Forgive me for a little bit of pedantry: The home wireless networking that you're talking about is in fact an Ethernet technology. The difference between wired Ethernet and wireless Ethernet is (as others have stated) about speed, security, and convenience. For home users, wired Ethernet is faster and more secure (assuming that you prevent unauthorized users from plugging into your network equipment) but significantly less convenient for some.

Typically, speed of home wireless networks is so much less than the Internet connection speed that going to wired Ethernet isn't helpful. The big exception is if you have significant traffic that's going between devices on your network (not Internet traffic). In that case the increase in speed locally can be very worthwhile.

I found that streaming video (Netflix) didn't work well via the wireless connection to my DVD player, but when I went to the trouble to install wired Ethernet the problems were resolved. Otherwise I use wireless at home.

I didn't read the whole thread, but we all noticed she had no password, right? So, for security, I recommend starting with a password.

I stream Netflix and Amazon videos over our wireless all the time with fine results. However, I use my laptop and plug it into the TV with an HDMI cable. I have noticed that the wi-fi in the DVD player can be a bit fussy at times. I suspect the problem is in the player, not the link itself.

This is a little off topic, but it pays to check your Internet speed using a website such as www.speedtest.net.

I often find that my customers aren't getting the speed from their Internet service provider (ISP) that they expect. Often, the speed is significantly less than expected. This isn't because the service isn't being provided, it is because they are using older cable modems or older wireless routers. Most older devices don't allow the higher speed through the WAN port and they get throttled down to 5 or 6 mbps even though their ISP may provide speeds rated many times higher. This frequently happens on the wireless side, but can also be apparent on the wired side as well.

Thanks to ALL of you! I consider a day I learn something new a good day. Today, I've learned about Ethernet, (which I had assumed meant wireless, ie radio waves coming over the "aether") wired vs wireless networks, network security, and secure passwords. Even a little humor. I'll have to mark this day with a white stone. Thanks again.

I learned something new about long, somewhat random passwords. The cartoon is great.

Further, in my universe, there are well over 100 passwords I need to know, and every password verifier I have is case sensitive. So, the "26" number that some are using above is "52" for me. For example...



So, those complexities become...

(52*52*52*52*52*52*52*52) for letters only
(62*62*62*62*62*62*62*62) for letters and numbers
(76*76*76*76*76*76*76*76) for letters, numbers, and special characters

So, length with only letters is HOLY COW, TOTALLY AWESOME. Adding numbers and special characters is useless overkill for my purposes. Literally, adding numbers and special characters kills the ease of remembrance, while adding needless complexity.

Thus, the general rule of "long, letters only, and at least somewhat random" remains a fantastic rule.

Just a caution that the entropy of length with only letters is significantly degraded when you use words. A dictionary attack will usually be able to crack a very long password if it's made up of words.

Another way to create a memorable password that is quite complex is to start with phrase, like, "Fred, the mailman, always arrives by 11:30 AM on weekdays." That can be shortened to "F,tm,aab11:30AMow."

True statement, but the context is critical, too.

For example, at work, our ability to log in will lock out for 12 hours after three unsuccessful log in attempts. So, as far as keeping out someone trying to remotely connect to my work network and trying to guess my password, even a single, randomly chosen word (i.e. no particular association to me, like a hobby, pet name, etc. and isn't dumb like "password" or "asdf") is pretty much secure against that. An attacker is better off using some other method to get in.

Of course, if I'm worried about my encrypted copy of some unnamed high official's real birth certificate (I'm just joking) falling into the wrong hands, and an attacker can run a thousand keys a second against that file for weeks and months, then the reduction in entropy by using words certainly becomes very important.

Not saying that my home network has a copy of said document--if any high level, well connected parties are listening in...

In my previous line of work, I had a nice little sideline in password cracking as part of a security assessment. As I'm sure I've mentioned before, I never did any security assessment work without a signed letter of authorization from the appropriate parties.

Anyway, there are some systems out there where the hashed passwords cannot be extracted to run attacks against them by an unprivileged attacker. But there aren't very many .

So what? The attacker need not attempt a login until they have derived a good password, if they can sniff enough traffic.

Security is tough problem and hardened sites are expensive to deploy, even more expensive to maintain, and require big restrictions on a usability. In the real world you have to size the solution to match the threats & consequences.

For myself and clients the threshold is preventing drive-by (literally) downloads of kiddie porn. So it's WPA with a very strong PSK (63 characters, each from an RNG). That's not as good or as easy as certificates but it's a fair trade-off that works in our cases.