wireless problem

Discussion in 'Wireless Networking' started by LCC, Jun 20, 2007.

  1. LCC

    LCC Guest

    First of all, I am uninformed about the technical aspects of this
    problem, which is why I am seeking help on this newsgroup. My brother
    set up a wireless network in the house using a Zonealarm Z100G
    wireless router and with each (windows XP) computer using a D-Link
    WDA-2320 desktop adapter. For a few days signal strength was very good/
    good. Then overnight it dropped to very low/low with frequent
    disconnects. We then purchased and installed 9 db gain antennas on all
    the hardware. Once again we got vg/g but after a few days it dropped
    overnight back down to low. Moving the antennas around sometimes
    increases signal strength to good, but within a few minutes it drops
    back to low. There is only one other network in the neighborhood
    within detection range and it does not seem to be the problem because
    it is only on part of the day. I doubt that other household appliances/
    electronics are the problem because nothing changed to account for the
    overnight drop in signal strength which has happened twice.

    Data transfer rates while on youtube never exceed 1% load on the
    network and cpu load is never greater than 50% yet it now takes 2-10
    times as long to load a video as to play it. This is in contrast to
    loading videos 2-3 times as fast as playing with signal strength of
    'good'. The free network diagnostics fail the link due to lost
    packets. I have no money to pay experts to come to the house and check
    for problems. I am reluctant to toss more money into wireless but a
    direct cable link would be even more expensive.

    Please let me know if you have any suggestions on how to fix this
    problem. Did we just buy lousy equipment, or what ? Thanks......

    Lonnie Courtney Clay
    LCC, Jun 20, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. LCC

    Chuck Guest

    On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:30:30 -0700, LCC <> wrote:

    >First of all, I am uninformed about the technical aspects of this
    >problem, which is why I am seeking help on this newsgroup. My brother
    >set up a wireless network in the house using a Zonealarm Z100G
    >wireless router and with each (windows XP) computer using a D-Link
    >WDA-2320 desktop adapter. For a few days signal strength was very good/
    >good. Then overnight it dropped to very low/low with frequent
    >disconnects. We then purchased and installed 9 db gain antennas on all
    >the hardware. Once again we got vg/g but after a few days it dropped
    >overnight back down to low. Moving the antennas around sometimes
    >increases signal strength to good, but within a few minutes it drops
    >back to low. There is only one other network in the neighborhood
    >within detection range and it does not seem to be the problem because
    >it is only on part of the day. I doubt that other household appliances/
    >electronics are the problem because nothing changed to account for the
    >overnight drop in signal strength which has happened twice.
    >
    >Data transfer rates while on youtube never exceed 1% load on the
    >network and cpu load is never greater than 50% yet it now takes 2-10
    >times as long to load a video as to play it. This is in contrast to
    >loading videos 2-3 times as fast as playing with signal strength of
    >'good'. The free network diagnostics fail the link due to lost
    >packets. I have no money to pay experts to come to the house and check
    >for problems. I am reluctant to toss more money into wireless but a
    >direct cable link would be even more expensive.
    >
    >Please let me know if you have any suggestions on how to fix this
    >problem. Did we just buy lousy equipment, or what ? Thanks......
    >
    >Lonnie Courtney Clay


    Lonnie,

    Tell us about the "free network diagnostics", and the fact that they "fail the
    link". What free network diagnostics have you run? What link do they fail?

    Have you discussed the problem with ZoneLabs?

    I would run NetStumbler from at least 2 computers, and watch to see when the
    signal, or the signal to noise, drops. See if the problem is low signal level,
    or high noise level.
    <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/06/analyse-your-wifi-environment.html>
    http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/06/analyse-your-wifi-environment.html

    --
    Cheers,
    Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]
    http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
    Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
    My email is AT DOT
    actual address pchuck mvps org.
    Chuck, Jun 21, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. LCC

    LCC Guest

    On Jun 21, 1:17 pm, Chuck <> wrote:

    > Lonnie,
    >
    > Tell us about the "free network diagnostics", and the fact that they "fail the
    > link". What free network diagnostics have you run? What link do they fail?
    >

    After several hours of wandering through the system and on the
    internet (a couple of weeks ago), I found something that ran some
    diagnostics and presented a lengthy report. It sent a bunch of packets
    from the computer and analyzed the response. It passed only one of
    about six tests. It reported lost packets of 25-50% and gave delay
    times, some of which it thought were excessive. Because I did not
    think to write down how I got there, I have no idea of where I was
    when I found it...... Unfortunately I am pretty stupid nowadays and I
    did not think to save a bookmark.

    > Have you discussed the problem with ZoneLabs?
    >

    No, but I will just in case their router is the problem. (see below)

    > I would run NetStumbler from at least 2 computers, and watch to see when the
    > signal, or the signal to noise, drops. See if the problem is low signal level,
    > or high noise level.
    > <http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/06/analyse-your-wifi-environment.html>http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/06/analyse-your-wifi-environment.html
    >

    Unfortunately it seems that NetStumbler does not support D-link
    Wda-2320.....
    > --
    > Cheers,
    > Chuck, MS-MVP [Windows - Networking]http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/
    > Paranoia is not a problem, when it's a normal response from experience.
    > My email is AT DOT
    > actual address pchuck mvps org.

    Thank you very much for the advice Chuck!
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Paranoia may be appropriate in this case. After downloading
    NetStumbler and probing around the system for a few minutes, the
    wireless network connection signal strength jumped from "low" to "very
    good"! It has not been "very good" for a couple of weeks. So I
    speculate that somebody is doing me dirt and feared discovery by the
    network activity they saw. The problem may even be a keystroke logger
    on the computer, though the security software which I have detects
    nothing. I have no secrets to hide and can live with others lurking on
    the machine so long as they do not interfere with normal operations,
    which was the case. For the entertainment of others on this group I
    will post on this thread if the problem is not solved. Who knows, you
    too may become a target/infected by your participation. Back in April
    just a few days after I started posting on the internet the entire
    home network was hacked with a phishing (whatever that is) attack and
    a bunch of email was sent out. The ISP shut off access and measures
    were taken to purge the computers and prevent a recurrence. Perhaps
    someone more subtle has invaded.....

    Lonnie Courtney Clay
    LCC, Jun 22, 2007
    #3
  4. LCC

    LCC Guest

    >From May 19 6:13 AM on thread :
    http://groups.google.com/group/lonnie-courtney-clay/browse_thread/thread/faf575237df0e038?hl=en

    "I am pleased to report that I have finally exterminated the last pest
    on the computer which I use. I found a dozen software packages to
    uninstall. I deleted over 500 megabytes of .xml files. I deleted over
    three gigabytes of tracking cookies. I upgraded to commercial grade
    software for all security and performance tasks. The number of tasks
    running has dropped from over 60 to about 30. The number of outgoing
    connections blocked by the security software in the network router
    dropped dramatically. Unfortunately the computer is too old to
    effectively run both youtube downloads and all the security stuff at
    the same time. So the first play of a video is still interrupted by
    transferring files taking longer than playback. Once downloaded
    completely the music plays well enough. I can live with it until I get
    a modern computer..... "
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    That purge cut anti-virus "files" from over 110,000 to about 36000.
    According to the latest anti-virus scan the number of "files" has
    crept back up to 40,719 in the past month. Since I regularly purge all
    tracking history and temporary files, this creep up needs to be
    investigated. The computer suffered an overnight jump in early May
    from about 35,000 to over 110,000 (as I said) but it took about a week
    for me to notice it. I was wrong about the computer being too old
    (2003) because cpu and network loads were not excessive. The problem
    is with the wireless link connection/hardware/software.

    I used the link you gave :
    http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/essential-tools-for-desktop-and.html#NetStumbler
    but as I said previously the D-link wda-2320 is not supported by
    NetStumbler.

    I downloaded the package HijackFree from :
    http://www.hijackfree.com/en/
    and looked over the bloatware reported by it. There was too much to
    digest in a matter of hours, but I gave it a try anyway. I found
    nothing to report. I suspect that whoever is hassling me is using
    exploits built into the windows XP operating system itself and
    therefor the problem will be untraceable.

    I highly recommend using Spy Sweeper to anyone who lacks it. If you
    know of a better product please mention it here. I have commercial
    grade anti-virus but Spy Sweeper has revealed unsuspected misbehavior
    on several occasions. See free download at :
    http://www.webroot.com/land/freescan-3000.php?rc=5312&source=ppc

    The latest spy sweeper scan reports memory 1482, registry 94,285, and
    files 28567. What is going on with registry being 4x files ? Why are
    1482 memory objects reported with only 34 processes running? The
    biggest mystery is why the XP bloatware runs at all!

    Link a farmer using a tractor to plow fields at planting time (and a
    combine to harvest them later), I want the equipment which I use to
    work properly. Like the farmer coping with storms and droughts, I am
    subject to (and accept) "weather". I resent ***vandals*** messing with
    the equipment and trashing the fields. Computers are 1000 times as
    powerful and complex as when I worked at Datapoint (1983-86). I am
    crazier, stupid, slow, forgetful, and finding it difficult to learn
    compared to then. But one skill which I have honed to perfection over
    the past 20 years is how to hold a grudge. The signal strength has
    dropped from "very good" back down to "good" over the past several
    hours. If it drops down to "low" again, then I will be extremely
    annoyed rather than just disgruntled. Like a squeaky wheel which has
    been oiled, I am content for the moment to fall silent. But if I get
    sanded again, then it won't be pretty.....

    Lonnie Courtney Clay

    P.S. I composed this post off-line, and when I opened up the web
    browser to post it something extremely peculiar happened which I
    choose not to report. Apparently the keystroke logger theory is
    correct.....

    LCC
    LCC, Jun 22, 2007
    #4
  5. LCC

    Al Dunbar Guest

    "LCC" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >From May 19 6:13 AM on thread :

    > http://groups.google.com/group/lonnie-courtney-clay/browse_thread/thread/faf575237df0e038?hl=en
    >
    > "I am pleased to report that I have finally exterminated the last pest
    > on the computer which I use. I found a dozen software packages to
    > uninstall. I deleted over 500 megabytes of .xml files. I deleted over
    > three gigabytes of tracking cookies. I upgraded to commercial grade
    > software for all security and performance tasks. The number of tasks
    > running has dropped from over 60 to about 30. The number of outgoing
    > connections blocked by the security software in the network router
    > dropped dramatically. Unfortunately the computer is too old to
    > effectively run both youtube downloads and all the security stuff at
    > the same time. So the first play of a video is still interrupted by
    > transferring files taking longer than playback. Once downloaded
    > completely the music plays well enough. I can live with it until I get
    > a modern computer..... "
    > -------------------------------------------------------------------
    > That purge cut anti-virus "files" from over 110,000 to about 36000.
    > According to the latest anti-virus scan the number of "files" has
    > crept back up to 40,719 in the past month. Since I regularly purge all
    > tracking history and temporary files, this creep up needs to be
    > investigated. The computer suffered an overnight jump in early May
    > from about 35,000 to over 110,000 (as I said) but it took about a week
    > for me to notice it. I was wrong about the computer being too old
    > (2003) because cpu and network loads were not excessive. The problem
    > is with the wireless link connection/hardware/software.
    >
    > I used the link you gave :
    > http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/essential-tools-for-desktop-and.html#NetStumbler
    > but as I said previously the D-link wda-2320 is not supported by
    > NetStumbler.
    >
    > I downloaded the package HijackFree from :
    > http://www.hijackfree.com/en/
    > and looked over the bloatware reported by it. There was too much to
    > digest in a matter of hours, but I gave it a try anyway. I found
    > nothing to report. I suspect that whoever is hassling me is using
    > exploits built into the windows XP operating system itself and
    > therefor the problem will be untraceable.
    >
    > I highly recommend using Spy Sweeper to anyone who lacks it. If you
    > know of a better product please mention it here. I have commercial
    > grade anti-virus but Spy Sweeper has revealed unsuspected misbehavior
    > on several occasions. See free download at :
    > http://www.webroot.com/land/freescan-3000.php?rc=5312&source=ppc
    >
    > The latest spy sweeper scan reports memory 1482, registry 94,285, and
    > files 28567. What is going on with registry being 4x files ? Why are
    > 1482 memory objects reported with only 34 processes running? The
    > biggest mystery is why the XP bloatware runs at all!
    >
    > Link a farmer using a tractor to plow fields at planting time (and a
    > combine to harvest them later), I want the equipment which I use to
    > work properly. Like the farmer coping with storms and droughts, I am
    > subject to (and accept) "weather". I resent ***vandals*** messing with
    > the equipment and trashing the fields. Computers are 1000 times as
    > powerful and complex as when I worked at Datapoint (1983-86). I am
    > crazier, stupid, slow, forgetful, and finding it difficult to learn
    > compared to then. But one skill which I have honed to perfection over
    > the past 20 years is how to hold a grudge. The signal strength has
    > dropped from "very good" back down to "good" over the past several
    > hours. If it drops down to "low" again, then I will be extremely
    > annoyed rather than just disgruntled. Like a squeaky wheel which has
    > been oiled, I am content for the moment to fall silent. But if I get
    > sanded again, then it won't be pretty.....
    >
    > Lonnie Courtney Clay
    >
    > P.S. I composed this post off-line, and when I opened up the web
    > browser to post it something extremely peculiar happened which I
    > choose not to report. Apparently the keystroke logger theory is
    > correct.....
    >
    > LCC


    In a previous post you said: "I have no secrets to hide and can live with
    others lurking on the machine so long as they do not interfere with normal
    operations, which was the case". If only it were that easy...

    First, we all have secrets to hide, but there is no shame in that. The banks
    tell us that the PINS we use to access bank machines or our accounts online
    should not be shared. Those are secrets well worth keeping, along with all
    kinds of personal information that, even though "innocent" in itself, could
    be used for ill purposes, including harrassment and identity theft.

    Second, if others are "lurking on your machine", then they *are* interfering
    with normal operations. Would you allow a stranger to spend uninvited time
    in your home because he did not seem to be interfering? In my opinion, if
    there is no conceivable valid reason for an unknown person being on your
    network or in your home, it must be considered interference.


    /Al
    Al Dunbar, Jun 24, 2007
    #5
  6. LCC

    LCC Guest

    On Jun 24, 12:04 pm, "Al Dunbar" <> wrote:
    >
    > In a previous post you said: "I have no secrets to hide and can live with
    > others lurking on the machine so long as they do not interfere with normal
    > operations, which was the case". If only it were that easy...
    >
    > First, we all have secrets to hide, but there is no shame in that. The banks
    > tell us that the PINS we use to access bank machines or our accounts online
    > should not be shared. Those are secrets well worth keeping, along with all
    > kinds of personal information that, even though "innocent" in itself, could
    > be used for ill purposes, including harrassment and identity theft.
    >
    > Second, if others are "lurking on your machine", then they *are* interfering
    > with normal operations. Would you allow a stranger to spend uninvited time
    > in your home because he did not seem to be interfering? In my opinion, if
    > there is no conceivable valid reason for an unknown person being on your
    > network or in your home, it must be considered interference.
    >
    > /Al


    SIR, you are absolutely right! See the latest post on thread :

    http://groups.google.com/group/lonn...&q=&rnum=1#5222c2c7f37a85db

    Lonnie Courtney Clay
    LCC, Jun 26, 2007
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,192
  2. Chris
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,975
    Jerold Schulman
    Jul 7, 2004
  3. Barb Bowman [MVP-Windows]

    Re: MN-500 Wireless Base Station and MN-510 Wireless Adapter

    Barb Bowman [MVP-Windows], Aug 4, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,961
    Barb Bowman [MVP-Windows]
    Aug 4, 2004
  4. Mark
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,057
  5. volatile5
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,369
    volatile5
    Jul 15, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page