the manual). - Don't use WEP and also make sure you have a long, strong password for WPA.

I agree. Though, if you must use WEP instead of WPA (for any of the reasons listed by other posters), you'll probably still be OK, since the odds of living near a leech who can break WEP, despite its weaknesses, are pretty low.

You should also:

Enable MAC filtering. A MAC address is analogous to a serial number for network devices (network cards, wireless cards, etc.). MAC filtering will allow only devices with MAC addresses you specify to connect to the router. (Use start-->run-->"cmd"-->"ipconfig /all" to learn the MAC addresses of your computer's network devices.) Only someone with wireless snooping software will be able to learn which MAC addresses are whitelisted and mimic one of them to gain access; all less-sophisticated leeches are shut out.
Disable "broadcast SSID," then change your network's name. The SSID broadcast is what causes your network to show up in window's list of available networks in the area for anyone who cares to browse. If you disable it, people can only connect to your network if they already know the name, and they can only learn the name if you tell them or they use wireless snooping software; less-sophisticated leeches are shut out.
In your DCHP settings, limit your IP pool down to the largest number of computers you expect to legitimately connect, and set the expiration period for assigned IPs to the maximum. DCHP assigns IP addresses to computers on the network. By limiting the number of available IPs to the number of IPs you expect to actually be using and not letting their assignments expire, you leave no spares available for a leech to use silently. Even If they are somehow able to secure an address, they will necessarily run the risk of colliding with a legitimate machine, and sooner or later you will catch them when they do.

dont feel no pain · Nov 27, 2007, 07:10 PM // 19:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by onerabbit

I'm using a netgear router, with a netgear USB thiny for me.
its 108.0Mbps

Signal Strenght: Verygood/exellent.

Me too, but wireless stil fails.... I often plug in my ethernet all the way across the house because i love cables... so perfect

onerabbit · Nov 27, 2007, 07:22 PM // 19:22

ok, 7.21 .. and im having the problem again lol.

im WPA password protected, so i dont think anyone is leeching, my signal is still exellent but i cant connect to gw, xfire or msn, but i can browse guru fine.

help

tijo · Nov 27, 2007, 07:29 PM // 19:29

You said netgear router. GW is know to have issues with netgear routers. There is a sticky in the tech's corner thta explains how to fix this in most cases.

Quaker · Nov 27, 2007, 08:56 PM // 20:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by onerabbit

ok, 7.21 .. and im having the problem again lol.

You may be getting sidetracked by the wireless network. It's not necessarily the wireless network that is the problem. You didn't say what type of internet connection you have - what connects your wireless network to the internet - cable, DSL, dial-up?.....

I used to have that same sort of problem a few years ago. Every evening around 10 pm my ping would go sky high. I called the ISP (cable) many times, and they couldn't find any reason for it. So, in frustration, I switched to DSL

. A few months later, someone bought out the cable company, and since the DSL sucked, I went back to cable. It's been working great ever since.

Unfortunately, therefore, I never actually found out what the problem was. However, as you may know, cable internet is a "shared access" type of system. That is, the cable bandwidth is shared between the users in a particular area. How much bandwidth you get to use depends somewhat on how many users are connected and how much your ISP tries to cheapen things up by having too many users on one "node".
I suspected, back when I had the problem, that some user was getting on-line around the same time most nights, and downloading huge amounts of midget monkey porn, or whatever, and sucking up the bandwidth.

Edit: Oh yeah, and check that some anti-virus program is not doing background scans around that time.

Haskell · Nov 27, 2007, 10:56 PM // 22:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

You should also: ...long list

Security by obscurity doesn't work. Kismet + ifconfig, done. Heck, even normal networkmanagers like wicd can see WLANS w/o SSID

________

@Topic: Really use a STRONG, LONG password for WPA, because it's easy to attack with brute force.

Chthon · Nov 28, 2007, 01:54 AM // 01:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haskell

Security by obscurity doesn't work. Kismet + ifconfig, done. Heck, even normal networkmanagers like wicd can see WLANS w/o SSID.

Security by obscurity doesn't work when you're Microsoft and everyone in the world gets to take a shot at breaking your security. Statistically speaking, it tends to work extremely well at staving off limited numbers of unsophisticated attackers.

If onerabbit has a leech at all (which I doubt; it's probably just EMI), chances are very high that it's some dumb college kid next door with a laptop who would be utterly stumped if the SSID disappeared. Most computer users are just barely computer literate, and I have no reason to suspect that onerabbit's (potentially) leeching neighbors are anything other than average.

Moreover, leeching wireless is like stealing cars -- even if a thief could bypass some minimal security, it's much easier just to walk down the block and find a different target with the door unlocked.

Also, while I agree that disabling SSID broadcast qualifies as "security by obscurity," how exactly do you figure that moniker fits MAC filtering or limiting your IP pool?

One final note: There's no reason not to employ weak security methods merely because they are weak. That might be a good reason to add stronger security methods on top of the weak ones, if you expect a serious attack. And it might be a good reason to keep a realistic view of your level of vulnerability and not go looking for trouble. But there is never any reason to forego a security measure because it might be breached.

Haskell · Dec 04, 2007, 01:51 AM // 01:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

Also, while I agree that disabling SSID broadcast qualifies as "security by obscurity," how exactly do you figure that moniker fits MAC filtering or limiting your IP pool?

Noticing that someone uses MAC-filtering is much easier than you think. tcpdump... some basic knowlegdege about arp-broadcasting etc. Once you are inside a network, it's trivial... All I am saying is: Don't use WEP, use WPA1/2 with a long (more than 12 chars) passphrase that's not a guessable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

One final note: There's no reason not to employ weak security methods merely because they are weak. That might be a good reason to add stronger security methods on top of the weak ones, if you expect a serious attack. And it might be a good reason to keep a realistic view of your level of vulnerability and not go looking for trouble. But there is never any reason to forego a security measure because it might be breached.

That's the way how people with not much knowledge think like. Sorry. Either something is strong and noone will get trough it, or it's not. Cascading weak mechanisms will only make it easier to get over it. Look at "Personal Firewalls" for example - those just make it just easier to get alot more vectors to attack a system. They don't make anything more secure.

Chthon · Dec 04, 2007, 06:31 PM // 18:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haskell

Noticing that someone uses MAC-filtering is much easier than you think. tcpdump... some basic knowlegdege about arp-broadcasting etc.

Let me repeat:

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

If onerabbit has a leech at all..., chances are very high that it's some dumb college kid next door with a laptop who would be utterly stumped if [any roadblock at all was introduced]. Most computer users are just barely computer literate, and I have no reason to suspect that onerabbit's (potentially) leeching neighbors are anything other than average.

MAC filtering won't stop a single sophisticated attacker, but it stops nearly all unsophisticated attackers. And the odds that onerabbit's leech (if he exists at all) is an unsophistacted attacker is pretty damn near 100%. Ergo, MAC filtering is exceedingly likely to solve this particular problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haskell

Either something is strong and noone will get trough it, or it's not.

No security mechanism is strong enough "noone" can get "trough" it.

You can only hope to raise the costs of devising and executing a successful attack high enough that potential attackers decide the payoff isn't worth it.

Quote:

Cascading weak mechanisms will only make it easier to get over it.

This is simply untrue. Cascading weak mechanisms are exactly that -- cascading weak mechanisms. They make it marginally harder to get access. Whether that margin is high enough in light of the volume and sophistication of negative attention you are expecting is a case-by-case question. But they should never, ever be moving you backwards. Something that adds a new attack vector (at least without closing another, worse vector) is not a "security mechanism" at all.

Now, please put your money where your mouth is -- please explain with specificity exactly how any of the weak mechanisms I suggested (disabling SSID, MAC filtering, limiting the IP pool) adds an attack vector that wasn't available before that mechanism was employed. Do not tell me how to defeat a given mechanism; tell me where that mechanism is causing this backwards progress that you allege. Point out the backwards step. Describe for me, with specificity, an attack vector that is not viable before these mechanisms are employed, but becomes viable only because they are employed.