netgear dg834g / wg511 / wpa / windows xp sp1

Hi!

It took me some time to get my netgear wireless network to work with WPA.
So I decided to post my findings.
Hope this can help some of you...

* Wireless adsl router :
Netgear dg834g
Firmware version 1.03.00

The modem worked fine right away (French ISP wanadoo).
I didn't have to install the "flaky/crappy" 1.04.xx or 1.05.00 firmwares.

* PC card (802.11g) :
Netgear wg511
Software version 2.7.0.0
i.e.
Driver Version: 2.1.22.0
Utility Version: 2.26.22.6

Everything worked fine right away using WEP.
No need to setup anything else.

But WPA wasn't that easy!

* Windows XP SP1

I did not install update 815485 :
update 815485 (Mar 31 2003)
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=815485

But I installed 826942 :
update 826942 (Oct 31 2003)
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=826942

It worked at this point but the connection was kinda flaky.

So I also had to deactivate the windows zero configuration utility service.
(WZCSVC or "configuration automatique sans fil" in French)

Check out KB 821400 :
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=821400

Everything works fine now.
And I live happily ever after... using WPA

I don't plan to install Windows XP SP2 yet.
The wg511 driver is still a beta driver for SP2.

Cheers.

Vince.

On 11 Oct 2004 10:02:29 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (Vince) wrote:

>It took me some time to get my netgear wireless network to work with WPA.

Oddly I found WPA easier to use than WEP.

>* Wireless adsl router :
>Netgear dg834g
>Firmware version 1.03.00
>
>The modem worked fine right away (French ISP wanadoo).
>I didn't have to install the "flaky/crappy" 1.04.xx or 1.05.00 firmwares.

v1.05 is the best firmware by a mile. My router is currently showing
an up time of 1300 hours on LAN and WLAN (although it did drop the WAN
connection about 200 hours ago but reconnected before I was aware
there had been a problem). Prior to that it was showing 900 hours on
all three, but I had to unplug it to move some furniture - and prior
to that was the reboot after the firmware upgrade.

Certainly for me, v1.05 was just the answer.

>* PC card (802.11g) :
>Netgear wg511
>Software version 2.7.0.0
>i.e.
>Driver Version: 2.1.22.0
>Utility Version: 2.26.22.6
>
>Everything worked fine right away using WEP.
>No need to setup anything else.
>
>But WPA wasn't that easy!
>
>* Windows XP SP1
>
>I did not install update 815485 :
>update 815485 (Mar 31 2003)
>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=815485
>
>But I installed 826942 :
>update 826942 (Oct 31 2003)
>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=826942
>
>It worked at this point but the connection was kinda flaky.
>
>So I also had to deactivate the windows zero configuration utility service.
>(WZCSVC or "configuration automatique sans fil" in French)

The WZC in XP-SP1 was horrible. I could not get it to work properly
with WPA at all. Although technically it was set up correctly it had
ticked "enable 802.1x authentication" and it was grayed out so I could
not turn it off when using WPA. Consequently the connection dropped
every 11 minutes or so. Useless. So I, too, went back to the native
GUI. I have since upgraded to SP2 but continued with the native GUI
for the WG511. I understand that the WZC has been replaced by
something far superior in SP2 but I have not used it so I cannot offer
comment.

Simon Pleasants wrote:

>
> My router is currently showing
> an up time of 1300 hours on LAN and WLAN (although it did drop the WAN
> connection about 200 hours ago but reconnected before I was aware
> there had been a problem).
>
Am confused with the concept of WLAN, and on what side of the firewall
it resides. Hope you can help me a little.

My understanding is that the Wifi connection occurs, in general, on the
in(LAN)-side of the firewall, not on the out(WAN)-side of it. Am I
correct ?

I mean, is it that the wifi router serves as a router between a WAN on
one end and two LANs on the other; one being a typical ethernet LAN and
the other being a wireless LAN (hence WLAN) ?

With such a configuration, I am concerned of having the entire LAN
(LAN+WLAN) compromised should the wifi signal be intercepted and
cracked. Would rather have a Wifi AP on the WAN side of my firewall, in
a DMZ type of environnement.

Any info welcome.

Yes, your wireless lan is on the LAN side of the firewall. Your wireless lan
is simply an extension of your wired lan, any pc on your lan can communicate
directly with any anyother pc, wireless or wired.

Memphis

"RKMT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Simon Pleasants wrote:
>
> >
> > My router is currently showing
> > an up time of 1300 hours on LAN and WLAN (although it did drop the WAN
> > connection about 200 hours ago but reconnected before I was aware
> > there had been a problem).
> >
> Am confused with the concept of WLAN, and on what side of the firewall
> it resides. Hope you can help me a little.
>
> My understanding is that the Wifi connection occurs, in general, on the
> in(LAN)-side of the firewall, not on the out(WAN)-side of it. Am I
> correct ?
>
> I mean, is it that the wifi router serves as a router between a WAN on
> one end and two LANs on the other; one being a typical ethernet LAN and
> the other being a wireless LAN (hence WLAN) ?
>
> With such a configuration, I am concerned of having the entire LAN
> (LAN+WLAN) compromised should the wifi signal be intercepted and
> cracked. Would rather have a Wifi AP on the WAN side of my firewall, in
> a DMZ type of environnement.
>
> Any info welcome.

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 00:49:17 +0100, RKMT
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> My router is currently showing
>> an up time of 1300 hours on LAN and WLAN (although it did drop the WAN
>> connection about 200 hours ago but reconnected before I was aware
>> there had been a problem).
>>
>Am confused with the concept of WLAN, and on what side of the firewall
>it resides. Hope you can help me a little.
>
>My understanding is that the Wifi connection occurs, in general, on the
>in(LAN)-side of the firewall, not on the out(WAN)-side of it. Am I
>correct ?

WLAN = Wireless Local Area Network.

So yes, basically it's just like an extra port on your switch, only
one you don't have to plug directly into. It therefore co-exists with
your LAN.

>With such a configuration, I am concerned of having the entire LAN
>(LAN+WLAN) compromised should the wifi signal be intercepted and
>cracked. Would rather have a Wifi AP on the WAN side of my firewall, in
>a DMZ type of environnement.

Well this is a risk which will always be there with a WLAN, although
there are steps you can take to minimise it and I believe isolating
clients on the WLAN from the LAN is possible with the right devices.