dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
42
Expand your moderator at work

tjubb
Premium Member
join:2002-02-01
Bristow, VA

2 edits

tjubb

Premium Member

Re: I got "the call" from Comcast. Another Cap story.

said by deleted post :

something
If I knowingly downloaded 1.6tb of illegal warez, movies and mp3's or whatever do you think I'd be posting here asking for help on finding the problem? I'd simply just stop my downloading but since I don't know where the problem lies I'm posting in this forum for help.

Also, the 2 high bandwidth things that come to mind (webcam and RDP) have been used by me for 5 years with no problems so I find it hard to believe those activities are the culprits.

... maybe you could provide some insight rather than post some off the cuff useless comment.

EG
The wings of love
Premium Member
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ

EG

Premium Member

Is your WLAN secured ? Just a thought..

tjubb
Premium Member
join:2002-02-01
Bristow, VA

tjubb

Premium Member

yes, it's secured with WEP 128bit encryption. I changed the password tonight for good measure. I know WPA is better but most of my wireless nodes (printer, waps, etc) don't have WPA.
tjubb

tjubb

Premium Member

I did a little test with my webcam setup. I use WebcamXP which is an all-in-one system (webcam server ,cam portal, security monitor). I have 3 local usb cams and 1 local ip cam. For the last few months I have been connecting to 3 additional cams located at my workplace. They stream to the webcamxp software here on my Comcast box. I thought data was only sent when an active connection was made to view the stream, I don't think that is the case and the streams go 24/7 regardless. In 10 minutes those external cams accounted for 85 megs (averaging at about 175Kbps.
That breaks out to:
510 mb every hour
12.2 gigs per day
367 gigs per month.

(if my math is correct)

Now, that is nowhere near the 1.6tb claimed to have been consumed so maybe that was a line of crap from the abuse department or just erroneous info. Add on another 100gigs of downloading, surfing, etc that's still only 467 gigs. However that is way above the invisible line that some are reporting to be the magic number. Maybe it was 1.6tb over 2 months, I don't recall the exact wording from Abuse.

So, I have stopped the connections to the external cams, left the local cams online since they don't go out to the net unless I am viewing remotely, taken the WebcamXP server offline and made it only accessible from within the lan. Hopefully that was all it was and I won't hear another peep from Comcast on the matter but I will get a tech to come out and test the line for good measure.

Thanks to all who shared helpful information!

Tom
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Plano, TX

1 recommendation

DMS1

Member

said by tjubb:

In 10 minutes those external cams accounted for 85 megs (averaging at about 175Kbps.
That breaks out to:
510 mb every hour
12.2 gigs per day
367 gigs per month.

(if my math is correct)
I think you're confusing bits and bytes. 85 megabytes in 10 minutes equates to about 1.33Mbps (not 175kbps). However, your final figure is right. That is a lot of bandwidth to use continuously.

I would guess that the 1.6TB number is over a three month period.

I'm glad you've found the culprit, and hopefully you've done it early enough in the month to not get cut off. (There is anecdotal evidence that if Comcast flags you for excessive usage in month 'N' then they will cut you off if you don't reduce it in month 'N+1' even though it may be far too far through month 'N+1' by the time they warn you to do anything.)

tjubb
Premium Member
join:2002-02-01
Bristow, VA

tjubb

Premium Member

said by DMS1:

I think you're confusing bits and bytes. 85 megabytes in 10 minutes equates to about 1.33Mbps (not 175kbps). However, your final figure is right. That is a lot of bandwidth to use continuously.
Yep, you are correct. I was just pulling an "eyeballed" average off the NetMeter, it would spike much higher.

I sure hope you are wrong about the whole N+1 thing. I may just call the Abuse Dept. back and tell them to make a note on my account that I have found the culprit and it shouldn't be a problem anymore. What do you think?

spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium Member
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
·Consolidated Com..

spewak to tjubb

Premium Member

to tjubb
said by tjubb:



So, I have stopped the connections to the external cams, left the local cams online since they don't go out to the net unless I am viewing remotely, taken the WebcamXP server offline and made it only accessible from within the lan. Hopefully that was all it was and I won't hear another peep from Comcast on the matter but I will get a tech to come out and test the line for good measure.

Thanks to all who shared helpful information!

Tom
That is what I was going to suggest, just to get out from under Comcast's watchful eye. Good luck.

charrog
Life In The Golden Isles
Premium Member
join:2002-03-10
Brunswick, GA

charrog to tjubb

Premium Member

to tjubb
I have found the most secure is to leave your access open then only allow the mac id's that you want to connnect they can see it all day but will never been able to connect. We use that at work and it is impossible to crack because an admin has to add the mac id's manually just a thought.

techguyga
Premium Member
join:2003-12-31
00000

techguyga

Premium Member

It takes about 8 seconds to clone a MAC address, depending on how fast you can type. Relying solely on one solution for WLAN security is a very bad idea.
Expand your moderator at work
bigddybn
join:2000-10-18
Stuart, FL

bigddybn to charrog

Member

to charrog

Re: I got "the call" from Comcast. Another Cap story.

said by charrog:

I have found the most secure is to leave your access open then only allow the mac id's that you want to connnect they can see it all day but will never been able to connect. We use that at work and it is impossible to crack because an admin has to add the mac id's manually just a thought.
I just want to mention this is horrible advice. MAC cloning is stupidly simple to do. There are tools available that any 8 year old with 15 mins to spare could find and use to identify several MAC addresses on our WLAN. He's only need to spoof one of them to be granted access.

Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
·Ziply Fiber

Jerm to charrog

Member

to charrog
said by charrog:

I have found the most secure is to leave your access open then only allow the mac id's that you want to connnect they can see it all day but will never been able to connect. We use that at work and it is impossible to crack because an admin has to add the mac id's manually just a thought.
Except with any sniffer I can find a valid MAC addy, and spoofing it under windows takes about 30 seconds - long enough to find the registry key and change it to a valid MAC string

I used to steal the pay WiFi in the Seattle airport all the time, I'd just sniff until I found a MAC address that would go away, change my MAC to that, and voilla free internet

It's easier than you think!

wee96
Your Local Confederate
join:2000-04-12
Clinton Township, MI

wee96

Member

said by Jerm:

said by charrog:

I have found the most secure is to leave your access open then only allow the mac id's that you want to connnect they can see it all day but will never been able to connect. We use that at work and it is impossible to crack because an admin has to add the mac id's manually just a thought.
Except with any sniffer I can find a valid MAC addy, and spoofing it under windows takes about 30 seconds - long enough to find the registry key and change it to a valid MAC string

I used to steal the pay WiFi in the Seattle airport all the time, I'd just sniff until I found a MAC address that would go away, change my MAC to that, and voilla free internet

It's easier than you think!
Exactly, mac filtering is worthless.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

4 edits

djrobx to Jerm

Premium Member

to Jerm
quote:
Except with any sniffer I can find a valid MAC addy, and spoofing it under windows takes about 30 seconds - long enough to find the registry key and change it to a valid MAC string

I used to steal the pay WiFi in the Seattle airport all the time, I'd just sniff until I found a MAC address that would go away, change my MAC to that, and voilla free internet
Which works well in a transient setting like an airport. Would not work quite as well in a home user setting where active MAC addresses remain active!

If I were to allow only one MAC address (say my laptop), you cannot hijack my MAC without me knowing it. Only one of us can use that MAC at a time. You could wait until I stop using my laptop but the scenario is certainly not convenient and it would probably be enough of a deterrent to get someone to try a less secure network.

MAC limiting is hardly useless, especially if WPA is not an option.

Edit: To clarify, it's a useful deterrent against someone trying latch onto your internet access such as the OP's problem. It's not a very useful method of securing a LAN from hackers in a business setting.

-- Rob