No Internet Access and VM can't help :-(

[mactagg]

Hello,

I spent hours on the phone to VM yesterday and am going out of my mind - each foreign person I spoke to made me go through the same half hour steps of turning on/off/resetting etc!! In the end they transferred to me to IT people that could log into my PC but i would have to pay them (seriously?), anyway by that point my phone battery died (landline, THATS how long i was on the phone!), so i thought id ask you friendly people for some advice...

Please note that i am a total newbie!

Okay internet died last Sunday and went through all the superhub checking steps but nothing worked so they sent me a new hub. Tried that yesterday and its still not working.

Errors coming up as troubleshooted by laptop (windows 7) and brand new Vaio and as discovered by VM as we went through various processes:

- router/connection/accesspoints problems (however router seems to be working fine from VM end and lights etc on and can be seen on my list of avail wireless connections)
- default gateway is unavailable - I can't even connect to the 192.168..... address so am not getting anything through atall
- wireless adapter - checked this and my laptop says all the drivers are up to date

I've tried it with an ethernet and that doesn't work.

I've tried connecting my old laptop to the hub and that doesn't work

Basically my laptop says the network or the internet is unavailable on the ipv4 address (have no idea what this means but VM were mainly interested in this ipv4 thing!) but still comes up with unidentified network rather than the SSID it actually is.

Any advice much appreciated, VM basically gave up and told me to go away :-( If you have any tips that i could do so that i can try them tonight when i go home and get back to you tomorrow that would be fab.

Am getting the shakes from lack of internet, plus the fact I'm paying through the teeth for highspeed net that im not getting....

:cool:

[Chrysalis]

open a command prompt, and type this.

ipconfig /all, paste it all here the output.

[Pog66]

BY trying Ethernet I assume you have tried connecting wired to the hub to rule out any issue with Wireless?

Also, when connected via Ethernet can you get to 192.168.100.1?

[craigj2k12]

do a reset, there is a pin reset button on the side of the superhub

[mactagg]

Hi Guys

Just to say that I've solved the problem!!

(Yes, i had tried an ethernet cable as well and that didnt work either, and i tried the pin reset button on the hub a million times but no luck!)

Turns out it was to do with McAfee Security?! I googled my problem and someone else had had the same issue and suggested doing the following:
Run > "msconfig" > Services. Disable the mcafee network agent and the mcafee firewall core service.

I did this - and hey presto!

It does mean that I don't have a firewall anymore though so not sure how to get the firewall back up AND keep internet access....

Thanks everyone :-)

[fixerman]

Hi Guys

Just to say that I've solved the problem!!

(Yes, i had tried an ethernet cable as well and that didnt work either, and i tried the pin reset button on the hub a million times but no luck!)

Turns out it was to do with McAfee Security?! I googled my problem and someone else had had the same issue and suggested doing the following:
Run > "msconfig" > Services. Disable the mcafee network agent and the mcafee firewall core service.

I did this - and hey presto!

It does mean that I don't have a firewall anymore though so not sure how to get the firewall back up AND keep internet access....

Thanks everyone :-)

Well done!:)

Just make sure that your Windows firewall is active. You don't need more than one firewall! There is also a firewall in the Superhub but most people seem to be switching it off.

[Neo-Tech]

^Because it causes problems :P

[Mick Fisher]

Even with the superdud's spi firewall off you still sit behind NAT. So long as you are not worried about outbound security you are quite safe.

As for McAfee, do yourself a favour and dump it. There's plenty of free alternatives that work as well or better.

[Neo-Tech]

As for McAfee, do yourself a favour and dump it. There's plenty of free alternatives that work as well or better.

To add to Mick's point, I'd suggest Windows Firewall + Microsoft Security Essentials. If you need a malware scanner, Malwarebytes Anti-malware is great.

[Nopanic]

Good news to hear you sorted it and I guess good news that VM did the right thing by advising you to speak to the home support guys .. they could have sorted it for you, it wasn't a VM issue ..

Although the VM agents should of checked for security software ..

[foddy]

Even with the superdud's spi firewall off you still sit behind NAT. So long as you are not worried about outbound security you are quite safe.
You shouldn't assume this. In particular, as VM don't support IPv6, your desktop will try to connect to IPv6 sites via a Teredo tunnel, which will be completely open to the Internet without a software firewall.

[Nopanic]

I don't think that's true, VM need to support IPV6 tunnelling to convert the IPV6 to IPv4 and route to the correct location - which we don't (as far as I am aware).

[Mick Fisher]

You shouldn't assume this. In particular, as VM don't support IPv6, your desktop will try to connect to IPv6 sites via a Teredo tunnel, which will be completely open to the Internet without a software firewall.
As it happens I do use software firewalls and promote their use if asked,

[foddy]

I don't think that's true, VM need to support IPV6 tunnelling to convert the IPV6 to IPv4 and route to the correct location - which we don't (as far as I am aware).
Teredo is designed to work without ISP support, it encapsulates IPv6 in IPv4 datagrams. Take a look at the Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teredo_tunneling

If you don't have a software firewall, it's something to be concerned about.

---------- Post added at 22:01 ---------- Previous post was at 21:59 ----------

As it happens I do use software firewalls and promote their use if asked,
That's good, but you didn't in your post above! You seemed to imply that NAT was enough protection (which it may not be, even without Teredo). If I misunderstood, then my apologies.

[pip08456]

You shouldn't assume this. In particular, as VM don't support IPv6, your desktop will try to connect to IPv6 sites via a Teredo tunnel, which will be completely open to the Internet without a software firewall.

Get a life! Total rubbish!

[foddy]

Get a life! Total rubbish!
Why do you say that?

[pip08456]

Becuse what you have posted is total rubbish perhaps?

[fixerman]

Get a life! Total rubbish!

Steady on guys! You are giving the newby chap a very bad impression of how we do things on this forum!

[pip08456]

Steady on guys! You are giving the newby chap a very bad impression of how we do things on this forum!

So we have to pander to misinformation and agree with everything anyone says even though we know it to be totally incorrect?

We don't do things that way on this forum!

By all means state your opinion but if you wish it to be accepted as fact at least post the proof to support it.

[craigj2k12]

Wikipedia can be edited by any man and his dog.

If you want me to, I can go on right now and change that whole page to say "ipv6 is only supported on cable. Furthermore all Virgin media users will be hacked because they are unprotected by firewalls"

Doesn't mean its true

[pip08456]

Wikipedia can be edited by any man and his dog.

If you want me to, I can go on right now and change that whole page to say "ipv6 is only supported on cable. Furthermore all Virgin media users will be hacked because they are unprotected by firewalls"

Doesn't mean its true

Going to extremes as usual Craig!:D:D:D

[foddy]

By all means state your opinion but if you wish it to be accepted as fact at least post the proof to support it.
Which you haven't done. All you said was "rubbish" and repeated it when I asked why.

I'm loathed to reply to threads like these, but just had to here; even you must admit that you were being immensely hypocritcal there.

As for Craig, he clearly didn't actually read the thread. The wikipedia link was for Npoanic to read as he was under the impression it didn't apply to users on VM, when it does.

[Mick Fisher]

Dear Oh dear.......

I only wanted to point out that by switching off the sp1 firewall on the superdud the OP was not leaving himself totally unprotected.

Maybe I shouldn't have bothered. ;)

While ip6 and teredo tunnelling is probably a fascinating subject I don't think it is on topic here except for maybe a passing reference.

[Chrysalis]

if people want to save cash and already have vista or win7, then I suggest the excellent free 'windows 7 firewall control'. It uses the windows firewall internal firewall and is just a frontend for the rules, the weakness of the windows 7 firewall is that for outbound protection you get no popup when a app tries to use the net, it will just be blocked (if blocking enabled) so its all a manual process. This app watches the log and prompts you like 3rd party firewalls do but it has the advantage that it doesnt install any kernel drivers etc. it will use the underlying windows firewall, so no weird bugs or performance issues. I brought the paid version as I like the finetuning options in it but the free version is adequate if people just want some outbound protection. It does inbound also of course but in my view with NAT there is no need for software inbound protection.

[foddy]

Dear Oh dear.......

I only wanted to point out that by switching off the sp1 firewall on the superdud the OP was not leaving himself totally unprotected.

Maybe I shouldn't have bothered. ;)

While ip6 and teredo tunnelling is probably a fascinating subject I don't think it is on topic here except for maybe a passing reference.
Actually, what you said was:
Even with the superdud's spi firewall off you still sit behind NAT. So long as you are not worried about outbound security you are quite safe.
My point was that NAT isn't designed for providing security. I gave an example of it being bypassed (teredo tunnelling) but there are others - for example, the user may also have their PC set as the DMZ host. Or there may be bugs in the superhub's NAT rules (I don't believe the firmware is quite perfect yet!)

I certainly wouldn't advise people that with their software firewall disabled, they were "perfectly safe".

[pip08456]

Nobody's advocating disabling any software firewall, just the spi firewall n the plooperhub.

[foddy]

Nobody's advocating disabling any software firewall, just the spi firewall n the plooperhub.
Right ... except that the original poster had already disabled it:
It does mean that I don't have a firewall anymore though so not sure how to get the firewall back up AND keep internet access....
This is the context in which the discussion has been happening.

[pip08456]

Right ... except that the original poster had already disabled it:

This is the context in which the discussion has been happening.

Obviously you haven't read post 6.

[Chrysalis]

Actually, what you said was:

My point was that NAT isn't designed for providing security. I gave an example of it being bypassed (teredo tunnelling) but there are others - for example, the user may also have their PC set as the DMZ host. Or there may be bugs in the superhub's NAT rules (I don't believe the firmware is quite perfect yet!)

I certainly wouldn't advise people that with their software firewall disabled, they were "perfectly safe".

for what its worth I have always kept the windows firewall enabled on its defaults (which has inbound protection) and have just recently enabled outbound as well. But to your point NAT will protect you from all the automated bots out there that scan for open ports and vulns etc. What you describing would maybe be done by a determined person manually. Obviously if someone has their pc on DMZ that would also bypass the SPI firewall as the router adds rules in the firewall to allow the traffic.