Hi
Let's say i'm having a party, and my Sonos is playing the music.
Many of my guests are friends that earlier has gotten access to my WiFi. During the party, these guests could download Sonos Controller/app, connect to Sonos, and start controlling the music.
There is no way in Sonos controllers to set a password, to avoid this behaviour.
Other workarounds would be setting up a guest WiFi network that doesn't have access to Sonos, but this would require a new router (in som cases), or change my original password in my entire existing network, which would be annoying ;)
Are there any plans to add this feature?
Maybe even a possibility to require a password for each Sonos device (tick box in controller preferences for each device?)
Am i missing something, other than keeping my guests sober and not annoying 😃
Page 2 / 8
I think you have said plenty, and i agree 100% with you!
("could" and "in some cases" were carefully chosen!)
Bull****, he's talking specifically about what HE wants. You don't request things on behalf of non-existent other people, you ask for what you want.
It doesn't matter what I think is going to happen first. Whether he sets up a guest network first or not, he still has the opinion that passwords might be useful, and started a thread to express that opinion. You obviously don't think it would be. That should be enough. But when facts are distorted and misinterpreted, corrections are in order.
The point is he's been given an answer that will do what he wants RIGHT NOW. He won't get what he's asking for because people have been asking for since day 1 (as he'd know if he'd bothered to do a search on the forum for the same idea) and Sonos have never shown the slightest inclination that they're going to implement it, so he may as well just set up his guest network and get on with it instead of wasting everybody's time.
The point is he's been given an answer that will do what he wants RIGHT NOW. He won't get what he's asking for because people have been asking for since day 1 (as he'd know if he'd bothered to do a search on the forum for the same idea) and Sonos have never shown the slightest inclination that they're going to implement it, so he may as well just set up his guest network and get on with it instead of wasting everybody's time.
I don't see any reason to start a post with an inflammatory, asterisked-out expletive.
Unless you work for the Sonos development team, you have no idea that "he won't get what he's asking for". That is your opinion, and it doesn't address anything the OP asked in the first post, which is WHY a password is a bad idea?
He wasn't "given an answer" - he was already aware of the "answer" of guest-access as he stated plainly in his first post.
I feel bad for the OP, as this was his first post here, and it has not been very friendly or helpful. Instead, you chastise him for not searching (which he may have, you don't know), and then accuse him of wasting "everybody's" time. Well he didn't waste my time, so you are wrong. And who are you to speak for everybody?
OP - keep up the good ideas for product enhancement, but maybe post them on ask.sonos.com where they will be considered respectfully.
FWIW the Sonos CEO is quoted in this post from an interview a couple of years back:
Times change, but there's no sign that Sonos' view has.
"You can’t put, “hey, type in the three numbers to start using a controller” because that’s going to drive you crazy usability wise, you’ll turn it off and never turn that feature on again"
Times change, but there's no sign that Sonos' view has.
Rather than a password, would it be feasible to be able to tie an individual controller to one or more specific Sonos devices/zones?
This could be a one-off password protected option in the settings menus.
So if anyone got hold of the daughters phone, all they could access would be the relevant zone(s).
This could be a one-off password protected option in the settings menus.
So if anyone got hold of the daughters phone, all they could access would be the relevant zone(s).
Unless you work for the Sonos development team, you have no idea that "he won't get what he's asking for". That is your opinion, and it doesn't address anything the OP asked in the first post, which is WHY a password is a bad idea?
He wasn't "given an answer" - he was already aware of the "answer" of guest-access as he stated plainly in his first post.
I feel bad for the OP, as this was his first post here, and it has not been very friendly or helpful. Instead, you chastise him for not searching (which he may have, you don't know), and then accuse him of wasting "everybody's" time. Well he didn't waste my time, so you are wrong. And who are you to speak for everybody?
OP - keep up the good ideas for product enhancement, but maybe post them on ask.sonos.com where they will be considered respectfully.
Thank you for your support Rash!
Seems like you are the only one to have read my posts the way they are intended, instead of "the devil reading the bible".
If my intentions have not been clear enough for everyone else, i'm sorry to have wasted your time.....however, i will be sleeping tonight ;)
Rash: I was not aware of ask.sonos.com, maybe i'll post there, but as Ratty has pointed out with his link to an interview, the odds are stacked against me, and my debut at Sonos forums was rather discouraging, to say the least :rolleyes:
Don't let this vigourous little debate put you off. It's just that for longstanding members this issue has, as noted above, been coming up time and again for 8 years.
Yes, it would be handy to be able to restrict controllers to certain Players, but there are other ways of dealing with it today. Some are technical, as in splitting the network or Sonos Household. Some come down to basic manners and parenting. ;)
If Sonos had seen this is a deal-breaker for potential purchasers they would have prioritised development long ago.
It's clear to me that Sonos should re-program the mute button again and make it sense fingerprints.
Then you could simply "log-in" to your local Sonos player with your finger and unlock the controller.
Sonos should do this right now, I would buy 10 more zones if they did...and throw a big party to celebrate. I'd even invite people I don't trust, as they couldn't change the volume as their fingers wouldn't work.
Then you could simply "log-in" to your local Sonos player with your finger and unlock the controller.
Sonos should do this right now, I would buy 10 more zones if they did...and throw a big party to celebrate. I'd even invite people I don't trust, as they couldn't change the volume as their fingers wouldn't work.
Then you could simply "log-in" to your local Sonos player with your finger and unlock the controller.
Sonos should do this right now, I would buy 10 more zones if they did...and throw a big party to celebrate. I'd even invite people I don't trust, as they couldn't change the volume as their fingers wouldn't work.
Very Funny. :D
Blunt, ironic, sarcastic and slightly mean. But funny nonetheless (as many good quips are). And on-point as well.
Best of Luck
That may be true, but opinions can/do change, including those of CEOs. If he is a smart business person interested in growth, he will listen to his current and possible future customers and accommodate their needs if they are requested in large enough amounts. So don't stop requesting something just because it has been requested before without success, and don't let others convince you otherwise. As Sonos grows, there may be enough users who agree with you to open Sonos' mind to the idea, whatever it may be.
These are Sonos' official forums, linked from their website. I would think that they want all members, especially new or prospective customers, to be treated respectfully, not subjected to "that's already been asked, you're wasting our time". That does not shed a positive light on the company, and those users who have such attitudes are hurting the very company they claim to support. It should not be tolerated. A simple link to a thread containing previously asked questions that have been answered would be the appropriate response. The thread could then be closed to avoid wasting everybody's time. 😉
Just be careful not to touch the guest list before mailing or someone might bring an extra finger print.
hate to derail the thread, but my fiance sometimes changes the music/puts music on when he is within wi-fi range coming home from work...
gets me everytime :)
but i get what you mean, because sometimes he changes the music when im in the middle of an album 😮
gets me everytime :)
but i get what you mean, because sometimes he changes the music when im in the middle of an album 😮
Even setting aside the Sonos privacy there are ample reasons to set up a guest wifi network including the possibility of a friend/relative/guest with a virus-infected device accessing your network and spreading said malware to your shared folders.
And there's a pretty easy way to do it as well. Pick up a cheap router like this one from Amazon for $20. Set it up with a guest wifi network name and password and an IP range different from your main router (if your main router uses 192.168.1.xxx as most do, use 192.168.2.xxx). Now, simply plug it into your existing router and you've got a separate guest wifi network which will give your guests access to the internet without letting them see or interact with your main network (devices generally won't see one another across different subnets).
Just don't forget to change your password on the regular router so people who already had access will be motivated to get the new info. If you wanted it to be invisible to them you could even put your old credentials on the new router as the guest network, and update the old router.
As long as your Sonos is on the original router people on the new router won't be able to link to it or control it.
And there's a pretty easy way to do it as well. Pick up a cheap router like this one from Amazon for $20. Set it up with a guest wifi network name and password and an IP range different from your main router (if your main router uses 192.168.1.xxx as most do, use 192.168.2.xxx). Now, simply plug it into your existing router and you've got a separate guest wifi network which will give your guests access to the internet without letting them see or interact with your main network (devices generally won't see one another across different subnets).
Just don't forget to change your password on the regular router so people who already had access will be motivated to get the new info. If you wanted it to be invisible to them you could even put your old credentials on the new router as the guest network, and update the old router.
As long as your Sonos is on the original router people on the new router won't be able to link to it or control it.
You'd actually want to do it the other way round, with guests using the existing router and Sonos moved to the private side of router 2. Devices on the inner network can still access devices on the main network (so long as they can determine the destination address), but not vice versa.
Actually, technically these are NOT the official Sonos forums (I know, I know, I've had the same argument myself), the OFFICIAL place to request features is ask.sonos.com.
I would think that they want all members, especially new or prospective customers, to be treated respectfully, not subjected to "that's already been asked, you're wasting our time". That does not shed a positive light on the company,
We're nothing to do with the company however, and the company is nothing to do with us, we're just users, like you.
So, stop wasting our time! 😃
Although I understand your reasoning, this is not a good approach either. The best route would be to wire both to a WAN connection (if you get at least two IPs from your ISP), however that is not always the case.
But having double NAT for your internal network will surely cause other problems.
Sonos would be filtered in both scenarios because discovery would fail. You could possibly even add a static route for the "other" internal network that routes no where, to be sure. Either way, a router with guest network possibilities is really the best alternative.
I know ratty that you are aware of this, just thought that people reading this thread becomes aware of that 🙂
I understand what you're saying but in the context of the current discussion I can confirm that the Sonos connection will not work (as jishi says). I have this setup in my own house (in addition to a guest network). I use it to enable me set up new Sonos systems without inadvertently making them part of my own. I used to go and turn off my bridge to set up a new system, now I just put the new bridge behind a second router and have not had a problem. In addition, I've occasionally left my controller linked to the wireless of the second router and tried to relink to my own Sonos system and it does not work until I move to the 1st router.
Because of the Double NAT issue I wouldn't encourage anyone to put their Sonos and their main home network behind the second router, but I don't worry too much about putting guests there.
For security against actual malice as I said I'd always recommend a guest network with full wireless isolation. But as a $20 means of keeping my guests from messing with the Sonos system, I'd still stand by this.
I guess I wasn't clear enough. Obviously discovery wouldn't work between the outer and inner LANs, because controllers and players would be on either side of the second router.
But as for running a Sonos entirely on the inner LAN, including all the controllers, well of course it will work. Yes, it's double-NATed but Sonos doesn't know or care. That's precisely how I run my main Sonos household, behind a WRT54GL running Tomato. (I have other reasons to do so; security was actually secondary.)
The Sonos is perfectly happy to connect to addresses on the Internet or the outer LAN. Moreover the Players don't pop up as UPnP devices on the computers of visitors who attach to the main router.
But as for running a Sonos entirely on the inner LAN, including all the controllers, well of course it will work. Yes, it's double-NATed but Sonos doesn't know or care. That's precisely how I run my main Sonos household, behind a WRT54GL running Tomato. (I have other reasons to do so; security was actually secondary.)
The Sonos is perfectly happy to connect to addresses on the Internet or the outer LAN. Moreover the Players don't pop up as UPnP devices on the computers of visitors who attach to the main router.
I can't believe that people think this issue is best solved by password protecting all devices. All the guests (in my case, hundreds who come to events) have access to the wifi, and therefore to the sonos. A guest login to the router is an excellent suggestion (not quite as good as password protecting access to sonos zones, but still), but telling a poster to stop her daughter letting her friends use her computer is the most ridiculous answer to a tech request I've ever heard.
Password is a must in 2016
I live in a condo where we share internet , between condos.
Sonos is a pain as i cannot control my neighbour, neighbour guest behaviour.
Make it simple as airplay.
All apple airplay device have password protection.
To add a sonos device in the sonos app you should be ask a password it is ridiculous that there is no way to protect intrusion.
Guess WiFi is a stupid suggestion. should not have to block file sharing to block access to my sound system.
i have phillips hue light and controller must be hand pushed to be added to app. My neighbour doesn't have access to my light.
But he as access to my sound system....
I live in a condo where we share internet , between condos.
Sonos is a pain as i cannot control my neighbour, neighbour guest behaviour.
Make it simple as airplay.
All apple airplay device have password protection.
To add a sonos device in the sonos app you should be ask a password it is ridiculous that there is no way to protect intrusion.
Guess WiFi is a stupid suggestion. should not have to block file sharing to block access to my sound system.
i have phillips hue light and controller must be hand pushed to be added to app. My neighbour doesn't have access to my light.
But he as access to my sound system....
Never mind Sonos, I'm surprised you'd be happy letting neighbours poke around in any of your network devices. Buy a small router and set up your own private network. If you don't have access to a wired network connection you can obtain WiFi-as-WAN routers.
Or a responsible company will listen to their customer needs and wants and react accordingly. Putting the responsibility on the user is ridiculous. It's a very simple thing to implement. Or implement it on the front end. That you need to enter a PIN number on the first time you install the speaker on the app. After that all speakers in that connection are enabled
I would not double NAT a network just for the sake of it!
Gaming and server wise its not acceptable....
I am a Network technician, and i set up multiple smart device and this is the only device in this price range that as no basic, nada protection. All my Network device have encryption. and i have no neighbour who's an hacker with the skill to hack my network . So even if they see it they can't do squat!
They can not access my phillips light without physically pressing the device module button (so they must come in my house first)
i have a Ring Doorbell (it's encrypted)
i have phillips hue all over the place (it's encrypted)
i Have multiple Camera (all password protected and encrypted)
i have a iSmart Alarm as house security (password protected and encrypted)
I have multiple Apple TV (password protected)
I have airplay Airport Express hooked to sound systems (password protected)
I have an August Lock for my door.
An we all have Mac's with no sharing activated, and password protected.
All these device are protected and my neighbour or guest can't access nothing with only there phone.
But than there is Sonos;
I equipped myself with two Play 1 and two Play 3 and an Sonos AMP. Bummer ! a guest at my neighbours house could start my sound systems in the middle of the night!
We share internet because we have a 200 Mbps connection with up speed of 60Mbps. for 40$ a month each.
Investing into a subnet manageable gigabyte Router is ridiculous.
Sonos at the price there are selling this gadget should offer minimal protection.
the simple action of pressing a button on the speaker or device will pairing with remote app. would be very easy to implement.
The same process as in stereo pairing of two speakers.
I was going to equipped my son with two Play 1 for is room he share's a big house with multiple roommate.
This is not a viable situation With Sonos equipment.
Sorry for any spelling error English is not my first language.
Sonos controllers used to insist that buttons be pressed on a hardware unit in order to associate with the system. For ease of use Sonos changed things such that, if there's only one system ('household') on the network, a new controller will automatically detect it and associate. However if there's more than one household the controller will still request a button push to identify the correct one.
Get another Sonos device -- a BRIDGE would suffice, which can be had for very little money off eBay -- and set it up as a 'new system'. This will create another household ID. Anyone on the same subnet wanting to illicitly associate a controller would then need physical access to your property to press buttons on a Sonos device.
Get another Sonos device -- a BRIDGE would suffice, which can be had for very little money off eBay -- and set it up as a 'new system'. This will create another household ID. Anyone on the same subnet wanting to illicitly associate a controller would then need physical access to your property to press buttons on a Sonos device.
the simple action of pressing a button on the speaker or device will pairing with remote app. would be very easy to implement.
The same process as in stereo pairing of two speakers.
I was going to equipped my son with two Play 1 for is room he share's a big house with multiple roommate.
This is not a viable situation With Sonos equipment.
When you pair a Sonos controller with a reset Sonos component they create what we call a household ID, a unique key to that Sonos pairing. When you go to connect future controllers to the network, they'll scan to see if there are any existing households on the network. If more than one household is detected you'll get asked to press the play/pause and plus button or the connect button on the household you want to pair with.
If your neighbor had a Sonos setup separate from yours, it very well would solve your trouble. You could also just have a BRIDGE or other Sonos device connected to the network with a different household ID as well. Any new controllers on the network would need to have buttons pressed in order to connect.
It's generally safer and better to have a vLAN setup or a double NAT in this sort of situation just to keep things cleaner. It's safer for everyone involved. Even is your neighbor doesn't know how to break some encryption you never know who he invites over to his house, or who he gives access to the wifi on. Besides, for devices using UPnP or DLNA you won't see results not in your home.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.