How you do it depends upon your operating system - Windows or Linux. It is time for you to do some research. It isn't too difficult, but in order for data to get to the correct computer this needs to be done. If your modem were attached to a router, this would not be necessary, but since it is attached to your computer, then you need to enable routing on your computer.
You would probably need to set up routing in the computer the modem is attached to. Also, you need the modem's IP address, which if it is dynamic (not a static address) may be a problem. Check with your ISP about this.
First, you need to establish that 192.168.1.1 is actually the IP of your router. Open a command prompt on your computer (if running Windows) and type IPCONFIG, then hit the enter key. Look at the default gateway IP address. This is going to be the IP of your router.
I assume it is because you mentioned that you get an error logging in which indicates that you are getting to the login page. If you dont have the login credentials, you should be able to reset the router to defaults (there should be a button somewhere on the router) and if you look at their documentation, the default userid and password should be there.
Please be kind if the post is not placed in the right location. My home gateway / vivid wireless "4G" account is a few years old, but it seems that the speed is getting slow more often, which is quite frustrating. Looking on the forum, it is recommended to have a look at RSSI and CINR parameters, so I tried to logon to 192.168.I.I as recommended, but got a fail -1 error when entering logon details. Can you please help?
I am an employee of an IT support company. I need to design the network of one of our client. But i am confused with types of Fiber optic cable and the media converter. Some says i need two media converter and sobbody says i need one. So i am become confused. Can somebody suggest me? What type of media converter support on what type of Fiber?
If you are running Windows systems, go to the command prompt (cmd.exe) and run the command "ipconfig". If Linux/Unix, go to a command prompt and run the command "ifconfig". These should should your network interfaces, and the address of the router (gateway), along with other stuff.
Your router has a range of IP addresses for DHCP and for local static addresses. You can only change your IP to another static address. If you change it to something in the DHCP range, you are going to have problems.
My router is DHCP enabled in my office. When i enable DHCP in my PC i can connect with Wifi. But if i want to change my laptops IP i can not conect with wifi. Is there any solution? And what is the reason?
i know this is old but i'm w bell too and stumbled here thought i'd offer the idea of hfs http://www.rejetto.com/hfs/. that's good if you only need to share files, i forward port 280 and works well.
i was researching why ftp port 21 wouldn't work unless i turn DMZ on, port forwarding doesn't work for ftp no clue why, but at least it works w DMZ, which is another option for file sharing.
as for port 80 that's old news to me, they block it here in Canada i'm a bit surprised they don't block it everywhere, ur lucky if they don't. ppl could enjoy not needing to pay a web host. buuut you could always use another port like 8080 which is a common number. you could even use a free port forwarding service like no-ip.org so the end user doesn't need to type :8080 but can get a little twisted, browsers can get messed up etc.
It depends on your definition of security, of course, and whether you factor in the third party access to data stuff. On-premise has the advantage in the 'much stronger' game in as far as at least you know when The Man has got a court order/warrant and been poking about in your data. The same can not be said about all in-cloud or outsourced systems. My beef is just with the dismissive and sweeping 'cloud is much stronger' statement, which is plainly incorrect in every case. Much stronger in many cases, would work for me, or can be stronger depending upon your current circumstances even - but it's not a black and white issue that can be dealt with by such a black and white statement IMHO.
In the case of either on-premises or in-cloud systems, following the "rules" is the only way to get real security (relatively speaking). Amazon is pretty good about security, but you can still leave yourself open to exploit if you don't dot your i's and cross your t's. That said, I think it is still more secure than having to roll your own in a private data center - I've had to deal with both. Amazon provides a lot of tools, help, and documentation to secure your cloud services. To do that on your own is very difficult, and expensive.
Werner Vogel, Amazon Web Services (AWS) CTO, speaking at the AWS Summit in London yesterday has made the rather amazing claim that security in the cloud is "much stronger" than anything you can have on-premises. As someone who has been writing about information security for more than 20 years, and covering the cloud security beat for five, I can understand why he may say that. However, it doesn't mean that he was right; not for every customer, not for every implementation.
If you are talking about the smaller end of the SME spectrum then, for the most part in my experience, there's a very good chance that the kind of dedicated security know-how and infrastructure investment available from the likes of AWS is beyond the reach of the average business. If you are talking about larger enterprises, which do have dedicated security teams and have already invested heavily in the relevant infrastructure and processes, well sorry Werner but that's a totally different ballpark.
It's one thing for Vogel to dismiss hybrid cloud, and I think he's got that fundamentally wrong as well, but to make such simplistic and wide-sweeping statements concerning security in the cloud is pretty much unforgivable. It's the kind of thing I hear on a daily basis from marketing men and product directors, but would not expect to be coming out of the mouth of the CTO of such a large player in the cloud space. Sure, AWS thinks it is pretty clued up when it comes to the importance of data encryption with the option of enabling customer generation and management of keys using CloudHSM for example. Which could be OK as far as 'at rest and in flight' encryption is concerned, and also could be OK for data storage in the cloud. Not so OK, from the 'more secure than your on-premise solution' perspective when you want to do something with that data in the cloud though.
Something like, well, processing it. Until the promise of Homomorphic Encryption is realised then, frankly, the cloud is not going to be automatically more secure than your on-premise set up. As soon as data processing in the cloud comes into play, and your encrypted data has to be decrypted, then all the security in the world amounts to nothing; all you have left is trust that the organisation holding your data and enabling the processing is not peeking at your plaintext data, and is not allowing someone with a court order to do likewise.
This is the single point of failure in the "our cloud is more secure than yours" argument, this is why such statements are not helpful in moving forward the cloud security position. Werner Vogel has made the mistake of conflating security and risk, the two are not the same thing. The risk to data may be acceptable, that does not make it secure and it certainly does not make it "much stronger" than an on-premise solution in anything like every instance.
As Slavi said, Tor will give you some anonimity and it's really easy to setup and use.
I've been using it for a couple of weeks and it does the job.
Besides the lower load speed, there's only one more thing that bothers me about Tor: if your request reaches the destination(google for example) trough a node that was trying to "abuse" the destination(because other Tors users were trying to do so), it'll ask you for captcha after captcha, and some are quite hard! I mean, I may be blind, but for one site I tried 10min without success!
As far as I can tell, this captcha thing appears on any site that uses Google Ads.