In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

This is what I am querying:

In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

I simply wanted to warn off the idea that the simple solution from the op would work flawlessly and be eminently secure as you were stating.

Yes it would.

No it would not. The shop network would exist on the WAN side of the linksys router, as such it would not, by design, offer any protection, of any sort, to the shop network. This is not a secure solution.

Wireless isolation

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Your advice in this thread has been incorrect from a technical standpoint, irrelevant and distracting when trying to defend your view of networking, and as a consequence of these dangerous for the op.

In what way "dangerous"?

Had the op taken your advice he would have been left with an insecure network set up, and the belief that such a network was secure. A false sense of security is very dangerous.

password protection

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Fortunately the OP appears to have picked up on the advice of the "naysayers" and is heading for a simple, cheap, and secure solution for his problem.

Oh really, where does he say that?

He doesn't say that directly, but he has made it clear that he has decided against the solution that he originally asked about, and that he was looking at an alternative, more secure solution. Although it is worth pointing out that he has not yet said that he has settled on a final solution, and has asked further questions, that have as yet gone unanswered. Probably due to the noise being generated elsewhere within the thread.

It's still the best solution recommended.

Perhaps you could recommend a better one?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Wireless isolation

As explained already elsewhere, multiple times, this will only protect the LAN segment of the linksys router. As the shop would exist on the WAN side of the router it would not be protected by wireless isolation on the linksys router.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

password protection

Is great for secure services, but without a decent firewall there are a great many insecure services on most computers (including Linux computers) and so this suggestion is at best an irrelevant distraction from the issue.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

It's still the best solution recommended.

Perhaps you could recommend a better one?

The alternative solution from the OP of buying a new router with the wireless isolation and an ADSL modem built in to replace his existing ISP supplied router is a better solution. Indeed it is the solution the OP has already suggested he is looking into.

For what it is worth I would suggest getting a draytek router. It is a little more than most routers, but it has many features that lend themselves to making a secure multi-segmented network. Including a sort of VLAN implementation that would allow wired LAN segmentation as well as wireless LAN segmentation.

But then the implication you keep making that I do not know what I am talking about probably precludes taking that advice.

Perhaps you could recommend a better one?

technically, FON is a better solution. (or btopenzone , or cloud )

In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Wireless isolation

As explained already elsewhere, multiple times, this will only protect the LAN segment of the linksys router. As the shop would exist on the WAN side of the router it would not be protected by wireless isolation on the linksys router.

Who said anything about the shop network being on the WAN?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

password protection

Is great for secure services, but without a decent firewall there are a great many insecure services on most computers (including Linux computers) and so this suggestion is at best an irrelevant distraction from the issue.

The password protection allows many guests and passwords which is ideal for a hotel system

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

It's still the best solution recommended.

Perhaps you could recommend a better one?

The alternative solution from the OP of buying a new router with the wireless isolation and an ADSL modem built in to replace his existing ISP supplied router is a better solution. Indeed it is the solution the OP has already suggested he is looking into.

For what it is worth I would suggest getting a draytek router. It is a little more than most routers, but it has many features that lend themselves to making a secure multi-segmented network. Including a sort of VLAN implementation that would allow wired LAN segmentation as well as wireless LAN segmentation.

that sounds real easy for a beginner to set up lol

But then the implication you keep making that I do not know what I am talking about probably precludes taking that advice.

You started flinging the insults around mate, not me.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

You started flinging the insults around mate, not me.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Ok, you're obviously not going to put up, and I'm not surprised

Are you seriously suggesting it is no longer possible to have a sensible discussion on this forum???

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Who said anything about the shop network being on the WAN?

As I said, and MrSaffron said, the setup described in the OP using the Linksys router would have placed the shop network on the WAN segment of the Linksys router. It is not on the WAN but is considered to be so by the Linksys router. Hence the abject lack of security for the shop network.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

The password protection allows many guests and passwords which is ideal for a hotel system

But the issue here is the lack of security for the shop network using the set up you suggest is safe. The password protection for the wireless network is not the problem, it is the fact that once on that network the "guest" if so inclined could wreak havoc on the shop network.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

that sounds real easy for a beginner to set up lol

Actually it's not that difficult. It may not be easy for a complete novice with no help, but could be done by a complete novice with the help of people on this forum without too much difficulty, and as the OP has demonstrated his willingness, and ability, to seek help on this forum, I am sure he would be able to get it set up as he needed it to be.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

You started flinging the insults around mate, not me.

Apparently you do not understand the meaning of "implication". I am not saying that you have stated any insult. I am saying that your repeated questioning of what I am saying, and constant, unfounded, insistence that I am wrong implies that I do not know what I am talking about.

And how, pray tell, did I start flinging the insults about?

In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Who said anything about the shop network being on the WAN?

As I said, and MrSaffron said, the setup described in the OP using the Linksys router would have placed the shop network on the WAN segment of the Linksys router. It is not on the WAN but is considered to be so by the Linksys router. Hence the abject lack of security for the shop network.

So tell it to the OP. Why tell me?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

The password protection allows many guests and passwords which is ideal for a hotel system

But the issue here is the lack of security for the shop network using the set up you suggest is safe. The password protection for the wireless network is not the problem, it is the fact that once on that network the "guest" if so inclined could wreak havoc on the shop network.

That's a consequence of you not explaining the risk to the OP, instead telling me, as if I care

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

that sounds real easy for a beginner to set up lol

Actually it's not that difficult. It may not be easy for a complete novice with no help, but could be done by a complete novice with the help of people on this forum without too much difficulty, and as the OP has demonstrated his willingness, and ability, to seek help on this forum, I am sure he would be able to get it set up as he needed it to be.

The same is true of using the Linksys, or any other solution, obviously

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

You started flinging the insults around mate, not me.

Apparently you do not understand the meaning of "implication". I am not saying that you have stated any insult. I am saying that your repeated questioning of what I am saying, and constant, unfounded, insistence that I am wrong implies that I do not know what I am talking about.

Do you know anything at all about the linksys router in question?

And how, pray tell, did I start flinging the insults about?

I don't recommend you relying on other people's posts

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

So tell it to the OP. Why tell me?

Because you're the one who keeps insisting it's safe.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

That's a consequence of you not explaining the risk to the OP, instead telling me, as if I care

If you don't care why do you keep defending your position? You stated that the described solution is safe and secure, and myself, and several others, have pointed out that this is not so. Why keep telling us we're wrong unless you care?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

The same is true of using the Linksys, or any other solution, obviously

Yes, but not in the way originally described by the OP, hence the repeated statements that it would not be safe, which you insist upon trying to debunk

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Do you know anything at all about the linksys router in question?

More than I would like, having had to research it in an attempt to show you how wrong you were, and still are.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I don't recommend you relying on other people's posts

I'm not. I'm asking a direct question. I could even at this stage tell you to "put up or shut up" but that would be crass.

In reply to a post by pmb00cs:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

So tell it to the OP. Why tell me?

Because you're the one who keeps insisting it's safe

Which it is

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

That's a consequence of you not explaining the risk to the OP, instead telling me, as if I care

If you don't care why do you keep defending your position? You stated that the described solution is safe and secure, and myself, and several others, have pointed out that this is not so. Why keep telling us we're wrong unless you care?

So tell the OP

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

The same is true of using the Linksys, or any other solution, obviously

Yes, but not in the way originally described by the OP, hence the repeated statements that it would not be safe, which you insist upon trying to debunk

So tell the OP

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Do you know anything at all about the linksys router in question?

More than I would like, having had to research it in an attempt to show you how wrong you were, and still are.

If you believe that, take it up with Cisco. Explain to them the problems you have manufactured and see if they can figure out a way round them. I don't represent Cisco

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I don't recommend you relying on other people's posts

I'm not. I'm asking a direct question. I could even at this stage tell you to "put up or shut up" but that would be crass.

On the contrary, it would just continue the situation in this entire thread where you all make outrageous claims without backing them up and I have to drag the reasons out of you all.