The WiFi campus has the most trouble with network centres, not being unconnected, but a full-scale Internet account or an account number that is sold. In case of non-governance, the bandwidth is eaten by a nettine person and the student card is issued, and all complaints are made to you. The wireless Portal has a combination of punches on the network and account sharing, but it is not enough to do one trick alone.
Limit the number of terminals for single accounts
The most basic move is to have a number of terminals attached at the same time. Students usually add cell phones to their notebooks, and we usually set two or three. More than that, we refuse to log in new equipment or kick out the first one. This action directly wipes out more than half of the multi-person share.
Login is shared and the conversation is tied
The more advanced approach is to register the same account number differently: if the account logs in Building A, then the B-room goes back and kicks the previous one or requires confirmation twice. With the device's fingerprints, we can identify whether it is the same terminal. We suggest that the dormitory scenes be shared so as to prevent accounts from flowing across buildings. This is a more aggressive move than simple terminals, but it should be experienced so that students who change classrooms are not miscarried.
Equipment registration and white list
Registering the student’s terminal card address or device fingerprint, and checking the new equipment to be checked down from its source can reduce the number of webcams. We've seen schools register their own start-up devices, students report their cell phone notebooks, and then the strange ones go directly to WiFi for review. The white list model is a bit costly to manage, but it is best safe to have high compliance institutions.
Abnormal behavior detection
Real sharing often has behavioural characteristics: the same account logs in two places at midnight, traffic is abnormally concentrated, and terminals are frequently switched. Wired Portal logs feed behavior analysis to identify such anomalies. We suggest that unusual detection thresholds be adjusted, for example, a single account number being replaced by five access points. This is the smartest layer of security.
Let the students manage their own equipment.
Finally, the certification system allows students to see and manage their own equipment. The current binding equipment, the recent traffic of each station, and where it is entered, are listed on the self-help page, and there is no key untied. We have counted it since we went online, and when open devices self-service was managed, the number of passengers with a connection to network and account anomalies has been cut by almost half because they can discover problems themselves and handle them themselves.
The system needs to keep up with technology.
Technology is safe for most, but it is always compromised. We suggest that schools should have a code governing the Internet, which states that accounts must not be loaned or sold and that the offenders should deal with them and make them known to students. The system and technology are both powerful and effective. We've seen schools that only use technology to keep their systems intact.
We need a complaint for the shooting.
A more accurate system can also be killed by mistake, such as a student changing his cell phone and a dormitory signal switcher. We suggest that students should have an access point where they can recover quickly rather than being stuck for days. The complaint channel is quick to respond, preferably on the day.
Common netting.
The usual ones among students are: selling accounts to other people in the same building, running their own wireless hotspots for roommates and hanging them on old phones. These actions cannot be stopped by a limited number of terminals alone, but they have to be identified by behavioural tests plus equipment registration combinations. We suggest that Internet teachers learn about the school’s usual moves, tailoring rules.
You have to learn beyond technology.
And the system is too tight to stop it, so we need to keep up with online safety education. We suggest that a section of our new school enrolment should be included in an Internet-based code to clarify the risks and consequences of account transfers, which are more cure than purely technical blockages. Students understand why they cannot share and cooperate much more. Education and technology are two sets of levers, one of them is missing.
The rules are regularly re-rewd.
The strategy to prevent sharing is not one-time, but rather one-time. We suggest that we look at the data every quarter, and that it be relaxed and tightened. Rules are only as valid as they are.
The balance points are put together, the system is replaced and wireless Portal really works. If the terminal numbers do not stop the drill, the combination of punches and students’ self-help capabilities will actually push the net down.