Re: Scanning for WiFI like inSSIDer on iOS & Macbook Pro & iMac

While I *understand* what *you* mean by:

- More secure

- Easier to configure

You're really just echoing Apple MARKETING mantra.

I'm sure you *believe* this Apple MARKETING mantra, so, to you, actually "more secure" and "easier to configure".

I doubt that, for anyone who knows how to configure a router, that it's "more secure" in any sense of the word though.

And, while I don't doubt that it's *easier to configure*, I also don't doubt that there are limitations becuase of that (there almost always are).

So, what you're saying, in reality, is:

- It's just as secure as any other router (when propertly configured)

- It's easier to configure but likely has fewer user options

In the end, I think the recommendation is correct that, for *these* particular people, who already have an all-Apple household, my advice to go to Best Buys to just buy the fastest $100 name-brand AC router they can find was probably not as good as your advice.

To me, the suggested Apple router would be the wrong purchase; but for them (an all-Apple household already), it's probably a good idea.

Too bad I hadn't thought of it sooner as they don't want to change what is already set up and working nicely for them (I haven't checked in two days though so I'm due to check as I told them to fix things in this order...

1. Internet with Comcast
2. Vonage VOIP
3. Microcell with AT&T

While I *understand* what *you* mean by:

- More secure

- Easier to configure

You're really just echoing Apple MARKETING mantra.

I'm sure you *believe* this Apple MARKETING mantra, so, to you, actually "more secure" and "easier to configure".

I doubt that, for anyone who knows how to configure a router, that it's "more secure" in any sense of the word though.

And, while I don't doubt that it's *easier to configure*, I also don't doubt that there are limitations becuase of that (there almost always are).

So, what you're saying, in reality, is:

- It's just as secure as any other router (when propertly configured)

- It's easier to configure but likely has fewer user options

In the end, I think the recommendation is correct that, for *these* particular people, who already have an all-Apple household, my advice to go to Best Buys to just buy the fastest $100 name-brand AC router they can find was probably not as good as your advice.

To me, the suggested Apple router would be the wrong purchase; but for them (an all-Apple household already), it's probably a good idea.

Too bad I hadn't thought of it sooner as they don't want to change what is already set up and working nicely for them (I haven't checked in two days though so I'm due to check as I told them to fix things in this order...

1. Internet with Comcast
2. Vonage VOIP
3. Microcell with AT&T

Nope, you clearly *don't* understand, which is typical for you. There is no "Apple marketing mantra" involved. Your puke green troll glasses are blinding you, as usual.

Apple's routers are more secure then most routers because:

anyone knows, most routers on the market ship with default user names and passwords for the administrator account, which means out of the box they are configured to allow *anyone* with an internet connection to log into the configuration interface to change the router configuration.

? Since configuration of Apple routers does not use or require a user name or password, the standard brute force attacks that work for most other routers on the market *cannot* work for Apple routers. As anyone knows, routers are constantly hit with such attacks once they are connected to the internet.

open source web server setup that most routers on the market use. As such, standard attacks that try to exploit vulnerabilities in open source web servers used in most routers *cannot* work against Apple routers.

Apple's routers are easier to configure than most routers because:

an open source web server on the router, you use a bone fide macOS, iOS, or Windows application that is written explicitly for the purpose of configuring Apple routers. Anyone who knows anything knows that native applications give you a must more simple, robust, and feature-rich user experience than the typical clunky web-based configuration pages offered by most web browser.

address to view a web page on the router and log in with default user name and password, you simply open the native application and it automatically discovers the router on the network and connects to it, prompting you to set the administration password.

? The default configuration options are set up to do what most people want. So most people needn't futz around changing too many things to get one up and running with a secure configuration that does what they want.

None of this is "marketing mantra"; it's all based on factual details of the difference between Apple's routers and typical routers made by the rest of the market.

Right; so you readily admit you don't know, but you go right ahead and doubt anyway. So your entire position is one of pure ignorance, with a good measure of troll mindset sprinkled throughout. Color us "shocked". You can doubt all you want and it won't change reality.

[remainder of useless trollish babbling omitted]

Also there is no web server interface to attack with brute force. Both of these make Apple's routers far more secure right out of the box than most other routers.

It's also configured using a native application designed specifically for that purpose, as opposed to a clunky set of web pages with arcane descriptions and options.

Like you get with iTunes eh ? Yeah, right.

Most do in fact have a decent app that talks to the router.

And I prefer to be able to use my phone to configure the router anyway.

I agree with you that, for morons (which this all-Apple household is), having no default password & admin name can be useful.

It's useless for someone who is intelligent. So, for morons - it works fine.

I can look at my router logs and see thousands upon thousands of these login requests.

But that doesn't change what we both agree upon, which is that for

*intelligent* people, they'd be changing the username and password anyway.

So, it's only more secure "for morons" (which this all-Apple household is).

You don't understand a thing about proprietary software vulnerabilities.

All your statement means is that you move from open-source vulnerabilities to security-by-obscurity proprietary-software vulnerabilities.

No change there - you just move the attack direction from the front door to the back door, literally.

Well, as a user of those wondrous "bona fide MacOS, iOS, or Windows" applications from Apple (e.g., bonjour, Quicktime, iTunes, etc.), you've got to be kidding.

Comparing an Apple app to most open-source apps is like comparing Apple Maps to Google Maps.

I mean, compare the atrocious Apple Video player on the iPad to VLC on the iPad.

Geezus. You really do think an Apple app is *better* than an open-source app such as Firefox. You're entitled to that opinion, as I'll never shake you from that mountain you live on - but I will say that your vaunted Apple apps suck when compared, one on one, to open-source similar apps.

Again, what you're saying is that, for morons, the Apple router is easier to configure. Since this all-Apple household contains morons, the Apple router might have been the way to go.

But it's also *limited* like you can't believe - and it's no better in the end than what an *intelligent* person could set up.

So, it's: a. More secure when used by morons b. Easier to configure when configured by morons c. Extremely limited - which the morons won't even notice

As I said, for an all-Apple household, the router may be a. More secure b. Easier to configure

However, it's not "more secure" in the hands of someone who knows what he's doing; it's just maybe more secure in the hands of morons (which, I agree, this all-Apple household is).

But what you're really saying is that, *for morons*, it's more secure and easier to configure.

I'm not going to disagree.

I'm only saying that for *intelligent* people, it's not only *not* more secure, but it almost certainly is limited (as *all* Apple devices are limited in huge ways, when compared to their more modern counterparts).

Which means it's more limited.

So, it's really THREE things: a. More secure (for morons, which this all-Apple household is) b. Easier to configure (for morons, see above) c. More limited (but the morons will never know)

Yup. For once we agree: a. More secure and MORE limited

So it's great for morons (as this all-Apple household happens to be).

Heh heh ... again ... a. Easier to configure (for morons) b. Also far more limited (so it prevents intelligent people from using it)

It's the same with iOS.

Jolly Roger actually thinks Apple Maps is better than Google Maps, and, he thinks iTunes is a wondrous set of efficient software.

Horace Algier wrote

More of your pig ignorant lies. When the app can do anything the web server interface can do, it isnt, liar.

More of your lies.

More of your lies.

More of your lies.

Yes, they are certainly complete and utter morons to have actually asked a fool like you what to do.

More of your lies.

More of your lies.

More of your lies.

More of your lies.

Horace Algier wrote

In a couple of areas it is. MUCH more secure about what you look at and never flogs your data to anyone and apple never uses that themselves either.

He hasn?t actually ever said that.

No it doesn't. In fact any software developer knows native applications have access to system resources and APIs that a web browser connected to a web server cannot have access to. So in a lot of respects, it's more functional. For instance the Apple router configuration app is able to automatically discover the router through the WiFi interface of the computer. Other routers can't do that. And because there is no web server to attack, and no default user name and password to brute force, Apple's solution is inherently more secure. It's the opposite of limited

- it's empowering.

It's more secure for anyone. Skill and intelligence level do not play into it. Obvious and lame troll.

See above. Lame troll.

The moron in this case is you, for making delusional claims like "it's more limited" that cannot be substantiated and do not reflect reality due to your ignorance on the subject.

We don't agree since that's not what I said, and it's also not true. You're lying and trolling as usual. You refuse to accept that *anything* Apple does can be good due to your irrational hatred; so you knee jerk and troll what you do not understand our of pure ignorance. You're just lame.

And we all know insults are the last refuge of the intellectual coward. Make mommy proud!

Yes, like router configuration options, the native iTunes app provides

*much* more functionality and is *far* more integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.

That's neither here nor there since like web browser-based router configuration pages, Apple's native apps are available for iOS, macOS, and Windows.

Nope, I just realize that like web-based vs native router configuration options, the native iTunes app provides *much* more functionality and is

*far* more integrated with the system than the iTunes web site.

Keep up the ignorant trolling though - it's *really* working for you. ; )

Insults are the last refuge of the intellectual coward.

It has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence or skill level, and everything to do with security - something you clearly don't understand.

It works fine for anyone. You're trolling, and it's lame.

And the security vulnerability associated with the brute force attack vector you admit exists on other routers with web-based configuration does not exist on Apple routers since there is no user name and password combo that even exists. You don't ever set a user name on Apple routers since configuration doesn't authenticate against a local user account on the router. That attack vector therefore does not exist on Apple's routers. tl;dr: no brute force attacks for Apple routers. It's got nothing to do with the intelligence of the person using the router - unless you consider that an intelligent person would recognize that Apple's offering is more secure by design.

Of course I do - I've been developing software all my life and am paid handsomely to do it for a living. You don't know what I understand.

Even if we ignore the fact that there is no user name (default or set by the user) on Apple's routers to brute force attack, in this particular case, since more brute force attacks you admit show up in your logs are designed to exploit those open source web browsers in other web browser, obscurity is a good thing because it means those attacks cannot work. It's good you are starting to realize Apple's router is more secure by design.

Nope, I'm serious.

No, I said native apps were better than a web-based router configuration page. Firefox happens to be a native app on macOS as well as on Linux. Try harder to focus. iAnd try not to introduce red herrings like this in the future, please. But since you mention it, I can easily list some Apple applications that are *much* more functional that anything available on Linux. Photoshop vs GIMP comes to mind. Most of the things Linux excels at (mostly servers and so on) run on macOS as well though. Not that this has anything to do with native versus web apps.

Red herring. See above.

Insults are the last refuge of the intellectual coward.

Stupid Roger wrote

Even more pathetic than you usually manage.

idevices don?t actually have a web site, f****it.

Wrong, as always.

But can't actually be used to configure a router from scratch without any physical access to the router, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

Fuckwit Roger wrote

Yes, that is a very accurate description of you.

one of the coolest features is if you buy a new airport router, it automatically finds the old airport router and asks if you want to migrate the settings over.

but only morons would want that :)

Insults are the last refuge of an intellectual coward. The iTunes web site is available to any device, and the native iTunes app provides more functionality than the web site viewed through a web browser because native apps have access to native APIs that aren't available to web apps viewed through a web browser. Naturally the same concept applies to router configuration.

Red herring (but you need access to any router you want to configure, regardless of whether you configure it with a web browser or a native app).

Insults mean you have nothing of value to add.