From: "Mark Henigan" <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>
Received-SPF: none (secmgr-ny.randr: 69.147.64.95 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of sbcglobal.net) client-ip=69.147.64.95; envelope-from=driven_zen@sbcglobal.net; helo=smtp122.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com;
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net;
  h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=KaFy524micxEIEHrhcyiTb+UK1ADmM8+xbnAjC/kRl859jej+eUeTsbuGbUea9jg8ieCu4W7pUBEG1XiluvNqWlYPLClfY61bGRTkbVnm5oYC0WhWCMjdYkD1QF6JqjUinjnZF9rQF+uwMPfvARIkABT5aylgX1fvHwE60tTFag=  ;
Message-ID: <48435E0B.1030208@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:42:19 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: OS/2 Wireless Users Mailing List <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>
Subject: Re: [OS2Wireless] Faster internet for some, at a price.
References: <list-1905446@2rosenthals.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-1905446@2rosenthals.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Leon D. Zetekoff wrote:
> Hi Mark!
> 
> i GUESS (oops) what I need is a picture as it's always easier to work from
> something visual (for me at least).
> 
> Regarding HIPAA, if the data is transferred over a secure link like SSL
> then you should be all set. Are these two machines with you or is one at
> home and the other on the road?

Hello Leon:

I'm pretty visually-oriented myself.  I wish I
knew a simple way to produce diagrams and send
them via email.

Both at the same office one day a week where a
hardwired connection would be impractical but
where it was suggested that I use a wireless
wireless access point to simply connect the two
laptops.  Much of the remainder of the week
they will be about 75 miles apart with a DSL
connection available, one at home, the other
with me on the road.

For SSL, would I need to purchase a
certificate?

Thanks again,

- Mark

Mark Henigan
-- 


> Thanks leon
> 
> <quote who="Mark Henigan">
> 
>>Leon D. Zetekoff wrote:
>>
>>>Mark...I'd personally use VPN built-in to hardware like a router instead
>>>of using it on the operating system.
>>>
>>>If you're hooking two machines together at the same place you don't need
>>>a
>>>VPN or am I missing something?
>>
>>Hello Leon:
>>
>>It will be impractical to provide a hardwire
>>connection between the two notebook computers.
>>However, since this situation involves medical
>>information, given the current Federal privacy
>>laws, I need to ensure that any wireless link
>>isn't easily accessible to others.  In addition,
>>I am hoping to connect the same notebooks via
>>DSL when I am out of town (three days a week)
>>so that the two machines can synchronize their
>>data.  Hardware (router) VPN, something I wasn't
>>even aware of as an option, seemingly wouldn't
>>do the job.
>>
>>Please correct any inaccuracies, especially b/c
>>I know little about VPN and nothing about VPN
>>built into routers.
>>
>>Thank you for your suggestions.
>>
>>- Mark
>>
>>Mark Henigan
>>--
>>
>>
>>>Thanks leon
>>>
>>><quote who="Mark Henigan">
>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:05:22 -0400, "Lewis G Rosenthal"
>>>>><os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>LinkSys makes a UMTS unit (works with Sprint and a couple other
>>>>>>carriers
>>>>>>- now, but was originally designed for Sprint). It takes the Sprint PC
>>>>>>card in a slot, and then distributes that via Wi-Fi and via a 4-port
>>>>>>router. Beware, however, as VPN connections and other
>>>>>>"must-be-connected-full-time" services simply do not work well with
>>>>>>these things, even when coupled with a "real" VPN router behind it, as
>>>>>>the wireless broadband is subject to the same turbulence as cell phone
>>>>>>transmissions (worse, in some cases). In the LinkSys situation, it was
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>$300+ experiment which did
> 
> 
> 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=