Which is "safer" from a hotel room (public or private IP)?

I always log in from hotels and am faced with the question if I want a
public IP address (ostensibly for VPN) or a firewalled hotel IP.

Which should I pick?

I'm not using VPN (which they seem to indicate the public IP is for) but it
seems like I'd get more "privacy" from the public IP address as the other
IP address would be associated with the hotel (wouldn't it?)

Basically, I'm confused.

Which would YOU pick and why?

Does it matter?

typically the private IP is a NAT address that will give you more
protection that a public IP. besides the hotel firewall, you should
use the Windows Firewall and if you are running Vista, set the IP to
public even though the hotel uses the word private.

NAT addresses don't route over the Internet in the same way that a
public address/IP would. So even if something **outside** the hotel
knows your NAT private IP, they can't reach you directly.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:11:25 GMT, "Tia B. McMahon"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I always log in from hotels and am faced with the question if I want a
>public IP address (ostensibly for VPN) or a firewalled hotel IP.
>
>Which should I pick?
>
>I'm not using VPN (which they seem to indicate the public IP is for) but it
>seems like I'd get more "privacy" from the public IP address as the other
>IP address would be associated with the hotel (wouldn't it?)
>
>Basically, I'm confused.
>
>Which would YOU pick and why?
>
>Does it matter?
--

Barb Bowman
MS Windows-MVP
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/bowman.mspx
http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/

"Tia B. McMahon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hpwVi.15853$(E-Mail Removed). net...
>I always log in from hotels and am faced with the question if I want a
> public IP address (ostensibly for VPN) or a firewalled hotel IP.
>
> Which should I pick?
>
> I'm not using VPN (which they seem to indicate the public IP is for) but
> it
> seems like I'd get more "privacy" from the public IP address as the other
> IP address would be associated with the hotel (wouldn't it?)

You get more protection by using the hotel's private LAN IP, because the
computer is behind a border device such as a router or FW appliance most
likely, and they protect the computer from the Internet while the computer
is on the hotel's private LAN.

However, that doesn't account for other computers on the hotel's LAN from
trying to access your computer. They can see your computer. So, you have to
run a personal firewall/packet filter on your computer to protect the
computer on the hotel's LAN.

Hi
Routers provide some level of security from the Internet.
However to be secure (Router or Not) you should use Software firewall,
Antivirus, and AntiSpyware on your computer.

Why? Internet Basic protection - http://www.ezlan.net/firewall.html

If you are already using such protection then it does not matter so match
whether you use the public IP or the private.

However if you are using Wireless there is another concern that has nothing
to do with the Internet or the type of IP per-se.

If the Wireless transmission is Not encrypted (I.e. at least WPA level)
other guests at the hotel can sniff, or "join" you on the Network and might
obtain private information.

Therefore, if the choice is secure Wireless vs. none secure use the secure.
Jack (MVP-Networking).


"Tia B. McMahon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hpwVi.15853$(E-Mail Removed). net...
>I always log in from hotels and am faced with the question if I want a
> public IP address (ostensibly for VPN) or a firewalled hotel IP.
>
> Which should I pick?
>
> I'm not using VPN (which they seem to indicate the public IP is for) but
> it
> seems like I'd get more "privacy" from the public IP address as the other
> IP address would be associated with the hotel (wouldn't it?)
>
> Basically, I'm confused.
>
> Which would YOU pick and why?
>
> Does it matter?

In alt.internet.wireless Tia B. McMahon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I'm not using VPN (which they seem to indicate the public IP is for) but it
> seems like I'd get more "privacy" from the public IP address as the other
> IP address would be associated with the hotel (wouldn't it?)

I do use VPN, so I elected the "public" address. This puts me outside the
firewall, directly exposed to the internet.

This is not a good place to be. My firewall immediately started popping up
assaults, all blocked, but still, if you aren't running VPN, don't go
there. You should elect the safety of hiding behind their firewall. In
either case, the IP address that you get would be traceable to that hotel.
The firewall probably makes all of the firewalled guests look very similar
to one of the public addresses.

Reasonable firewalls work with VPN. I don't know why some hotels want to
even offer the opportunity for a public connection.

The first place that I recall seeing that was at an Embassy Suites Hotel in
Denver. I probably even tried my VPN behind their firewall. It works
behind NAT routers, it should work behind firewalls.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

Jack (MVP-Networking). wrote:

> Hi
> Routers provide some level of security from the Internet.


No, they don't

> However to be secure (Router or Not) you should use Software firewall,


Huh? Why?

> Antivirus, and AntiSpyware on your computer.


Nonsense.

> I do use VPN, so I elected the "public" address. This puts me outside the
> firewall, directly exposed to the internet.

It shouldn't make a difference if you're in front or behind a firewall
(public vs private) when using a VPN connection. I do it all the time. I
connect to a hotel's wifi (or wired) network and then immediately make a VPN
connection back to the home office. All my traffic is then encrypted and
routed back through the VPN to home. Works great and has worked for more
than five years from dozens of different hotels... ALL WITH PRIVATE,
NAT-ROUTED addresses.

I could see where someone might want public IP addresses, but not for
typical web surfing or reading mail. It'd also make it "easier" on the
hotel to not have to deal with support questions regarding how some traffic
won't work if it's behind a NAT routed connection.

-Bill Kearney

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney-99@hot-mail-com> wrote in message
news:nI-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> It shouldn't make a difference if you're in front or behind a firewall
> (public vs private) when using a VPN connection. I do it all the time. I
> connect to a hotel's wifi (or wired) network and then immediately make a
> VPN
> connection back to the home office. All my traffic is then encrypted and
> routed back through the VPN to home. Works great and has worked for more
> than five years from dozens of different hotels... ALL WITH PRIVATE,
> NAT-ROUTED addresses.
>
> I could see where someone might want public IP addresses, but not for
> typical web surfing or reading mail. It'd also make it "easier" on the
> hotel to not have to deal with support questions regarding how some
> traffic
> won't work if it's behind a NAT routed connection.
>
> -Bill Kearney
>

I do the same with a Secure Shell (SSH) tunnel back to my home SSH server...

http://theillustratednetwork.mvps.or...-HomeUser.html

--

Al Jarvi (MS-MVP Windows Networking)

Please post *ALL* questions and replies to the news group for the
mutual benefit of all of us...
The MS-MVP Program - http://mvp.support.microsoft.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights...
How to ask a question
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375

In alt.internet.wireless Bill Kearney <wkearney-99@hot-mail-com> wrote:
> > I do use VPN, so I elected the "public" address. This puts me outside the
> > firewall, directly exposed to the internet.

> It shouldn't make a difference if you're in front or behind a firewall
> (public vs private) when using a VPN connection. I do it all the time. I

So do I, usually. But this one hotel in Denver, either Marriott or Embassy
Suites, downtown, popped up the question. The private address didn't
work for my VPN. The public address was unfiltered.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5