Microsoft's Virtual WiFi will make Windows 7 wireless adapters do a double-take

It's been a long, long time since Microsoft Research first released its findings on Virtual WiFi, or VWiFi, technology that would allow a single wireless network adapter to act like two, two, two NICs in one. Now that innovation is finally ready for the big show: inclusion in Windows 7 -- or at least some flavors of it. The tech lets one piece of WiFi hardware be represented in Windows as two separate adapters, meaning you can connect to two hotspots simultaneously if you like, or turn your virtual device into an access point that others can connect to. Apparently this functionality is indeed included in the latest release candidate, but as there are no drivers currently supporting this feature it's not enabled. Expect the driver situation to change very soon, and expect hotel fee-based wireless internet access companies to start crying foul not long after.

[superhobo Posted May 18th 2009 1:06PM]

Nice.

[drbohner Posted May 18th 2009 1:41PM]

I hate Hotel Based Wifi and Lognet!

I'm on the road 70% or more of the time - and I drag my xbox with me (better to be killing slaggards in COD - than being the lady slayer at the bar [the wife prefers I drag an xbox to the hotel over 'something else' - you catch the drift])

In the past I've had to connect the laptop to the hotel wifi and get lognetted in. Then Share the Ethernet and plug the xbox into the laptop. OH - I had to change the IP address manually (no dhcp).

Now I call ahead and see if the digs are xbox friendly (many Staybridge Suites ARE xbox friendly - unlike Marriot/Hilton and the rest of the warrior stable).

If I can cheap out the cheapster - I'M GAIM~!

-ghostapha

[(Unverified) Posted May 18th 2009 1:51PM]

It has been a while since I have used windows for major networking... Switch to linux about 18 months ago...
In linux, most processes can run using a specified interface (eth0, wlan0, eth1). Does there exist anything in windows that allows for this type of interchangeability? Run a FTP server on Wireless 1 and a Media Server on Wireless 2 for example?

[1 STUNNA Posted May 18th 2009 1:54PM]

yes, that's standard on all OS.

[jepzilla Posted May 18th 2009 2:37PM]

Each interface has a different IP address. A program can control which interface it binds to in Windows the same as it can in Linux, by explicitly binding to a socket to an interface's IP address. Most server software on both Windows and Linux will let you do this- although I've never seen any client software in either OS that will.

But yeah, it can be done in both Windows and Linux, in the same way. It just depends whether or not the software you use was written to support it.

[1 STUNNA Posted May 18th 2009 1:53PM]

Couldn't this be used to simplify a man in the middle attack? Hacker goes to the local hot spot that offers free wifi. Joins it's network then creates another network using this technology and calls it the same name as the free wifi network. He then waits for someone to join his network and all their packets will pass through his PC. This seems possible, no?

[afuchs Posted May 18th 2009 3:08PM]

Yes, it's been done with multiple network cards, and most likely can be done with this.

[(Unverified) Posted May 18th 2009 3:11PM]

All you would see would be two networks of the same name then, unless the person hacks the network and changes the existing wireless name. *shrugs* If someone wants to see a twitter or Livejournal post more power too em. Its not like I'm going to be doing banking on an open network anyways, and anyone who does without a VPN is a tard.
Any useful tech can be used for questionable purposes. Doesn't mean we should avoid it just because it MIGHT be used for such an attack.

[reebokshoes Posted May 18th 2009 3:22PM]

so what would be the point of this? faster speeds?

[looselycoupled Posted May 18th 2009 10:57PM]

So is this like network adapter time sharing? Each adapter would have 1/2 the throughput right?

[(Unverified) Posted Jun 2nd 2009 6:10PM]

no love from INTEL on this technology though. They prefer to push there own version which is far from useful. :-(