Windows 7 Network Awareness: How Windows knows it has an Internet connection(blog.superuser.com)
blog.superuser.com
Windows 7 Network Awareness: How Windows knows it has an Internet connection
http://blog.superuser.com/2011/05/16/windows-7-network-awareness/
9 comments
Which is terribly annoying when you have a crappy router that intercepts dns queries and sometimes fails to resolve, making Windows think there's no internet, which makes it NOT let you even try to send the packets. Not my case but I've seen it happen: big FAIL. What a crappy way of "checking" you have internet access...
(@yakyak, no they don't work, that's what's so screwed up not just the half-assed method for checking)
The iPhone uses a very similar technique. If you connect to a wifi network that requires login, a browser sans address bar will pop-up over your current app and allow you to login. Once an external resource can be reached, the browser disappears and returns you to the previous app. Steve Jobs even alluded to it / bragged about it when the iPhone was first unveiled, 2 years before Win7 was released.
In fairness, this has nothing to do with Win7 specifically. The NCSI service was introduced with Vista.
...8 months before the iPhone was released.
Yes, Apple was focused intently on copying Vista's technology coup.
For the curious, previous HN discussion on this wifi captive portal trick ("WISPr"): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1674911
Just a note - this functionality was not in the initial day-1 release of the iPhone... I don't recall which update had this, but it was well after 1.0
iPhone OS 3.0
(now called iOS 3.0)
- iOS app developer who was there when Apple explained it
(now called iOS 3.0)
- iOS app developer who was there when Apple explained it
Yes, I have wanted to build something like that for Android, mainly to keep my phone from getting confused when it's connected to someone's wifi that demands some check box be checked off for service.
It would periodically awaken, see if the wifi is connected, if it is is there connectivity, if there is, go back to sleep, if there is not, turn the wifi off.
I've also wanted to build for Android the same piece of code, but if for 2 or 5 urls it gets back the same page with a checkbox, it checks off the box and sends it back off.
But I am curious, do all those wifi dns terms and agreements hijacking pages break any sort of RFC?
And is there any solution in ip6?
Or is there a real fix possible in ip4?
It would periodically awaken, see if the wifi is connected, if it is is there connectivity, if there is, go back to sleep, if there is not, turn the wifi off.
I've also wanted to build for Android the same piece of code, but if for 2 or 5 urls it gets back the same page with a checkbox, it checks off the box and sends it back off.
But I am curious, do all those wifi dns terms and agreements hijacking pages break any sort of RFC?
And is there any solution in ip6?
Or is there a real fix possible in ip4?
I'm not sure if you can access its state programmatically, but Android already does detection: the WiFi status icon is green if the system can make a connection to Google's servers, and grey otherwise.
IPv[46] have nothing to do with it. "Captive portal" pages are meant to prevent you from getting to the larger Internet, until you do whatever magic is required to dismiss them.
IPv[46] have nothing to do with it. "Captive portal" pages are meant to prevent you from getting to the larger Internet, until you do whatever magic is required to dismiss them.
"the WiFi status icon is green if the system can make a connection to Google's servers, and grey otherwise."
That's interesting. How does it detect it's at Google's servers?
I've often had occasions on my non-rooted, gingerbread, nexus one, where the phone believes it is on the net, on wifi, and shunts all activity to wifi, and yet, it's really stuck on one of those captive portal pages.
It even happens if I am just driving down the road.
I had thought that perhaps a small bit of technology would fix that, perhaps by turning the wifi off, or by automatically checking in on starbuck's router, but I am beginning to see I may just have a sick-making sense of entitlement.
Without being terribly cognizant of the RFCs I am surprised these portal captures are within spec.
That's interesting. How does it detect it's at Google's servers?
I've often had occasions on my non-rooted, gingerbread, nexus one, where the phone believes it is on the net, on wifi, and shunts all activity to wifi, and yet, it's really stuck on one of those captive portal pages.
It even happens if I am just driving down the road.
I had thought that perhaps a small bit of technology would fix that, perhaps by turning the wifi off, or by automatically checking in on starbuck's router, but I am beginning to see I may just have a sick-making sense of entitlement.
Without being terribly cognizant of the RFCs I am surprised these portal captures are within spec.
I'm not sure about your case, but the free wifi provider my city lets you visit Google without clicking through their portal.
Check out this open source application sbautologin (link: http://code.google.com/p/sbautologin/) that automatically logs into Starbucks (AT&T really) WiFi.
Thank you!
To answer all of your questions: Don't use someone else's wifi if you don't like how it behaves. Your sense of entitlement makes me sick.
Can you expand on that?
How is my wanting to either turn my wifi off, or automatically checking a terms and conditions box at a starbucks, or library, or school, or courtroom, or hospital router demonstrating a sick making sense of entitlement?
I would think many people would want such behavior from their phones, but I can see that you and whomeever voted my original question down are genuinely disturbed I would want this.
How is my wanting to either turn my wifi off, or automatically checking a terms and conditions box at a starbucks, or library, or school, or courtroom, or hospital router demonstrating a sick making sense of entitlement?
I would think many people would want such behavior from their phones, but I can see that you and whomeever voted my original question down are genuinely disturbed I would want this.
I think the point the parent is trying to make is that when you're using someone else's wifi network, it's their network, and they get to determine under what terms you're allowed to access it. If that means logging in, or viewing a page where you're required to explicitly agree to terms, that's the network operator's prerogative.
Annoying? Sure, a little. A "violation of spec" or something to get overly pissed about? Eh, there are far bigger fish to fry.
Annoying? Sure, a little. A "violation of spec" or something to get overly pissed about? Eh, there are far bigger fish to fry.
> or something to get overly pissed about? Eh, there are far bigger fish to fry.
It's easy to say that when it isn't your responsibility to deal with rightfully frustrated & confused end users that simply want to be able to use this WiFi network like they use every other WiFi network. Connect and forget.
I also have a never-ending hate for WiFi networks that use portals as they break tons of functionality and always have caveats & problems like the ones parent described.
The worst part? Acting very arrogant about it is the standard IT response, and it blatantly and demonstrably decreases security. Users keep splitters, ethernet cables & routers in their offices, in their laptop bags and around the building.
So go ahead, take this attitude towards the end users of your network. Just don't be surprised if the next IT crisis is caused by someone who "just didn't want to deal with the WiFi hassle".
It's easy to say that when it isn't your responsibility to deal with rightfully frustrated & confused end users that simply want to be able to use this WiFi network like they use every other WiFi network. Connect and forget.
I also have a never-ending hate for WiFi networks that use portals as they break tons of functionality and always have caveats & problems like the ones parent described.
The worst part? Acting very arrogant about it is the standard IT response, and it blatantly and demonstrably decreases security. Users keep splitters, ethernet cables & routers in their offices, in their laptop bags and around the building.
So go ahead, take this attitude towards the end users of your network. Just don't be surprised if the next IT crisis is caused by someone who "just didn't want to deal with the WiFi hassle".
Fine, but the way the thing works today, there's no mechanism for discovering what those terms and conditions are, or indeed, that they even exist.
So I go somewhere, flick on my WiFi, and then get frustrated because various tools (say, my native-code Google Reader app) can't communicate. It can't talk to the network because HTTP is trapped.
The thing is, HTTP is the de facto transport for everything. But these authentication/confirmation pages assume that a human will be reading them.
It seems to me that a mechanism that detects the presence of such a trap, and pops up that response page in a browser window for the user to react to, would solve everyone's problem (if inelegantly).
So I go somewhere, flick on my WiFi, and then get frustrated because various tools (say, my native-code Google Reader app) can't communicate. It can't talk to the network because HTTP is trapped.
The thing is, HTTP is the de facto transport for everything. But these authentication/confirmation pages assume that a human will be reading them.
It seems to me that a mechanism that detects the presence of such a trap, and pops up that response page in a browser window for the user to react to, would solve everyone's problem (if inelegantly).
And the other issue is that (if I have this correct), the reason my phone connects automatically to various portal hijacking waps is because in the past I have connected to those waps, and almost certainly checked off the terms and agreements for them, and continued.
I don't believe the nexus one will connect by itself to any open wap, it will just tell you one is available.
It seems absurd for anyone to think I need to check off the terms and agreements every single time I connect to the open wap, everyone's suspicion of course is that no one ever reads through the terms and agreements, we just check the box to make some lawyer or IT dude happy and continue.
I don't believe the nexus one will connect by itself to any open wap, it will just tell you one is available.
It seems absurd for anyone to think I need to check off the terms and agreements every single time I connect to the open wap, everyone's suspicion of course is that no one ever reads through the terms and agreements, we just check the box to make some lawyer or IT dude happy and continue.
Exactly. This is the specific reason why I ask if these portal pages, the DNS hijacking violates some RFC.
I do understand the desire and even the need for some form of authentication, or notice you are on someone else's network and ought to read what the terms are.
But the behavior of how that is implemented today is totally obnoxious, especially since for the most part, the terms and agreements are boilerplate intended to satisfy some lawyer, and functionally get in the way of why the vendor or site provided the wifi access in the first place.
I do understand the desire and even the need for some form of authentication, or notice you are on someone else's network and ought to read what the terms are.
But the behavior of how that is implemented today is totally obnoxious, especially since for the most part, the terms and agreements are boilerplate intended to satisfy some lawyer, and functionally get in the way of why the vendor or site provided the wifi access in the first place.
How much are we supposed to adjust our opinions based on your feeling sick, exactly? Have you tried not feeling sick? Perhaps it's a localised glitch?
Possible vector for some sort of attack?
The ncsi service that requests www.msftncsi.com is presumably very simple, but then...
It serves approx 32 bytes but it serves it to such an enormous number of machines that I have been curious as to how it is set up.
Netcraft says: F5 Big-IP Microsoft-IIS/7.0 213.199.181.90
But I am curious as to what the real details of the setup are.
Netcraft says: F5 Big-IP Microsoft-IIS/7.0 213.199.181.90
But I am curious as to what the real details of the setup are.
I just assumed it noticed when I entered the login information 2 minutes prior, then waited until the most annoying moment to give me a completely useless fraking notification.
if you're paranoid enough to disable this, you shouldn't be using windows. there are far more and better ways for windows and other windows software to phone home.
I think that making it phone your own NCSI server instead would be quite interesting, just in case your computer gets stolen.
It could be useful for corporate laptop users. I can imagine using this so that I know the IP address and connectivity status of remote users to use when they call in with issues.
Do we really need an entire article about this? Seriously, if you couldn't figure this out on your own in about 10 seconds, you're in the wrong line of work
It's nice to see the precise mechanics explained, and it might be rather "negative" to make your point, but it is a pretty obvious solution and I agree with you.
Apple claims that Mac OS X is "the world's most advanced operating system". But it's these details that I consider advanced and clever. Apple's marketing statements went from funny to offensive and unsupported.
Would this mean that DNS poisoning msftncsi.com would prevent Win7 machines from accessing the internet? Or would this merely cause the 'no internet access' error to be displayed despite your connection working anyway?