Privacy

42561 readers

566 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

Is connecting a Windows computer to your wired network worse than keeping it on Wi-Fi? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 day ago by HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm not that knowledgeable on networking, but I do remember that if a device is connected to a wired network, it can end up receiving packets not meant for it because switches will flood all the ports for packets they don't know how to route. But I also heard that Wi-Fi is supposedly smarter than that and a device connected to it should never receive a packet not meant for it.

Is this true? And in practice, does this mean it's preferable should keep computers with invasive operating systems (which might decide to record foreign packets sent to it in its telemetry) on Wi-Fi instead of on the wired network?

Also, how exactly does Wi-Fi prevent devices from receiving the wrong packets when it's a radio based system and any suitable antenna can receive any Wi-Fi signal? Does each device get assigned a unique encryption key and so is only capable of decrypting packets meant for it? How secure is it actually?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net 35 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You're thinking of hubs, not switches. Back in the 90's everything was on hubs and every packet was broadcast to everything on the hub. Switches only send packets where they are going downstream. Also everything and its mom is TLS encrypted these days.

[–] twinnie@feddit.uk 21 points 1 day ago

Switches will flood a network when they don’t know the location of a MAC address but this should only happen for the very first packet which is more likely to be DHCP or some boring background thing like that. As soon as the correct devices get the packet and replies then each switch along the way will update its MAC address table and they’ll know exactly which port to use until it expires (which depends on the switch, I don’t have a ballpark idea).

[–] irmadlad@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You’re thinking of hubs

Just the word hub, makes me cringe. People would just willie-nilly put a hub anywhere. There is like a limit to how many hubs you can have in succession. I think it's 5 or 6.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

There's a limit? I would have imagined it only limited by the frequency of collisions you're willing to tolerate.

[–] bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Pretty sure it was even fewer... was it not 4?

[–] irmadlad@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Dude, that has been many decades ago for me. LOL I just remember it being a royal pita.