Router Issue.

Do I really need a router? I am presently on a dial-up 56K connection, an average homeuser with a desktop computer. My OS is WinXP SP2. I work with LUA, use the in-build firewall and Seconfig XP.

I am going to subscribe to a high-speed internet service and the ISP will also supply a 'Hatary HW-AA 101 wireless ADSL2+ router'. The router comes with a Quick Installation Guide and a Starter Kit CD-ROM. ISP connection number, username and initial password will be provided by the ISP which have to be added during installation. The program will then setup the ADSL2+ router and make connection to the Internet automatically.

According to Wikipedia, a router would be needed if a homeuser may want to set up a LAN or WLAN and connect all computers to the Internet without having to pay a full broadband subscription service to their ISP for each computer on the network.

Since I am a single pc user, I was wondering if it is really necessary to install this router.

Could I not just go to Network Connections | Network Tasks | Create a new connection and use the New Connection Wizard to Set up my connection manually? (Though my ISP refers to this type of connection as PPPoE LLC and not PPPoE).

Also, the Trouble Shooting list of the Quick Installation Guide points out that the TCP/IP setting in network adapter of my pc should be set to obtain and IP address and DNS. Currently, the Service TCP/IP NetBIOS Helper is Disabled as are SMB and RPC over TCP/IP.

Must these services be re-instated to achieve ADSL connection?


Reply to
Cornelia Parsley
Loading thread data ...

Am Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:36:39 +0700 schrieb Cornelia Parsley:


no you don't.

Sure you can, it uses the same stack.

I'm pretty sure you have 'receive setting automatically' on your network adapter, that is all you need. The same thing happens in the router itself.



Reply to
Burkhard Ott

That's dia-up. But back a few years ago, they did have routers for dial-up, and if I was soley using dial-up for a single machine, that router would be sitting there to protect the machine from the Internet, even on a dial-up.

Why not? You do know that the router is a border device, and it acts more like a FW solution than XP's FW/packet filter does or any other 3rd party PFW/packet filter will do? The router has the two interfaces. One interface faces the WAN/Internet the untrusted zone, and the other interface faces the LAN the trusted zone. One of the definitions for a FW is it at least two interfaces.

The router sits in front of the machine and stops unsolicted scans and attacks from reaching the computer so that a psersonal FW/packet filter along with the O/S, which the PFW/packet filter must run with the O/S, don't react to them slowing the computer down from doing other things as they react to the scans and attacks.

That's part of it, but a router also provides protection too for a machine or machines from unsolicted scans and attacks from the Internet, as it sits in front of the computer to stop them.

There is nothing wrong with a single machine sitting behind a router -- none -- and is a better solution than just connecting the computer directly to the modem, which is a direct connetion to the Internet no border device in between the modem and the computer like a router

You would be getting a NAT router.

formatting link

You don't, but some do try to do the right thing to provide better protection. You do know that anything like a 3rd PFW/packet filter or even Window's XP FW/packet filter can be taken out if malware can hit the computer and is executed, since it runs with the O/S, and the O/S can be attacked too and taken out leaving the computer wide open to the Internet. It's kind of hard to take down the router, since it's a standalone device and is not running with the O/S.

Sure you can.

Why not, the machine even on a dial-up connection is set to obtain an IP and DNS so why can't a NIC do to it too? The computer's NIC can be set to not network too, which you should have been doing on the dial-up as well. So where is the problem?

Just remove the Client for MS Networks and MS File & Printer Sharing off of the NIC and tell the NIC to Obtain an IP aitomatically, and you're good to go.

IMHO, you need to do the right things like get the router. along with doing some other things if the O/S will allow it.

formatting link

Reply to
Mr. Arnold

Am Tue, 16 Oct 2007 06:35:15 -0400 schrieb Mr. Arnold:

.. or opening the backdoor, there are some funny devices out the, the last I remember was a Linksys and if you send an special string to a special port you got the administartive access plus the WEP Keys.

Nope, depends on the firmware ther is everything possible, so the trusted zone tells you that you trust but you never know. Otherwise and thats my solution use an opensource os and build you own router, should be the safest way in my opinion.

depends on the configuration

the packset flow is still on the wan line, so a slow down might be possible, but I've never seen somebody who is scanning so stupid

the little flashbox is a coputer with a small embeded OS which acts as an router an filter (depends on the configuration)

Nope, if you open with your browser a site which contains PoC for your browser you'll be infected, if you get an email with the super winner chance and click that you'll be infected. There is no chance for the router to detect that.

She want to switch, doesn't she?

Doesn't matter, you also could place a bot at this computer (via email,browser attacks or whatever), so the router will route every traffic which comes from this computer, think about all the spam which comes from dynamic dial up adresses, there are mostly no spammers

There is nothing wrong with a router, only the sentence "you're more protected..".

"Security is a process not a product" (Bruce Schneier)


Reply to
Burkhard Ott

Thanks for detailed explanation and links. I am going to install this router :)

Best wishes...

Reply to
Cornelia Parsley

Hi Burkhard, Your response and clarification was very much appreciated. I am going to install this router.

Best wishes...

Reply to
Cornelia Parsley

You are welcomed.

Here are two other links that will help with FW technology understanding. A PFW/personal packet filter is NOT FW technology, and neither is NAT. NAT is mapping technology.

formatting link

Reply to
Mr. Arnold

Am Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:31:20 -0400 schrieb Mr. Arnold:

The point is you are not more secure with one of these router, you shouldn't suggest it to others.

read above


Have you ever seen a networkdevice which supports tcp/ip and does not working with the OSI model? So every existing device which supports the tcp/ip stack has to work with.

It doesn't depend on the price there are a lot of models which could be comprimized by buffer overflows (the filter inside the router is mostly the problem), also the firmware is mostly pretty old etc. you name it.

And..? I am systemprogrammer under unix/linux, it has nothing to say.

has nothing to do with the price

Sure, accepted.

What I try to tell you is, it is never impossible to break in and no device can protect you 100%.

No you're totally wrong.

Absolutely right, read above and you find that you told others a router makes it more secure, I said thats not true.

Ok, big guru tell me what is the differnce between a packetfilter and the filter in tose routers. The most devices run a embedded linux/BSD with iptables or pf or similar. Filter on application layer looks (mostly) only for the protocollcode.

Now I am really curious what I can learn from you.

I understand and I diagree and wrote my points to that stuff.

Ok, I understood, I repeat it if necessary you are not more secure with an router.


Reply to
Burkhard Ott

Those are not personal firewalls.

Aside from that: trim your quotes.


Reply to
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers

There is nothing else to discusse with you as you have missed the point entrierly.


Reply to
Mr. Arnold

That's what I did with my dsl. I don't like it connected all the time. Supposedly my modem is a combo modem / router. I use Zone Alarm Pro and have no troubles.

I even turned 'workstation' off in Services. - WinXP Home

Reply to

That's an obvious contradiction.

Reply to
Sebastian G.

you really hate ZA don't you ? :D

Reply to

Not actually. I just know how to recognize malicious software, being malicious either by intend or my total incompetence. And I'm not afraid to tell this honestly to others.

Reply to
Sebastian G. Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.