NationStates Jolt Archive


Is it wrong to leech wifi?

Port Arcana
24-12-2007, 18:41
A family member recently brought over a laptop, and by completely surprise, I discovered that there's about 6 open, high speed wifi connections within the neighbourhood that we live in.

I've heard many times that people simply by laptops and leech wifi off their neighbours, etc. But I'm not sure if that's okay or not. On one hand you're not really paying for the service, but on the other, if the owners didn't want people to use their connection, they could have added a password to it or something.

What are your thoughts?
Vandal-Unknown
24-12-2007, 18:44
Password it, unless you intend to share it.
Katganistan
24-12-2007, 18:45
Be prepared to answer uncomfortable questions if there's a problem with hacking. ;)
Smunkeeville
24-12-2007, 18:47
I like to get in and mess with their router.......I mean......I would never do that! You shouldn't steal net access!

uh........my network is protected.

yeah.

My neighbor's network is not, so I went over and offered to fix it for them, but they are "sharing it" with a few people in the area so they didn't want it fixed... I think that might be against the ISP's rules, but meh.
Murder City Jabbers
24-12-2007, 18:48
Is there really any damage done when you leech Wifi? I don't really know how it works.
Smunkeeville
24-12-2007, 18:51
Is there really any damage done when you leech Wifi? I don't really know how it works.

unless you are downloading a ton or screwing with their settings, it doesn't really matter.
Smunkeeville
24-12-2007, 18:55
one moar thing.

I "steal" wi-fi constantly. When I am at the hospital I "borrow" from them and post on the internets from my palm.

I broke into the grocery store wi-fi on my palm to be able to check ingredient statements on the web while I am shopping.

I also have used the wi-fi at restaurants to reserve a table so I didn't have to wait in line.

"45 minute wait"<--- host
"oh, okay"<--me
*gets on internet, makes reservations*<--- "borrowing restaurant's connection*
"Smunkee, party of 4!" <--- intercom
"yay!"<--me
"that wasn't 45 minutes"<--- hubby
"people with reservations get bumped in line"
"cheater"<---- 6 year old
Midlauthia
24-12-2007, 18:56
A family member recently brought over a laptop, and by completely surprise, I discovered that there's about 6 open, high speed wifi connections within the neighbourhood that we live in.

I've heard many times that people simply by laptops and leech wifi off their neighbours, etc. But I'm not sure if that's okay or not. On one hand you're not really paying for the service, but on the other, if the owners didn't want people to use their connection, they could have added a password to it or something.

What are your thoughts?
I'm doing it right now actually. And ironically the name of the network is "Hooker".
Vittos the City Sacker
24-12-2007, 18:59
A family member recently brought over a laptop, and by completely surprise, I discovered that there's about 6 open, high speed wifi connections within the neighbourhood that we live in.

I've heard many times that people simply by laptops and leech wifi off their neighbours, etc. But I'm not sure if that's okay or not. On one hand you're not really paying for the service, but on the other, if the owners didn't want people to use their connection, they could have added a password to it or something.

What are your thoughts?

And I noticed that there were several unlocked cars in my neighborhood....


Yes, I think it is wrong, as bandwidth is scarce.
Smunkeeville
24-12-2007, 19:04
And I noticed that there were several unlocked cars in my neighborhood....


Yes, I think it is wrong, as bandwidth is scarce.

meanie.
Domici
24-12-2007, 19:05
Password it, unless you intend to share it.

Exactly. If you're going to broadcast then people are going to overhear. If you don't want people to use your wifi then stop literally giving it to them. When my neighbor's teenager cranks Metallica (I realize it's more likely that Metallica is being cranked by a 30 year old alcoholic than a teenager, but I'm not prepared to accept that yet) my neighbor has the decency not to come over and charge me for the unauthorized listening of his stereo.

It would be nice of the RIAA could learn such decency.
Domici
24-12-2007, 19:07
And I noticed that there were several unlocked cars in my neighborhood...

But they weren't being launched into your livingroom right?
Domici
24-12-2007, 19:08
In some areas, like a few of the major cities, the laws have been changed to cover that. If you're caught doing such a thing, you can get fined.

Yes, and people have gotten fined for using the free WiFi networks of internet cafes.
Northrop-Grumman
24-12-2007, 19:08
In some areas, like a few of the major cities, the laws have been changed to cover that. If you're caught doing such a thing, you can get fined.

But as for me, if its not passworded, you're just asking for trouble so I use it. But I would never use it for downloads and the like. Coming from someone who only has a 7 gig cap on downloads and 450 mb cap on uploads, it isn't that fun to have your internet disconnected for the rest of the month.
Ashmoria
24-12-2007, 19:09
no i dont think its wrong. if they didnt want you to access it they would secure it.

it WOULD be polite to talk to your neighbor and ask if its OK with them that you do it. if they look at you blankly it would also be nice to explain to them that it CAN be locked and why they might want to do so.

its wrong to hog their wifi. they are paying for it; you arent.

its wrong to download child porn or other illegal stuff on their wifi. that leaves them open to jail time should it be traced to their connection.
Ashmoria
24-12-2007, 19:11
one moar thing.

I "steal" wi-fi constantly. When I am at the hospital I "borrow" from them and post on the internets from my palm.

I broke into the grocery store wi-fi on my palm to be able to check ingredient statements on the web while I am shopping.

I also have used the wi-fi at restaurants to reserve a table so I didn't have to wait in line.

"45 minute wait"<--- host
"oh, okay"<--me
*gets on internet, makes reservations*<--- "borrowing restaurant's connection*
"Smunkee, party of 4!" <--- intercom
"yay!"<--me
"that wasn't 45 minutes"<--- hubby
"people with reservations get bumped in line"
"cheater"<---- 6 year old

thats not cheating. its using their bad business practice to get seated faster.
OceanDrive2
24-12-2007, 19:19
many acquaintances of mine, do want to freely share their connection.. just out of generosity.
.
its wrong to download child porn or other illegal stuff on their wifi. that leaves them open to jail time should it be traced to their connection.is that in the US? What happened to Innocent until proven Guilty?
Ashmoria
24-12-2007, 19:31
many acquaintances of mine, do want to freely share their connection.. just out of generosity.
.is that in the US? What happened to Innocent until proven Guilty?

yes it is. child porn is too vile to keep track of but the government does tend to go crazy when they decide that someone has probably had some involvement in it.
Vittos the City Sacker
24-12-2007, 19:36
But they weren't being launched into your livingroom right?

Most of them weren't.
OceanDrive2
24-12-2007, 19:42
yes it is (in the US).
child porn is too vile to keep track of ...is it too vile to make sure justice is served?
Port Arcana
24-12-2007, 19:56
one moar thing.

I "steal" wi-fi constantly. When I am at the hospital I "borrow" from them and post on the internets from my palm.

I broke into the grocery store wi-fi on my palm to be able to check ingredient statements on the web while I am shopping.

I also have used the wi-fi at restaurants to reserve a table so I didn't have to wait in line.

"45 minute wait"<--- host
"oh, okay"<--me
*gets on internet, makes reservations*<--- "borrowing restaurant's connection*
"Smunkee, party of 4!" <--- intercom
"yay!"<--me
"that wasn't 45 minutes"<--- hubby
"people with reservations get bumped in line"
"cheater"<---- 6 year old
Lol, smart. :D

And I like your kid's reaction. XD
UNIverseVERSE
24-12-2007, 22:08
Depends. Do you have a wireless network, and is it open?

If you answered yes to both of those, then yes, borrow other people's. Treat it respectfully etc, of course, but it's fine then.

Basically, it's wrong to leech, but if you're freely sharing as well, then I'd say go for it. Obviously, don't abuse it.
Egg and chips
24-12-2007, 22:17
If they leave it open, use it, but don't abuse it.
The Infinite Dunes
24-12-2007, 22:34
Stealing anything is against the law. Doesn't matter if someone left the door open or not. Just because I leave my door open whilst I take out my rubbish out doesn't mean I've invited you into my house.

Having only recently got a laptop I can't say I'd had the chance to pilfer someone else's internet connection.
I like to get in and mess with their router.......I mean......I would never do that! You shouldn't steal net access!

uh........my network is protected.

yeah.

My neighbor's network is not, so I went over and offered to fix it for them, but they are "sharing it" with a few people in the area so they didn't want it fixed... I think that might be against the ISP's rules, but meh.Oh damn... the routers in our house recently died and we had to reset them. I think I forgot to turn the wireless of one of them off. Oh well, nothing I can do about it from my mum's house.

Actually it doesn't matter, the only reason we have the second router is because the first's wireless is awful and is only spasmodically available outside the room it's in. But then there's something about that room - bit of a deadspot for most telecommunications.

Still no one will be able to mess with any of the router settings as by default it's set to only allow those who've connected via LAN to alter its settings.
ColaDrinkers
24-12-2007, 22:41
And I noticed that there were several unlocked cars in my neighborhood....


Yes, I think it is wrong, as bandwidth is scarce.

If the cars have signs on them telling you that it's OK to take them for a drive, would it still be a problem? The way wireless works is that you are contacted and invited to connect to the network, not you that somehow break in. Of course, most that leave their wifi open aren't aware of the fact that they're broadcasting these invitations non-stop to the world, so I still think it would be polite to ask, even if not strictly necessary.
Wilgrove
24-12-2007, 22:50
I think it is stealing because you're using someone else's internet connection without permission, and if you download something illegal like copyrighted work or Kiddie porn, then the owner of that connection would totally be screwed and you'd get off scot free, now how is that fair?

My WiFi is secured. :D
Fair Progress
24-12-2007, 22:55
On one hand you're not really paying for the service, but on the other, if the owners didn't want people to use their connection, they could have added a password to it or something.

Using that logic, it's totally OK for someone to steal your car if you forget to lock it, right?
Marrakech II
24-12-2007, 23:06
I would put this in the realm with Sat TV. Sat TV can be easily picked up on a FTA box for free. If someones signal is available on your property then I say use it. They can take easy precautions to block you out and they don't. So it's fair game. I use my laptop everywhere for free because of wide open systems. Schools are the best for this. If I am out and about and need to download/upload some information to a server I will use a school to do it. 95% of the time schools are wide open. All one needs to do is pull up in the public street to access the net.
Vegan Nuts
24-12-2007, 23:09
What are your thoughts?I go to college with my nextdoor neighbor - we found out one day that we had both been stealing each other's wireless for over a year. I really don't see a problem wit hit...it's like a public utility. if it significantly slowed my connection down I'd password it, but when I got my wireless router I set it up so the network name was "free wireless". I don't think it's stealing - I could go to the library or to a coffee shop and do the same thing, it's not like you're depriving anyone of anything. incidentally, since my dad set up the wireless in the house and he knows nothing about what he was doing, he managed to set up a secure network and he doesn't even know what the password is. in the meantime I'm "stealing" the neighbor's. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Vegan Nuts
24-12-2007, 23:12
Using that logic, it's totally OK for someone to steal your car if you forget to lock it, right?yeah, if two people could use one car, and the usage of the person helping themselves doesn't hurt the people who bought it, sure. I hate when people compare filesharing or anything of this nature, like wireless internet, to stealing a physical object. no, I wouldn't steal a tv or a car - but I'd sure as hell copy one.
UNIverseVERSE
24-12-2007, 23:12
I would put this in the realm with Sat TV. Sat TV can be easily picked up on a FTA box for free. If someones signal is available on your property then I say use it. They can take easy precautions to block you out and they don't. So it's fair game. I use my laptop everywhere for free because of wide open systems. Schools are the best for this. If I am out and about and need to download/upload some information to a server I will use a school to do it. 95% of the time schools are wide open. All one needs to do is pull up in the public street to access the net.

Meh. Do you have your own wifi that you also run unsecured? Share and share alike. If you're willing to share what you have, then yeah, borrow other people's. If you lock your connection down, then get the fuck off other people's, you bandwidth stealing leech.

I have no problems with borrowing someone else's connection, providing you let people borrow yours. Otherwise, you're just as bad as people who pirate music without doing anything for the artists, or as people who climb over the wall to patch into their neighbour's phone connections. Savvy?
Vojvodina-Nihon
24-12-2007, 23:14
.is that in the US? What happened to Innocent until proven Guilty?

That's only viable in an ideal court of law.... everywhere else, it's "Guilty until proven innocent (or wealthy)". Policy behind anything ever instituted at a public school, workplace, most major news media outlets, or for that matter police stations. It's also why we keep suspects (and witnesses!) in custody before the trial, unless they can afford the bail.
Ilaer
24-12-2007, 23:16
Using that logic, it's totally OK for someone to steal your car if you forget to lock it, right?

On the other hand, your wi-fi's still there whenever someone leeches from it. There's no period when it's missing; no period when you aren't able to use it.

As long as they don't torrent/seed anything or otherwise contribute massively to breaking your ISP's Fair Use Policy I don't see the harm, as long as it's an open network.

On the other hand, you should probably ask first if you know where it's coming from. It's only common courtesy, after all. And if they didn't know it was open then you should definitely offer to lock it for them.
Shlarg
24-12-2007, 23:17
Is it wrong to leech wifi?
Nope. But it's wrong to wifi leeches.
Vojvodina-Nihon
24-12-2007, 23:18
As for the original question; yes, it's wrong. Still, I do it commonly and so do most people I know, at least whenever I'm in a public area and require internet access (when at home I use my own as opposed to a neighbour's; theirs are all secured, anyway). I do so in the knowledge that this makes my computer more accessible to hackers, never for particularly long periods of time, and without overtaxing the connection.
DeADe
24-12-2007, 23:21
i have vista and recently got wireless, it is impossible for me to use my wireless with vista if i password protect it, so surely i cannot be blamed for not protecting it if i dont have a choice
Fair Progress
24-12-2007, 23:28
yeah, if two people could use one car, and the usage of the person helping themselves doesn't hurt the people who bought it, sure. I hate when people compare filesharing or anything of this nature, like wireless internet, to stealing a physical object. no, I wouldn't steal a tv or a car - but I'd sure as hell copy one.

So you'd be completely confortable if strangers took your car for a sping while you're not using it, provided that they leave gas in the tank? Nor if someone used your bedroom while you're out, if they tidy up when they're done?
Jeruselem
24-12-2007, 23:30
If you run unsecured wireless, you're asking to get hacked.
It's not that hard to put some kind of WEP key on.
Fornicus
24-12-2007, 23:33
Lets just try to be rational about this. If a hot girl wears a miniskirt and her asscheeks hang out, is it your fault if you look? No, its her fault for letting them hang out. Its kinda the same thing with WIFI, you let it go unsecured and someone will tap it. :upyours:
Vegan Nuts
24-12-2007, 23:33
So you'd be completely confortable if strangers took your car for a sping while you're not using it, provided that they leave gas in the tank? Nor if someone used your bedroom while you're out, if they tidy up when they're done?not that these are remotely comparable to using wireless, but yeah. I've gave most of my shit away (and no, I'm not at all rich) - I'm not big on the private property thing.
Jeruselem
24-12-2007, 23:34
If you use WEP, you're asking to be hacked. It's not that hard to break WEP encryption. ;)

Actually, use WPA if possible but older routers don't have it.
Fair Progress
24-12-2007, 23:35
If you use WEP, you're asking to be hacked. It's not that hard to break WEP encryption. ;)
Fair Progress
24-12-2007, 23:41
not that these are remotely comparable to using wireless, but yeah.

Using someone else's wireless network can be damaging because of reasons previously mentioned by other members: the service can be used for illegal purposes and if it's charged according to limits (e.g. bandwith, traffic) you're reducing the quality of service provided to the purchaser. I take it that you also believe that hacking into private systems is fine as long as it's "just to see if everything is OK".
ColaDrinkers
25-12-2007, 00:09
Using someone else's wireless network can be damaging because of reasons previously mentioned by other members: the service can be used for illegal purposes and if it's charged according to limits (e.g. bandwith, traffic) you're reducing the quality of service provided to the purchaser. I take it that you also believe that hacking into private systems is fine as long as it's "just to see if everything is OK".

As I said before, if you don't want anyone to use your wireless, how about you NOT INVITE THEM? This is nothing like theft since your network is broadcasting its existence and instructions on how to connect to the world.
Ashmoria
25-12-2007, 00:12
is it too vile to make sure justice is served?

no

its too vile for me to pay attention to who gets charged, who gets convicted and who gets set up.
Sel Appa
25-12-2007, 03:19
No, absolutely not. Why would it be?
Domici
25-12-2007, 06:05
Most of them weren't.

Well, I say you get to keep those that are. It may not work as a car anymore, but it's the best you're likely to get for a couch for a while. :D
Domici
25-12-2007, 06:14
So you'd be completely confortable if strangers took your car for a sping while you're not using it, provided that they leave gas in the tank? Nor if someone used your bedroom while you're out, if they tidy up when they're done?

That's a flawed analogy. A car or a room is a physical object and a space that is marked by clear boundries. A wifi network is a field of electro-magnetic radiation that, in this situation, permeates your house.

To clarify the error in you analogy.

The OP hypothetical would be like if someone's telephone wire came in through your livingroom window and went out through your bedroom window. Is it OK for you to attach a phone and use the same wire? Maybe, but it's not OK to listen in on his phonecalls. And it isn't ok to break into his house to use his phone.

Is it OK to leech his wifi? Maybe, but it's not ok to... let's say browse through his files. And it isn't OK to break into his house to use his computer.
Liuzzo
25-12-2007, 06:18
A family member recently brought over a laptop, and by completely surprise, I discovered that there's about 6 open, high speed wifi connections within the neighbourhood that we live in.

I've heard many times that people simply by laptops and leech wifi off their neighbours, etc. But I'm not sure if that's okay or not. On one hand you're not really paying for the service, but on the other, if the owners didn't want people to use their connection, they could have added a password to it or something.

What are your thoughts?

If they leave it open that's their problem. Also, doing illegal stuff while hooked into their network is shitty as well. So if you keep it legal then... Note to wifi rippers, the network administrator can see the names and IPs of computers logged into the system. If they catch you on there unwarranted you may be in some trouble. Of course if they had that much tech knowledge they should have encrypted their network.
Liuzzo
25-12-2007, 06:23
I like to get in and mess with their router.......I mean......I would never do that! You shouldn't steal net access!

uh........my network is protected.

yeah.

My neighbor's network is not, so I went over and offered to fix it for them, but they are "sharing it" with a few people in the area so they didn't want it fixed... I think that might be against the ISP's rules, but meh.

It is against the ISP rules in regard to licensing. When you purchase home broadband you license it to you, or people invited into your house. You have a license to run your network which is in your name. That's why some places charge you for "wifi rent" when you are in their establishment. The amount they pay varies by the number of users/licenses they have.
Zayun2
25-12-2007, 06:24
Clearly if their isn't a set password, the wifi purchaser is willing to share. In fact, if free wifi is being offered, it would be wrong not to leech it.
Zilam
25-12-2007, 06:32
Naw, in fact, let people leech off mine all the time, cuz I am in favor of free stuff :)
MenMindingTheirOwn
25-12-2007, 06:36
Well what are your beliefs on stealing? Because that's what you are doing. Plain and simple. The argument that "if they didn't want you to use it they would have put a password on it" is totally irrelevant and a lame ass excuse. Do you think EVERYONE knows how to do this? Should they be punished if they don't? I have done worse things than steal internet (see story below) so I wont be preaching tonight but a spade is a spade.


Funny Story: My Wifes Friend (our immediate neighbor) was complaining about having connection issues. On her own she had found out that someone in our culdesac was "leeching" off her. All of this coincided with the arrival of our new neighbors across the street. Every time I saw the husband he was sitting atop a crate in his garage or in his bedroom window with a laptop. Putting two and two together, one night I saw him sitting up there in the window, and decided to grab my pellet rifle to do some plinking. About 5 minutes later he got up, and before he could leave the room I took the shot. :sniper: At about 50 yards away, the pellet traveling at 1000 FPS, knocked his laptop out of the window making a huge "snap" as it slid down the roof and hit the hood of their car below. Unbeknownst to me, the mans wife had a few hours earlier invited my wife and I to dinner. I didn't say anything to my wife, being the man that I am, I had decided that there was a small chance I would get away with it. :rolleyes: The next night while we were sitting at the neighbors dinner table it came out that "some punk ass kid" had shot their computer with a BB Gun. Halfway through his side of the story I got that feeling that someone was looking at me. I looked up and there was my wife giving me the meanest fucking look I had seen her make yet. She didn't say anything, and needless to say I paid for that one in full.
:cool:

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/airgundepot/TF99review.jpg
FreedomEverlasting
25-12-2007, 07:20
I think if being leeched really bothers the owner that much, he/she would have spend the 10 minutes talking about it with friends/coworkers who will tell them about WEP.

So if the owner don't care, I don't see the point of making things complicated when internet connection is just 1 click away.
Posi
25-12-2007, 07:40
Its against the most ISP's ToS (except in Canada where one enforces the opposite). On the other hand, if they are dumb enough to let you fill their computer with horse porn, that is their problem.
Dyelli Beybi
25-12-2007, 07:47
If an object is easy to shoplift it is still shoplifting. Unauthorised use of someone's wifi is still stealing whether it is easy to get onto it or not.
Posi
25-12-2007, 07:48
And I noticed that there were several unlocked cars in my neighborhood....


Yes, I think it is wrong, as bandwidth is scarce.
Not as scarce as it is made out to be.
Dyelli Beybi
25-12-2007, 07:49
Theft is not not theft because it is easy to carry out. If you burgle someone's house you can't argue it is ok because they left the door unlocked.
Smunkeeville
25-12-2007, 08:09
That's a flawed analogy. A car or a room is a physical object and a space that is marked by clear boundries. A wifi network is a field of electro-magnetic radiation that, in this situation, permeates your house.

To clarify the error in you analogy.

The OP hypothetical would be like if someone's telephone wire came in through your livingroom window and went out through your bedroom window. Is it OK for you to attach a phone and use the same wire? Maybe, but it's not OK to listen in on his phonecalls. And it isn't ok to break into his house to use his phone.

Is it OK to leech his wifi? Maybe, but it's not ok to... let's say browse through his files. And it isn't OK to break into his house to use his computer.

a better analogy would be asking me if I mind people parking in front of my house to use the light from the lamppost in my yard. I am paying for the electricity, but it's light is out there for everyone to see.
Marrakech II
25-12-2007, 09:44
Meh. Do you have your own wifi that you also run unsecured? Share and share alike. If you're willing to share what you have, then yeah, borrow other people's. If you lock your connection down, then get the fuck off other people's, you bandwidth stealing leech.

I have no problems with borrowing someone else's connection, providing you let people borrow yours. Otherwise, you're just as bad as people who pirate music without doing anything for the artists, or as people who climb over the wall to patch into their neighbour's phone connections. Savvy?

One of the connections we have is unsecure. The reason is that we use it for business. We have people come over and upload/download from our home office. In fact it has enough range to reach the neighbors house. They also said that they could log in on my system. I said go for it as long as they didn't get crazy. As for the school system and all other public systems I pay for them indirectly with my taxes. So not a big deal.
Risottia
25-12-2007, 13:45
I'm leeching right now!

Dumbasses with computers need to learn the hard way. Seriously, I'm stopping when I'll get my dsl up and running (the telecom op says still 1 month to go) - and, of course, I won't use a wifi router!
Interstellar Planets
25-12-2007, 14:02
A family member recently brought over a laptop, and by completely surprise, I discovered that there's about 6 open, high speed wifi connections within the neighbourhood that we live in.

I've heard many times that people simply by laptops and leech wifi off their neighbours, etc. But I'm not sure if that's okay or not. On one hand you're not really paying for the service, but on the other, if the owners didn't want people to use their connection, they could have added a password to it or something.

What are your thoughts?

My neighbour once left his door unlocked, accidentally. So I went and grabbed his 32" flatscreen TV. Is that wrong? I mean, if he didn't want people to come in and take it, he should have locked his door.

A lot of people don't even understand the concept of 'password protecting their wifi'. These people have teenage labourers from PC World come in and plug the thing in for them, they don't understand how it works and what can happen with it. Taking advantage of people's ignorance isn't any more acceptable than a conman doing it.
Similization
25-12-2007, 14:05
If an object is easy to shoplift it is still shoplifting. Unauthorised use of someone's wifi is still stealing whether it is easy to get onto it or not.Using spare bandwidth deprives no-one. The resource is there & is paid for, whether or not it is utilized.

As long as the potential provider can stop people using the bandwidth with a minimum of fuss, and as long as 3rd party use of the bandwidth doesn't affect the provider, I consider it fair use. And indeed, in a great many cases, it is intended as such.

If a user lacks the technical proficiency and inclination to learn how to set up secure wireless access, it is the user's problem. And it can be solved easily: either wait until the technology has matured to the point that you can remain completely ignorant of it, or hire help. Like most other things in this world, if you insist on not knowing, you either have to rely on others, or accept the possibility of something unintended happening.
Vittos the City Sacker
25-12-2007, 16:10
Using spare bandwidth deprives no-one. The resource is there & is paid for, whether or not it is utilized.

As long as the potential provider can stop people using the bandwidth with a minimum of fuss, and as long as 3rd party use of the bandwidth doesn't affect the provider, I consider it fair use. And indeed, in a great many cases, it is intended as such.

How does one know that it is spare bandwidth?

Why is the obligation placed on the unwitting provider of bandwidth to stop people from using it?

Indeed, if there is no affect on the provider of bandwidth, then one need simply ask if one can continue to leech on it, and the provider will allow it.
OceanDrive2
25-12-2007, 21:44
no

its too vile for me to pay attention to who gets charged, who gets convicted and who gets set up.Would you say US jusges/DAs have your sense of justice and dont pay attention (dont care) if the accused are guilty or innocent, damn.. come to the US and play the lottery-Jail-survivor-game, random justice for all. FTW :D
OceanDrive2
25-12-2007, 21:54
Its against the most ISP's ToS (except in Canada where one enforces the opposite). On the other hand, if they are dumb enough to let you fill their computer with horse porn, that is their problem.Sharing your bandwidth does not mean you must share you HD too.

While most XP PC/routers default setting is for freely sharing bandwidth, the default settings are always to block access to your HD.
You would have to go out of your way to open your HD to the neighbors.

I am for shared bandwidth, but HDs should stay private.
In fact I am willing to pay $50 more in City taxes for a city wide WI-FI open network.
Andaluciae
25-12-2007, 22:44
It's not impolite to pilfer the wifi for a limited period of time, say, about two months from a single individual, but eventually, just like staying at your parent's house, you just need to get your own.
Domici
25-12-2007, 23:57
My neighbour once left his door unlocked, accidentally. So I went and grabbed his 32" flatscreen TV. Is that wrong? I mean, if he didn't want people to come in and take it, he should have locked his door.

A lot of people don't even understand the concept of 'password protecting their wifi'. These people have teenage labourers from PC World come in and plug the thing in for them, they don't understand how it works and what can happen with it. Taking advantage of people's ignorance isn't any more acceptable than a conman doing it.

If you have to enter into the house, which is their territory, then you're tresspassing. And since they don't have the TV once you take it, it's theft.

If they leave their TV on the front lawn and leave it turned on and your universal remote works on it, and they're not watching it, then it is not theft to turn it to a channel that you like.

Now if it's the front lawn and you're turning it to Spice TV you might have some problems. If you turn it to HBO, then HBO has a grievance with your neighbor for publicly displaying the channel that they exclusively licensed.
Damor
26-12-2007, 00:32
It may be illegal; which is one consideration. (Stranger laws have happened; you could argue there shouldn't be a law against it, but that won't help you if there is.)
It's also a bit impolite, certainly if you use more than their spare bandwidth. As someone suggested earlier: if you know who's running the open wifi-networks, you could inquire whether they know what they're doing (but not in those words), and whether you may use their network. Assuming they're clueless, you might possibly offer to set up a password for them, and help them to install a firewall and virus/malware-scanners, because they probably won't have those either.
Dyakovo
26-12-2007, 01:17
Yup
Marrakech II
26-12-2007, 02:17
The best way to block an open system at your home is to dampen the signal from your wireless point. You can do that with screen door wire mesh. It will cut the signal down enough to only allow people in your own home to access the net. You can either buy a meter or use a laptop to find the signal strengths around your property to see how much mesh you need to cover your router.
Jolter
26-12-2007, 02:21
My neighbour once left his door unlocked, accidentally. So I went and grabbed his 32" flatscreen TV. Is that wrong? I mean, if he didn't want people to come in and take it, he should have locked his door.

A lot of people don't even understand the concept of 'password protecting their wifi'. These people have teenage labourers from PC World come in and plug the thing in for them, they don't understand how it works and what can happen with it. Taking advantage of people's ignorance isn't any more acceptable than a conman doing it.

I'm not sure I agree with this analogy - with wireless you're not taking it so the owner can't use it again, but you're likely just skimming off what the owner won't use and won't ever miss anyway.

Frankly I think this phenomenom should be expected, but planned for in some way. There are so many initiatives to bring wireless networks to whole cities, and so many people with wireless networks that will spend 99% of their lifetime either completely idle or just browsing the web using only a fraction of their bandwidth.

Do I think it's wrong to use someone else's wireless? No. I think it should be encouraged - but if so there should be ways to ensure that the owner gets priority usage should they ever want to do something bandwidth intensive, and of course someway of distinguishing use by the owner and use by others (right now, in the UK, if someone else does something illegal over your wireless, you'll likely be held accountable for it).

There is a lot of potential there in wireless networks being so widespread and distributed, and I think it's held back by concepts of "ownership" that don't really apply to this kind of thing the same way they do to individual physical objects.
Laquer
26-12-2007, 02:30
If you have to enter into the house, which is their territory, then you're tresspassing.

there are no trespassing laws in Scotland, so TECHNICALLY.... =D
Aryavartha
26-12-2007, 03:07
I don't think it is wrong.

I do not lock mine either.
Kyronea
26-12-2007, 03:15
Of course it's wrong. So is file-sharing.

That didn't stop me from stealing it a couple years ago when my own access to OUR wireless network was time-limited(that is, it was shut off at night, and I happened to be a bit of a night owl at the time.) It doesn't stop me from file-sharing either.
UpwardThrust
26-12-2007, 03:21
It is wrong ... not the biggest deal but it is stealing.

Not that I feel particularly bad for someone not even taking the most basic of steps to protect their resources
UpwardThrust
26-12-2007, 03:22
I don't think it is wrong.

I do not lock mine either.

I would never be able to function with extra hosts on my wireless, and the security breach of someone sitting on my lan segment is not something I would care to have either
Aryavartha
26-12-2007, 03:24
its wrong to download child porn or other illegal stuff on their wifi. that leaves them open to jail time should it be traced to their connection.

The mac id and ip addresses are different still. Any decent IT guy would be able to figure out which computer downloaded it and which did not.

How does one know that it is spare bandwidth?

Why is the obligation placed on the unwitting provider of bandwidth to stop people from using it?

Indeed, if there is no affect on the provider of bandwidth, then one need simply ask if one can continue to leech on it, and the provider will allow it.

1. You would know it is spare if it works at normal speeds after you connect.

2. Dunno. Don't care. When I am doing important stuff, I lock mine and then unlock it.

3. Oftentimes you won't know who is the provider. You can't tell by the name. Heck, mostly you will see Linksys and Netgear because people don't give names. How the heck am I going to find out who is that and ask permission before browsing for just a few minutes.
UpwardThrust
26-12-2007, 03:24
The mac id and ip addresses are different still. Any decent IT guy would be able to figure out which computer downloaded it and which did not.

Snip

From a home router across a NAT boundary ... I would like to meet this IT guy. The IP address and mac's are theoretically different internally for sure but not external to the network
UpwardThrust
26-12-2007, 03:30
The mac id and ip addresses are different still. Any decent IT guy would be able to figure out which computer downloaded it and which did not.



1. You would know it is spare if it works at normal speeds after you connect.
Snip

What metrics are you using for "Normal" for example someone jumping on my network with a bittorrent client can actually cause degredation in serves that you would only see in certain types of applications ... as the primary effect is actually caused by concurant TCP connections at the router not raw bandiwdth

I may not notice you on my network with just HTTP but if I am doing a few RDP connections you may actually be murdering my performance and not even know it
M1cha3l
26-12-2007, 03:38
Of course it's frickin' wrong to do it but to be honest, it wouldn't stop me. Of course, I wouldn't stream stuff or d/l but yea, it's wrong but I'd do it.
SeathorniaII
26-12-2007, 03:41
To All Those Who Keep On Brining Up Physical Examples: Wifi is NOT a physical object. When it is used, it does not disappear, on the contrary. Not using it causes it to be wasted. Often, you barely make a dent in the bandwidth of the internet that the router broadcasting the wifi is connected to.

So stop bringing up all those really stupid analogies that have Nothing to do with electromagnetic streams. If you want to bring up analogies, bring up analogies about waves: Think light, sound, etc...

Is it stealing if I hear you play music?

Is it stealing if I see your flashlight?

Is it stealing if my radio picks up a broadcasted frequency?

No, so stop it with those stupid physical example analogies. Nothing is being taken from anyone.

It's a problem when you really do steal it, by for example, taking over the router and putting a password on it.

Performing illegal activities is also a problem, whatever they may be. But then, it's not because you're "stealing" it, it's because you're framing someone else for a crime they did not commit.
UpwardThrust
26-12-2007, 03:52
To All Those Who Keep On Brining Up Physical Examples: Wifi is NOT a physical object. When it is used, it does not disappear, on the contrary. Not using it causes it to be wasted. Often, you barely make a dent in the bandwidth of the internet that the router broadcasting the wifi is connected to.

So stop bringing up all those really stupid analogies that have Nothing to do with electromagnetic streams. If you want to bring up analogies, bring up analogies about waves: Think light, sound, etc...

Is it stealing if I hear you play music?

Is it stealing if I see your flashlight?

Is it stealing if my radio picks up a broadcasted frequency?

No, so stop it with those stupid physical example analogies. Nothing is being taken from anyone.

It's a problem when you really do steal it, by for example, taking over the router and putting a password on it.

Performing illegal activities is also a problem, whatever they may be. But then, it's not because you're "stealing" it, it's because you're framing someone else for a crime they did not commit.
Connecting to a wireless resource does NOT leave the resource untouched for those who rightfully purchased it.

Not only because of how congestion avoidance works does it degrade the local network it has the potential to degrade the WAN service without you being able to accurately judge that impact (most people anyways)

On top of the degradation of services there is also the compromise of security, you just being connected puts them at a higher risk of everything from a network aware worm to compromise if you are bridging between another network

I made no comparisons to something physicality. the costs to the resource provider is clear in and of itself
UpwardThrust
26-12-2007, 04:14
It is against the ISP rules in regard to licensing. When you purchase home broadband you license it to you, or people invited into your house. You have a license to run your network which is in your name. That's why some places charge you for "wifi rent" when you are in their establishment. The amount they pay varies by the number of users/licenses they have.

Not necessarily we have had a few cases in the area of people legally and knowingly (to the ISP's) offering the equivalent of a MAN (Municipal area network) with a non business rated connection

It depends on the ISP and your contract.
UpwardThrust
26-12-2007, 04:17
Sharing you bandwidth does not mean you must share you HD too.

While most XP PC/routers default setting is for freely sharing bandwidth, the default settings are always to block access to your HD.
You would have to go out of your way to open your HD to the neighbors.

I am for shared bandwidth, but HDs should stay private.
In fact I am willing to pay $50 more in City taxes for a city wide WI-FI open network.

Default settings in some environments not all, mine for example is NOT set that way for domain authenticated users
Wawavia
26-12-2007, 04:51
But they weren't being launched into your livingroom right?

I live in a car.
Aerion
26-12-2007, 04:54
When I didnt have Internet for 2 months I used someone (still don't know whom's) wi-fi and so were like 6 other random people accordng to how many were connected.

There are actual projects now, such as a router that you can buy specifically so the neighborhood can have access to your internet. It is called giving a finger to the ISPs

I even thought when I lived in some side by side townhouses of sharing a broadband connection with my neighbors by each of us paying a part

Otherwise I did lock my own router lol. I think if people don't want it to be used they need to lock it. If their too lazy not too lock it then anyone's laptop can just pick it up.
UpwardThrust
26-12-2007, 05:02
When I didnt have Internet for 2 months I used someone (still don't know whom's) wi-fi and so were like 6 other random people accordng to how many were connected.

There are actual projects now, such as a router that you can buy specifically so the neighborhood can have access to your internet. It is called giving a finger to the ISPs

I even thought when I lived in some side by side townhouses of sharing a broadband connection with my neighbors by each of us paying a part

Otherwise I did lock my own router lol. I think if people don't want it to be used they need to lock it. If their too lazy not too lock it then anyone's laptop can just pick it up.
What is the difference between that router and a standard router configured right?
Nobel Hobos
26-12-2007, 05:05
Most people I know don't use even a fraction of the bandwidth they're paying for and would probably be quite happy to let a neighbour use some of it. If a half-dozen neighbours were hogging the connection and doing illegal stuff, that would be another matter.

If my neighbours wanted to use my wireless, I'd be fine with that. They'd have to ask for the password, and if they used the connection more than I do, I'd ask them to pay for some of it after a few weeks. I'd also monitor what they were doing, and if it was illegal I'd boot them off or call the cops on them, depending on the severity.

Unless you're prepared to monitor what your neighbours are doing with the connection, it's pretty stupid not to secure the wireless. It's wrong to leach it, yes, but not like a major crime. So I voted #3 "they should secure it" because that seems more important to me.
UpwardThrust
26-12-2007, 05:10
Most people I know don't use even a fraction of the bandwidth they're paying for and would probably be quite happy to let a neighbour use some of it. If a half-dozen neighbours were hogging the connection and doing illegal stuff, that would be another matter.

If my neighbours wanted to use my wireless, I'd be fine with that. They'd have to ask for the password, and if they used the connection more than I do, I'd ask them to pay for some of it after a few weeks. I'd also monitor what they were doing, and if it was illegal I'd boot them off or call the cops on them, depending on the severity.

Unless you're prepared to monitor what your neighbours are doing with the connection, it's pretty stupid not to secure the wireless. It's wrong to leach it, yes, but not like a major crime. So I voted #3 "they should secure it" because that seems more important to me.

The problem is what they are doing ... bandwidth itself is not the only problem when dealing with a network connection there are plenty of other metrics like I said before that can cause big problems with only specific applications

That being said there is no easy way to put a cap on what they DO use (for the average person with average equipment) to counteract some of those problems.
Aerion
26-12-2007, 05:14
What is the difference between that router and a standard router configured right?

Something about wider range for a cheaper cost, and I think it sets up a special start page along with some other unique features
UpwardThrust
26-12-2007, 05:16
Something about wider range for a cheaper cost, and I think it sets up a special start page along with some other unique features

They could have multi channel networks but the range the only significant improvement out there is 802.11N. At that point it still has a rather short range without a client side device

But there ARE some security changes they could make that would help but depending on how you do that the performance can still be trash and security lessened
Nobel Hobos
26-12-2007, 05:37
The problem is what they are doing ... bandwidth itself is not the only problem when dealing with a network connection there are plenty of other metrics like I said before that can cause big problems with only specific applications

That being said there is no easy way to put a cap on what they DO use (for the average person with average equipment) to counteract some of those problems.

Well, it would be pretty easy for me, because the modem and the wireless hub are separate. I've got plenty of old computers and network cards, so it wouldn't be too much trouble to make a bandwidth shaper and prioritize my own network traffic.

Actually, I've only got WEP encryption, I should go look at the logs on the hub just to be sure. I've heard WEP is pretty easy to crack ...
UpwardThrust
26-12-2007, 05:54
Well, it would be pretty easy for me, because the modem and the wireless hub are separate. I've got plenty of old computers and network cards, so it wouldn't be too much trouble to make a bandwidth shaper and prioritize my own network traffic.

Actually, I've only got WEP encryption, I should go look at the logs on the hub just to be sure. I've heard WEP is pretty easy to crack ...
Packet shapers are ... tricky specially without a definition based one (Such as a hardware device like Packeteer makes)

The real best solution they have is QOS but any in the middle box without REALLY decent network cards would still have problems (maybe even more problems) with things like concurrent TCP connections then the router would.

Edit:
Yeah and WEP is fairly easy to crack for the most part ... most people are going to a WPA, WPA2 or switching over to a VPN based connection scheme
Posi
26-12-2007, 07:33
My neighbour once left his door unlocked, accidentally. So I went and grabbed his 32" flatscreen TV. Is that wrong? I mean, if he didn't want people to come in and take it, he should have locked his door.

A lot of people don't even understand the concept of 'password protecting their wifi'. These people have teenage labourers from PC World come in and plug the thing in for them, they don't understand how it works and what can happen with it. Taking advantage of people's ignorance isn't any more acceptable than a conman doing it.There is a difference between leeching wifi and stealing a TV. A more comparable analogy would be "My neighbor told me he was going to leave his door unlocked tonight, so I came in and sat on his couch and watched his TV for a few hours."
Posi
26-12-2007, 07:37
Sharing you bandwidth does not mean you must share you HD too.

While most XP PC/routers default setting is for freely sharing bandwidth, the default settings are always to block access to your HD.
You would have to go out of your way to open your HD to the neighbors.

I am for shared bandwidth, but HDs should stay private.
In fact I am willing to pay $50 more in City taxes for a city wide WI-FI open network.(\\\)
UpwardThrust
26-12-2007, 07:37
There is a difference between leeching wifi and stealing a TV. A more comparable analogy would be "My neighbor told me he was going to leave his door unlocked tonight, so I came in and sat on his couch and watched his TV for a few hours."

But even that analogy falls short as there is a compromise of the original services in which are very hard to actually gauge the impact of both in performance of the resources that the person originally purchased as well as the security and performance of the computers on his network.

It can even have a long term impact when you are NOT using his resources (many ISP's do a reduction in bandwidth for heavy users, so your usage may push them into limiting bandwidth performance for the account even when you are not on)

Just an example
Posi
26-12-2007, 07:50
But even that analogy falls short as there is a compromise of the original services in which are very hard to actually gauge the impact of both in performance of the resources that the person originally purchased as well as the security and performance of the computers on his network.

It can even have a long term impact when you are NOT using his resources (many ISP's do a reduction in bandwidth for heavy users, so your usage may push them into limiting bandwidth performance for the account even when you are not on)

Just an exampleCrap; someone who knows their shit.
UpwardThrust
26-12-2007, 07:52
Crap; someone who knows their shit.

No worries :) I am sure you will school me on one linux thread or another even though I put up a fight :)

Edit:
On that note I have some cool new screens of my debian/xfce work machine which is now my primary desktop (which is funny cause I am now a windows server administrator with over 390 server 2003 installs in my charge)
Posi
26-12-2007, 08:19
No worries :) I am sure you will school me on one linux thread or another even though I put up a fight :)Maybe. I probably now less now about Linux than I did six months ago. I need to keep my system up for school, but school isn't quite at OS level discussion (next year). ie I've been slacking.

Edit:
Edit:
On that note I have some cool new screens of my debian/xfce work machine which is now my primary desktop (which is funny cause I am now a windows server administrator with over 390 server 2003 installs in my charge)
Lets see them. I actually have a working KDE4 on my desktop. It is too buggy to be usable (partially because the panel is an alpha build...). I have KDE3 on my lappy for school, which I quite like (on my lappy).
UpwardThrust
26-12-2007, 15:30
Maybe. I probably now less now about Linux than I did six months ago. I need to keep my system up for school, but school isn't quite at OS level discussion (next year). ie I've been slacking.

Edit:

Lets see them. I actually have a working KDE4 on my desktop. It is too buggy to be usable (partially because the panel is an alpha build...). I have KDE3 on my lappy for school, which I quite like (on my lappy).

That is ok slacking is acceptable from time to time :) and I am not a big Gnome or KDE fan. Probably because I spent a majority of my linux time CLI and what not CLI on hardware crappy enough to want a light WM
UNIverseVERSE
26-12-2007, 16:47
That is ok slacking is acceptable from time to time :) and I am not a big Gnome or KDE fan. Probably because I spent a majority of my linux time CLI and what not CLI on hardware crappy enough to want a light WM

Ever played with aewm or something for a nice tiny WM? The most minimal I know of is tinywm, but you might not want something quite that small.

My choice at the moment is Sawfish, which is quite fun, when you don't spoil it by putting Gnome or the like on top. Veeeery configurable, and there's a full lisp interpreter built into the WM. Great fun.
UpwardThrust
26-12-2007, 16:53
Ever played with aewm or something for a nice tiny WM? The most minimal I know of is tinywm, but you might not want something quite that small.

My choice at the moment is Sawfish, which is quite fun, when you don't spoil it by putting Gnome or the like on top. Veeeery configurable, and there's a full lisp interpreter built into the WM. Great fun.

Played with all of them but XFCE was one of my firsts and still love it
www.youdontevenrealize.com/pictures/computers/debian_work2.png
UpwardThrust
26-12-2007, 20:07
If you use WEP, you're asking to be hacked. It's not that hard to break WEP encryption. ;)

Just because you use a low end method of scurance does not mean you are asking to have your network infiltrated any more then puting a cheep lock on the door does.

Its not a smart Idea but its also not strictly "your fault" either in my book
Laerod
26-12-2007, 20:12
It's not right, but the main fault lies with the owners.
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 00:06
It's not right, but the main fault lies with the owners.

why is it mainly their fault? I mean they are responsible for not taking resonable percausions to protect their investment but they are still not the ones at fault for choosing to take thoes resources without permission.
Nobel Hobos
27-12-2007, 04:03
Just because you use a low end method of scurance does not mean you are asking to have your network infiltrated any more then puting a cheep lock on the door does.

Well said. Making it harder to access is a plain statement that you don't mean to share it with everyone within range.

Like I said, if they ask for the key and don't flog your bandwidth up to the throttling limit, why not share? If they ask for the key, at least you know WHO is using the connection.

I wonder if a private citizen could pull the DMCA on a leecher, for cracking poor encryption? DMCA is all about intent ...

Its not a smart Idea but its also not strictly "your fault" either in my book

Nor mine. To use your cheap lock analogy, if they have to break it or pick it to get in, there's no "oh I thought it was alright by you" defense. You tried to secure it, so cracking the encryption is plainly hostile.

My old wireless hub won't do WPA even with a flash upgrade, so it's unplugged for now. Silly damn thing, I like dirt cheap, rock solid 100 LAN far better anyway.
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 04:31
Well said. Making it harder to access is a plain statement that you don't mean to share it with everyone within range.

Like I said, if they ask for the key and don't flog your bandwidth up to the throttling limit, why not share? If they ask for the key, at least you know WHO is using the connection.

I wonder if a private citizen could pull the DMCA on a leecher, for cracking poor encryption? DMCA is all about intent ...


I know the two primary reasons I do not
1) network security they are providing at least one other entry point to your network and depending on architecture they are bypassing things like DMZ's NAT boundry's and firewalls. Even if their intentions are not hostile they can be doing things like bridging more then one network and provide a conduit behind those devices

2)Performance not only bandwidth but latency (which can be degraded by connections that do not push bandwidth limits) as well as the performance hit on the wireless network itself which I regularly push rather hard as is


Nor mine. To use your cheap lock analogy, if they have to break it or pick it to get in, there's no "oh I thought it was alright by you" defense. You tried to secure it, so cracking the encryption is plainly hostile.

My old wireless hub won't do WPA even with a flash upgrade, so it's unplugged for now. Silly damn thing, I like dirt cheap, rock solid 100 LAN far better anyway.
True but you really are in the wrong in assuming everything that is not locked down is public property as well ...
Marrakech II
27-12-2007, 05:10
UT I want to keep an open signal within a commercial office space. However I don't want anyone pulling in the parking lot or from a neighbor office leaching off the system. What do you suggest? Seems you know a bit more then the average bear on this subject.
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 05:20
UT I want to keep an open signal within a commercial office space. However I don't want anyone pulling in the parking lot or from a neighbor office leaching off the system. What do you suggest? Seems you know a bit more then the average bear on this subject.

If you want to keep it completely open about the only thing you can really do is buy a router with selectable signal strength and find out those ranges.

Another choice if you know the address is MAC address filtering, you can set up a white list of accepted MAC addresses

That would allow non-encryption with reasonable level of access limitation (though data is still freely transmitted over the air)
Lame Bums
27-12-2007, 05:36
A family member recently brought over a laptop, and by completely surprise, I discovered that there's about 6 open, high speed wifi connections within the neighbourhood that we live in.

I've heard many times that people simply by laptops and leech wifi off their neighbours, etc. But I'm not sure if that's okay or not. On one hand you're not really paying for the service, but on the other, if the owners didn't want people to use their connection, they could have added a password to it or something.

What are your thoughts?

I'm on the neighbor's wireless right now, so... :rolleyes:
Nobel Hobos
27-12-2007, 05:51
I'm on the neighbor's wireless right now, so... :rolleyes:

Did you ask them if that was OK ?

If not: If they asked if it's you using their connection, would you lie ?

I'm not trying to guilt you, just exploring the reasoning of leeching ...
Marrakech II
27-12-2007, 05:51
If you want to keep it completely open about the only thing you can really do is buy a router with selectable signal strength and find out those ranges.

Another choice if you know the address is MAC address filtering, you can set up a white list of accepted MAC addresses

That would allow non-encryption with reasonable level of access limitation (though data is still freely transmitted over the air)

Thanks for the info. :)
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 05:51
Thanks for the info. :)

No problem they are fairly strait forward ... there is more you can do with more advanced access points. Any reason you do not want to encrypt it?
Marrakech II
27-12-2007, 05:56
No problem they are fairly strait forward ... there is more you can do with more advanced access points. Any reason you do not want to encrypt it?

Well our issue is that we have people coming in and out of our office that carry in their personal laptops to do work on. Rather then bothering with a password that people forget I just leave it open.
Nobel Hobos
27-12-2007, 05:56
Another choice if you know the address is MAC address filtering, you can set up a white list of accepted MAC addresses

They can be faked though. So it comes down to whether the attacker knows an authorized MAC address.

That would allow non-encryption with reasonable level of access limitation (though data is still freely transmitted over the air)

Yeah, that kind of leeching shouldn't bother folks so much, huh? So they watch your porn, yawn ... credit card transactions and so on will be encrypted anyway.

True but you really are in the wrong in assuming everything that is not locked down is public property as well ..

Someone else said that, not me.
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 05:58
Well our issue is that we have people coming in and out of our office that carry in their personal laptops to do work on. Rather then bothering with a password that people forget I just leave it open.

WPA allows a clear text password (so no stupid hash) ... that is an option ...

That and once it is in once the connection can remember the WPA password so it will not have to be entered every time they come on sight
Nobel Hobos
27-12-2007, 06:00
Well our issue is that we have people coming in and out of our office that carry in their personal laptops to do work on. Rather then bothering with a password that people forget I just leave it open.

Encrypt it. If you don't believe me, run it by your legal advisor.
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 06:04
They can be faked though. So it comes down to whether the attacker knows an authorized MAC address.

I absolutely understand ... the limitation on the origional question was no encryption. I can not think of a better non encrypted method off hand.

That being said it is rather hard outside the network to find the MAC address of a accepted card. Not to mention if you combine it with turning down broadcast strength and or not broadcasting SSID or something of the sorts.


Yeah, that kind of leeching shouldn't bother folks so much, huh? So they watch your porn, yawn ... credit card transactions and so on will be encrypted anyway.

Two layers are always better then one, and with it putting you in one broadcast domain someone trying to crack that encryption does not have to go through the work of getting in line for data capture.


Someone else said that, not me.
My apologies it came out wrong I did not mean the specific you in that case I meant the generic person would be wrong
Did not mean it to sound accusatory.
Marrakech II
27-12-2007, 06:05
Encrypt it. If you don't believe me, run it by your legal advisor.

I already know where you are going with that. I just need to hire a office manager with experience in this and some other basics. I am the de facto office manager at the moment with no experience in that position. Anyway thanks for the advice.
Nobel Hobos
27-12-2007, 06:06
Anyway thanks for the advice.

Mmm, thanks for listening! Thrusty is the real expert though, and I tend towards paranoia.
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 06:07
I already know where you are going with that. I just need to hire a office manager with experience in this and some other basics. I am the de facto office manager at the moment with no experience in that position. Anyway thanks for the advice.

They are hard to find

As a server/network admin that deals with medical data on a day to day basis I would recommend possibly contracting out for IT recommendation for some of the securing part, they often will be able to help a lot with the right people.

The possibilities of high end systems are far beyond what we are talking about here so far and they may be something to take a look at depending on the data traveling through the air.
Lame Bums
27-12-2007, 06:09
Did you ask them if that was OK ?

If not: If they asked if it's you using their connection, would you lie ?

I'm not trying to guilt you, just exploring the reasoning of leeching ...

No, I didn't. I'm not even sure which neighbor it is (I live in an apartment complex). And if they did, well, no, I wouldn't fess up, because if they lock it down that means me actually paying for my internet, and I'm a broke college student whose budget is already thin enough... :rolleyes:
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 06:12
Mmm, thanks for listening! Thrusty is the real expert though, and I tend towards paranoia.

I payed years into getting 2 networking degree's and 2 security degree's :) And now am being payed for them back ... I hope to know :)
But it is hard to make things ... understandable after all these years and and some of the more obscure and advanced stuff that is not actually used in industry is still just theory and rusting away lol
Nobel Hobos
27-12-2007, 06:18
No, I didn't. I'm not even sure which neighbor it is (I live in an apartment complex).

Interesting point, it's probably usually that way.

And if they did, well, no, I wouldn't fess up, because if they lock it down that means me actually paying for my internet, and I'm a broke college student whose budget is already thin enough... :rolleyes:

OK. I understand the concept "broke" well enough.
If they were knocking on doors trying to find who was leeching their connection, chances are they would lock it down anyway when no-one fessed up. I know I would ... "none of the neighbours are owning up, it's a black hat. Take it off the air and lock it down NOW."
Lame Bums
27-12-2007, 07:04
OK. I understand the concept "broke" well enough.
If they were knocking on doors trying to find who was leeching their connection, chances are they would lock it down anyway when no-one fessed up. I know I would ... "none of the neighbours are owning up, it's a black hat. Take it off the air and lock it down NOW."

I have a hunch it's two girls upstairs. They're in their early 20's (there is another girl with her boyfriend across the hall, all three girls work at the same hair salon - I'd even had a cut there once), they're both out late and come back blasted... and probably can't work a computer to save their lives. It has to be them - if it was anyone else theyd've caught on when their modem lights are flashing all night long with my Bit Torrent's running... :D

Edit: Two of them, very nice (how much?) :D
Creepy Lurker
27-12-2007, 07:15
I have a hunch it's two girls upstairs. They're in their early 20's (there is another girl with her boyfriend across the hall, all three girls work at the same hair salon - I'd even had a cut there once), they're both out late and come back blasted... and probably can't work a computer to save their lives. It has to be them - if it was anyone else theyd've caught on when their modem lights are flashing all night long with my Bit Torrent's running... :D

Edit: Two of them, very nice (how much?) :D

Any wireless cameras in there?

Just a thought ;)
OceanDrive2
27-12-2007, 10:14
... and I tend towards paranoia.you are not the only one, paranoia has become a national sport in my country.

I am perfectly willing to share WI-FI with the neighbors.. I will share WI-FI until someone proves it to me with a clear example, how is that going to affect my privacy in any way, shape or form.

All this security paranoia crap is coming from the same people who were saying the skies were going to fall on 2000's (bug).
Damor
27-12-2007, 11:25
I am perfectly willing to share WI-FI with the neighbors.. I will share WI-FI until someone proves it to me with a clear example, how is that going to affect my privacy in any way, shape or form.Well, suppose your neighbour is an internet pedophile. Seeing as it is your wi-fi, you'd be the prime suspect. So while the investigation is ongoing you'll be locked up; which is bad enough. They'll scrutinize your porn folder, which is bad enough as well. But the real clincher, of course, is Bubba, your cell-mate, violating your "privacy".
Saxnot
27-12-2007, 15:52
Don't go nuts and I wouldn't be too bothered. Also: why not just secure your connection? It's really not hard...
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 16:07
Don't go nuts and I wouldn't be too bothered. Also: why not just secure your connection? It's really not hard...

Thats what i dont understand as well it is a rather simple matter made even simpler by things like WPA and non hashed passwords
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 16:07
you are not the only one, paranoia has become a national sport in my country.

I am perfectly willing to share WI-FI with the neighbors.. I will share WI-FI until someone proves it to me with a clear example, how is that going to affect my privacy in any way, shape or form.

All this security paranoia crap is coming from the same people who were saying the skies were going to fall on 2000's (bug).

Glad you are not in charge of any important networks/systems being reactive rather then pro-active is a good way to get slamed and hard.

That being said in this thread i have already stated many of the impacts to privacy allowing someone on your wireless network poses and any single one of them is more then important enough to not go around leaving it open.

This is not paranoia this is common sense, and as such is at the low end of what busniess, schools and government institutions implement as a matter of course and policy.

If you would like me to go into more detail I can but it will take some prep work to get to that point...
Triggo
27-12-2007, 16:18
Password it, unless you intend to share it.

quote.
OceanDrive2
27-12-2007, 17:28
Well, suppose your neighbour is an internet pedophile. Seeing as it is your wi-fi, you'd be the prime suspect.If this Country wants to make it a policy to put innocent people in Jail.. I say FuckYou to this Country.
OceanDrive2
27-12-2007, 17:37
Glad you are not in charge of any important networks/systems being reactive rather then pro-active is a good way to get slamed and hard.

That being said in this thread i have already stated many of the impacts to privacy allowing someone on your wireless network poses ...You have posted a lot of technical-Language..

But you have yet to explain how allowing my WI-FI to be used by my neighbors gives them -automatically- access to my protected Hard Drive.

I am 100% for the privacy of my Hard Drive, and If I want I am perfectly able to share my WI-FI without allowing access to my Hard-Drive.
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 18:14
you are not the only one, paranoia has become a national sport in my country.

I am perfectly willing to share WI-FI with the neighbors.. I will share WI-FI until someone proves it to me with a clear example, how is that going to affect my privacy in any way, shape or form.

All this security paranoia crap is coming from the same people who were saying the skies were going to fall on 2000's (bug).

Alright I have some time today so going to do a write up on the total effects of an un secured wireless network in a home envyronment.

Most of these assume a single entry point and single router/firewall as this is the most commn setup

Security
Traffic pathing

An external un controlled access allows seperate pathing for an attack (an attack in this case being classified as both a willfull attack by a person as well as automated events like network aware worms and viruses)
With another node on the network there is the potential to bridge past your entry point (the router) which often provides protection in 2 forms.
1)It is a nat boundry and without an open connection attacks will not pass (unless DMZ specified)
2)Basic Firewall, most routers have built in firewall functionality that help provide a mesure of protection
With the network bridged behind the firewall the “clean” side is no longer clean, there is a path into your network that bridges your entry point, making you more succeptable to intentional as well as un-intentional attack and also alows a potentially infected computer on your network in the case of very frequent virus outbreaks

Broadcast information
With an un-encrypted wireless network you are clear text broadcasting anything sent over your network and the internet. While a lot of financial websites encrypt traffic this allows them to capture that traffic fairly easily and work on breaking the encryption which is fairly difficult but by no means impossible.

Network Resource access
Being on your network allows access to anything you care to share on the network intentionally or un intentionally, this can include things such as Shared Files, Shared Drives, Shared or network printers.

Some of these things are more intresting to secure then normal in a non domain windows envyronment and keep them working sucessfully for anyone ele on the network. Securing these things correctly are sometimes way more work then securing network access.

You also have to be aware of stray accounts on the machines (things like the Administrator account sitting without a password) as well windows does like to share its resosurces in a variaty of ways

Impersonation
Traffic coming from your network appears as you, as stated before in this thread illegal activity coming from your account is going to be appearing to come from you. And with the NAT boundry/firewall and bad internal logging on home systems it is very very hard to tell who internally was generating the traffic.

Performance
Local Wireless
Local wireless transfer speed is directly effected both by the number of devices and the ammount of traffic being generated, the performance hit can be significant. The primary cause for this is two fold
1)Wireless operates on a congestion avoidance basis, this means it goes ticket style with everyone waiting their turn to send. This is done to make sure that there is no overlap in signals, and with more devices the longer the que to wait till your next broadcast time
2)Wireless througput, larger data takes longer to broadcast and longer to recover from interference that is naturally present in most homes magnafing the effect of the long que's
Internet performance, bandwidth
As is fairly strait forward there is a finite amount of bandwidth to share and performance drops as you get closer to link capacity. If the provided bandwidth is closed to cable or spliter capacity this can have other effects as well including latency increase and packet loss

This packet loss can cause a lot of problems with wireless (will discuss in next section)

Internet performance, router performance
Some traffic even when not high bandwidth can cause home router performance degredation. this is often caused by what is called concurrent TCP connections. Applications like bittorrent open a lot of connections to many different people, the router has trouble tracking this many connections (and it has to in order to know where to send the response)

This causes a lot of problems specially in interactive technologys, things like Voice and video traffic (things like VOIP phones) as well as remote access solutions like RDP and VNC (Or Citrix)

Packet loss as a result of this can also cause the same problems with thoes technologies, and added to that is the problems with wireless

Wireless reacts badly to packet loss in a TCP envyronment, TCP is designed for a low loss envyronment and has a function called “Slow start” which is implemented in order to avoid congestion, what it does is when detecting a packet loss it drops your bandwidth to half speed and slowly ramps it back up until it see's more losses. But in a high load or un reliable network like wireless this happens more often then on the wired networks it was origionaly designed for.

This means you could be cutting their local wireless performance in half easily.

Internet performance, ISP throttling
Many ISP's have a policy to throttle bandwidth for heavy users, pushing a lot of bandwidth through from an unwelcome guest can push you past the limit where the ISP will reduce bandwidth to their link causing performance degredation
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 18:16
You have posted a lot of technical-Language..

But you have yet to explain how allowing my WI-FI to be used by my neighbors gives them -automatically- access to my protected Hard Drive.

I am 100% for the privacy of my Hard Drive, and If I want I am perfectly able to share my WI-FI without allowing access to my Hard-Drive.

I have posted a lot of accurate language for the case of a technical problem

Either way I just posted a more indepth explination
As for your wording I am unclear if you are asking
1) Access to files
2) Viral access to your operating systems

They are two different and more complex Ideas (specially the second one, in light of multipul paths)
Edit: The second usually leads to opening of the 1'st but still
OceanDrive2
27-12-2007, 18:28
As for your wording I am unclear if you are asking
1) Access to filesyes, Access to files on your Hard Drive.

My point is that: -AFAIK- you can fully secure your Hard Drive and allow your neighbors to use your WI-FI.. if you want to.
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 18:29
If this Country wants to make it a policy to put innocent people in Jail.. I say FuckYou to this Country.
Or you could spend 5 minuits making sure you do not even have to tangle with it to start with

Even if found inosent the time/money/agravation factor is high enough to make it stupid to not spend the time on the front end
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 18:39
yes, Access to files on your Hard Drive.

My point is that: -AFAIK- you can fully secure your Hard Drive and allow your neighbors to use your WI-FI.. if you want to.

Fully is an awfull big word to throw around in light of the number of vulnerabilities the windows operating system shows on a regular basis, or for that matter any operating system. Millions of computers infected with worms, bots, viruses and other malware providing all kinds of access to them to the people with the correct key's

We talk about probabilities not absolutes, in the computer world. There are really two axioms, there is no such thing as 100 percent uptime and there is no such thing as 100 percent secure.

You will be reliant on windows actually doing its job on keeping those files seucure while bypassing other security devices that help you do that job. Rather then them having to tackle not even being able to reach the machine now they have an avenue and can use methods easily such as brute force password attacks which windows has no real protection before

Hell that is not even as hard as it once was in light of the large publically avaliable ranbowtables produced for windows NTLM hash's

No there is no way to fully protect it, but there are steps you could do to help get it back to close to the security of not sharing the wireless, if you have the time and money and want to share
OceanDrive2
27-12-2007, 18:46
Even if found inosent the time/money/agravation factor is high enough to make it stupid to not spend the time on the front endthere is a price to pay for keeping BigBrother outside.

Privacy, Justice, freedom, they are not free there is a price to pay.. the price is you have to fight the PatriotActs and other shit like that.

and If the time/money/agravation are too much.. I can always see it with the Civil case share%Lawyers.
Coolchrisroo
27-12-2007, 18:50
That's a flawed analogy. A car or a room is a physical object and a space that is marked by clear boundries. A wifi network is a field of electro-magnetic radiation that, in this situation, permeates your house.

To clarify the error in you analogy.

The OP hypothetical would be like if someone's telephone wire came in through your livingroom window and went out through your bedroom window. Is it OK for you to attach a phone and use the same wire? Maybe, but it's not OK to listen in on his phonecalls. And it isn't ok to break into his house to use his phone.

Is it OK to leech his wifi? Maybe, but it's not ok to... let's say browse through his files. And it isn't OK to break into his house to use his computer.

I think you are wrong here. If someone's telephone wire goes through YOUR livingroom, you should have every right to listen in. Why would this happen anyway???
OceanDrive2
27-12-2007, 18:51
You will be reliant on windows actually doing its job on keeping those files seucure ...:confused:

???
when did I ever say I rely only on Microsoft/Windows for the Privacy of My Personal Files.


on a side note, my tech-savvy roommate says you should not rely on Microsoft/Windows firewall, so he recommends installing independent firewalls.
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 19:57
:confused:

???
when did I ever say I rely only on Microsoft/Windows for the Privacy of My Personal Files.


on a side note, my tech-savvy roommate says you should not rely on Microsoft/Windows firewall, so he recommends installing independent firewalls.
What operating system are you using then?

As for 3rd party firewalls I agree windows firewall has limited functionality and I do not rely on it when I am in windows (which is rare) though windows ISA firewalls are pretty decent with their domain authentication ability but you would not deploy them at home

I personally use an actual network device (a PIX 501) at the gateway and a filtering gateway linux box at my wireless/DMZ and LAN gateway for security with potentially infected machines.
OceanDrive2
27-12-2007, 20:06
What operating system are you using then?I have a partitioned HD with Linux and XP.
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 20:10
I have a partitioned HD with Linux and XP.

Whell when XP you are expecting windows to protect your files and when in Linux you are expecting Linux to protect your files then
OceanDrive2
27-12-2007, 20:13
Whell when XP you are expecting windows to protect your files and when in Linux you are expecting Linux to protect your files thenyes, but its not the only protection.

One of the things I will not do, is ask my roommate to explain me -in detail- his hardware and encryption details, so I can post it in the Internet.

He is the tech "expert", if he tell me our files are safe, I take his word for it.
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 20:16
yes, but its not the only protection.

One of the things I will not do, is ask my roommate to explain me -in detail- his hardware and encryption details, so I can post it in the Internet.

He is the tech dude, its his hobby.

Thats fine and in the end there are things you can do on your end, or he can do on your end to mitigate your exposure but in the end it will NEVER be as secure as taking thoes same steps PLUS securing your network.

And I am a tech dude it is my living and hobby.
OceanDrive2
27-12-2007, 20:29
Thats fine and in the end there are things you can do on your end, or he can do on your end to mitigate your exposure but in the end it will NEVER be as secure as taking thoes same steps PLUS securing your network.

And I am a tech dude it is my living and hobby.I do want to share my WI-FI with my neighbors. And since all your tech words do not show specifically how can they access my files.. I will just keep on sharing.
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 20:38
I do want to share my WI-FI eith my neighbors. And since all your tech words do not show specifically how can they access my files.. I will just keep on sharing.

You want a specific intrution plan with refusing to provide me (or get your romate to provide me) with any detales about preventivite mesures, patches, versions, hardware. or any other detales that would NEED to be known in order to do such?

Talk about being un-realistic.
OceanDrive2
27-12-2007, 20:45
You want a specific intrution plan with refusing to provide me (or get your romate to provide me) with any detales about preventivite mesures, patches, versions, hardware. or any other detales that would NEED to be known in order to do such?No, all I want you is to answer one simple Yes-or-No question.

Is it possible for me to Share my WI-FI while blocking the access to my private files?
yes or no?


My friend says Yes I can, and I trust him, he is very good at this stuff.. but if you say "No".. Maybe I will look into it.
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 20:59
No, all I want you is to answer one simple Yes-or-No question.

Is it possible for me to Share my WI-FI while blocking the access to my private files?
yes or no?


My friend says Yes I can, and I trust him, he is very good at this stuff.. but if you say "No".. Maybe I will look into it.
There is no easy answer ... I will try and boil it down without the tech talk

Yes, with risks of compromise. How much risk you are taking on is hard to say without details on the situation.

There is a reason being a security consultant can fetch you 100's of thousands a year Weighing thoes risks and doing a risk to cost analysis is actually really tough.

It is all about mitigating risks ... you could HAND your hard drive to someone and have a chanse of not exposing your files... you can house it in your apartment and reduce the risks, you can have it in a secure operating system and reduce the risks farther, you can put it behind a good software firewall and reduce them further. you can put them on a secure network and reduce the risks even further and you can put them behind a firewall on a secure network and reduce it even further

The possibilty of compromise is never 0 and you are never 100 percent safe ever, anyone that tells you otherwise is a liar, or mis-informed.
OceanDrive2
27-12-2007, 21:11
There is no easy answer ... I will try and boil it down without the tech talk
...
Yes, with risks of compromise.
...
The possibilty of compromise is never 0 and you are never 100 percent safe everFair-enough© http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif


Now what about a city with open WI-FI access for the citizens, would you say that is good or bad ?
UpwardThrust
27-12-2007, 21:16
Fair-enough© http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif


Now what about a city with open WI-FI access for the citizens, would you say that is "no good for privacy" ?

It depends on how it is done ... I would deffinatly take extra procautions on such a network for most ways that it is done, but with the right methods in place and the right actions on yours there are things you can do to make it pretty safe sure

But out of the box in most cases it would be less secure then a land line, but the risks may be worth the benifits
Posi
28-12-2007, 04:46
Played with all of them but XFCE was one of my firsts and still love it
www.youdontevenrealize.com/pictures/computers/debian_work2.png
A dark theme. Kinky. I am working (not hard) on a blue theme. I have since learned how to theme Gnome-Panel the good way, and it looks alright. It still needs work...
Nobel Hobos
28-12-2007, 05:24
Lame bums, I was fairly tolerant before in light of your self-professed poverty, until I realized that you are prepared to pay someone to cut your hair, but leech wifi from them to the point where you are almost certainly degrading their internet experience. From the actual same person. That's pretty damn selfish.

Cut your own hair like any self-respecting bum would.

=============

And OceanDrive2, in support of UT's "degrees of security" advice I add the other consideration: how much do you stand to lose if the privacy of your HD is compromised? If you have really illegal stuff you ought to ask yourself if the convenience of sharing that stuff over your local network is worth ANY level of risk. If it's terrorist manuals or something like that, keep it the hell off-line all the time, preferably on a separate PC which never sees the network. (Or an alternative HD which you swap, not add, when your PC is off the network and internet.)

Please don't confirm or deny that you have stuff which is in any way illegal. Two reasons:

I don't want to be an accomplice to what your government may call a crime, as I would be if I gave you security advice knowing you were concealing a serious crime, and
Out of respect for other internet users who NEED privacy from governments which could KILL them for looking at or doing things we consider legal, we should ALL have a "do not confirm nor deny" policy. It should be considered the norm for the entire internet: no-one should to prove that they have nothing to hide until they are formally investigated for a specific charge. That's how it SHOULD be anyway, a presumption of innocence. But we live in interesting times.
OceanDrive2
28-12-2007, 05:51
And OceanDrive2, in support of UT's "degrees of security" advice I add the other consideration: how much do you stand to lose if the privacy of your HD is compromised? My HD is very well protected, Its a matter of principle.
...
If you have really illegal stuff you ought to ask yourself if the convenience of sharing that stuff over your local network is worth ANY level of risk. If it's terrorist manuals or something like that..Its pictures of you playing with your wii -fi :D (Mario Galaxy is awesome indeed)
.
keep it the hell off-line all the time, preferably on a separate PC which never sees the network. (Or an alternative HD which you swap, not add, when your PC is off the network and internet.)I dont need to buy an extra PC to protect the partitions of my HD.
.
Please don't confirm or deny that you have stuff which.. too late.
.
is in any way illegal. it is not.
.

[LIST=1]
I don't want to be an accomplice to what your government may call...then stop posting those pics on the Net... ;) (Disclaimer its a Joke, there is no such a pictures)
.
Out of respect for other internet users..True true :D

... who NEED privacy from governments which could KILL them for looking at...USA? Land of the free? home of the Brave? ;)
.
... we should ALL have a "do not confirm nor deny" policy. It should be considered the norm for the entire internet: no-one should to prove that they have nothing to hide until they are formally investigated for a specific charge. That's how it SHOULD be anyway, a presumption of innocence. But we live in interesting times.
should indeed.

Id like to think some countries with real civil rights do apply presumption of innocence laws.
UpwardThrust
28-12-2007, 05:55
My HD is very well protected, Its a matter of principle.
...
Its pictures of you playing with your wii :D (Mario Galaxy is awesome indeed)
.
I dont need to buy an extra PC to protect the partitions of my HD.
snip

How do you KNOW? I mean I am not trying to be mean but from our discussion I am not entirly sure you have the technical skill to do an evaluation of the security.

You dont need to but depending on how you do it there can be a dramatic improvement of security if you are smart about it
OceanDrive2
28-12-2007, 06:04
How do you KNOW? I mean I am not trying to be mean but from our discussion I am not entirly sure you have the technical skill to do an evaluation of the security. Ok lets do this, I challenge you to break on my security and get to my PC.. I am putting a very particular pic on my desktop as a wallpaper.

If you are really as skilled as you say you are.. you should be able to break into my PC and tell us what is that pic.. tell us what finger is popping up... on the pic :D
Marrakech II
28-12-2007, 06:07
Ok lets do this, I challenge you to break on my security and get to my PC.. I am putting a very particular pic on my desktop as a wallpaper.

If you are really as skilled as you say you are.. you should be able to break into my PC and tell us what is that pic.. tell us what finger is popping up... on the pic :D

How about we tell you what your home address is? Would that be more impressive?
OceanDrive2
28-12-2007, 06:09
How about we tell you what your address is? Would that be more impressive?my street address? yes that will make you win the challenge.


http://www.emo-tive.com/image.php?object_id=2083&amp;image_id=
UpwardThrust
28-12-2007, 06:10
Ok lets do this, I challenge you to break on my security and get to my PC.. I am putting a very particular pic on my desktop.

If you are really as skilled as you say you are.. you should be able to break into my PC and tell us what is that pic.. tell us what finger is popping up... on the pic :D
No

1) I did not say if I was experienced in intrusions (though I am)
2) First thing is always get a written contract for security evaluation
3) Not given the same advantages as you would be giving the attackers in our theoretical here

And hell
4) I am lazy, doing real computer work right now, and not in the mood for the sheer amount of foot and prep work it would take

Do as you please, take seasoned advice if you want but no its not worth my time on so many levels
OceanDrive2
28-12-2007, 06:19
No

1) I did not say if I was experienced in intrusions (though I am)
2) First thing is always get a written contract for security evaluation
3) Not given the same advantages as you would be giving the attackers in our theoretical here

And hell
4) I am lazy, doing real computer work right now, and not in the mood for the sheer amount of foot and prep work it would take.fair-enough©

Do as you please, take seasoned advice if you want but no its not worth my time on so many levelsYour advice is welcome, I shall kick in the WPA.
UpwardThrust
28-12-2007, 06:22
fair-enough©

Your advice is welcome, I shall do the WPA dance.

:) Hey you may be safe enough too I just always strive for the best I can do with what I own

For example I too shared out my network but I did a few things
1) I used too access points with a firewall between, a public and a private one
2) I used WPA on both with different passkeys

If you really want to share that may be an option, you can put a lot of defense between you and them even inside of a network
Corporations do it all the time
OceanDrive2
28-12-2007, 06:26
:) Hey you may be safe enough too I just always strive for the best I can do with what I own

For example I too shared out my network but I did a few things
1) I used too access points with a firewall between, a public and a private one
2) I used WPA on both with different passkeys

If you really want to share that may be an option, you can put a lot of defense between you and them even inside of a network
Corporations do it all the timeIn a way You are like me, you are generous and like to share, you share you expert knowledge, thank you for that.
UpwardThrust
28-12-2007, 06:30
In a way You are like me, you are generous and like to share, you share you expert knowledge, thank you for that.

Its rare to get a tech discussion ... for 2 years I taught networking courses. So yeah I really like to share in that field
Abdju
28-12-2007, 13:25
A family member recently brought over a laptop, and by completely surprise, I discovered that there's about 6 open, high speed wifi connections within the neighbourhood that we live in.

I've heard many times that people simply by laptops and leech wifi off their neighbours, etc. But I'm not sure if that's okay or not. On one hand you're not really paying for the service, but on the other, if the owners didn't want people to use their connection, they could have added a password to it or something.

What are your thoughts?

It is stealing, in my view. True, they should have secured the network, but in my eyes that doesn't diminish the ethical onus not to steal.

Personally I dislike wireless networking, period. it would be more sensible just to ensure all new buildings are wired for networking in the same way they are wired for electrical outlets, and encourage use of Ethernet over mains cable in existing private homes. This system is not 100% secure either, but it is much more secure (and stable) than wireless.
Nobel Hobos
28-12-2007, 16:04
It is stealing, in my view. True, they should have secured the network, but in my eyes that doesn't diminish the ethical onus not to steal.

Team Yes. Welcome.

Personally I dislike wireless networking, period.

Team Wifi-sucks. Welcome.

it would be more sensible just to ensure all new buildings are wired for networking in the same way they are wired for electrical outlets, and encourage use of Ethernet over mains cable in existing private homes. This system is not 100% secure either, but it is much more secure (and stable) than wireless.

Almost no-one uses encryption on a wired network (pass encrypted information to an individual computer within that network, yes, but not encrypt traffic on a copper or optical link, this is a burden on the processors at each end for privacy which is already ensured by the physical medium.)

Yay LAN, old technology which still rules OK for most computers. And yay the desktop computer, the best and most secure solution for almost every home and office computing need!
Nobel Hobos
28-12-2007, 16:34
This is dumb-fuck simple, to my eye.

Someone is paying for something.
You deprive them of the full use of it.
For your own benefit, and at their cost.

Theft. No comparison with copyright violation: to pirate or not to pirate makes no difference to the "owner."

If you think it's OK, tell that to person who payed for the service you are leeching. If it's OK with them, it's OK with me. Otherwise it's theft, and therefore wrong.
UpwardThrust
28-12-2007, 17:41
Team Yes. Welcome.



Team Wifi-sucks. Welcome.



Almost no-one uses encryption on a wired network (pass encrypted information to an individual computer within that network, yes, but not encrypt traffic on a copper or optical link, this is a burden on the processors at each end for privacy which is already ensured by the physical medium.)

Yay LAN, old technology which still rules OK for most computers. And yay the desktop computer, the best and most secure solution for almost every home and office computing need!

Some do and some dont over hard line but either way the processing burden is very rarly a consern anymore from what I have seen from industry. Realistically the encryption on most standards is minor compared to the overhead of the filetransfer itself.

As for wireless it has its time and place, there are also improvements that can be made for performance conserns, but most are not an option on home equipment
Nobel Hobos
29-12-2007, 01:28
Some do and some dont over hard line but either way the processing burden is very rarely a consern anymore from what I have seen from industry.

OK. I guess I'm still living in the 90's in some respects.

Realistically the encryption on most standards is minor compared to the overhead of the filetransfer itself.

Could even be seen as an advantage, making the users pay a performance penalty on the box they're using, for using the network. Makes file-sharing less attractive, for instance.

As for wireless it has its time and place, there are also improvements that can be made for performance conserns, but most are not an option on home equipment

Even B wifi is fine for surfing the net, with one WAP and one node. I just don't like laptops ... their only time and place is semi-portable application, like travelling on public transport. (I say "semi" because they're pretty much useless if you can't sit down.)

Large numbers of employees bringing their personal laptops inside the network sounds like a complete nightmare to me. Making that idiot-friendly by not bothering with passwords ... well ...
Jeruselem
29-12-2007, 07:41
Even B wifi is fine for surfing the net, with one WAP and one node. I just don't like laptops ... their only time and place is semi-portable application, like travelling on public transport. (I say "semi" because they're pretty much useless if you can't sit down.)

Large numbers of employees bringing their personal laptops inside the network sounds like a complete nightmare to me. Making that idiot-friendly by not bothering with passwords ... well ...

At my workplace, the wireless router is WEP secured. When corporate guests turn up, instead of them looking for LAN ports on the conference room - I give them the WEP key so they can work anywhere in the office with Internet. Cabling every part of the office is not simple exercise and using wireless is a lot easier. Not every building is easily adapted to be wired.

Laptops are not useless. We have field engineers go use laptops to manage equipment off site, since lugging around a desktop is not an option. Anyway when the power goes off, the laptops are still working which is really handy.
Posi
29-12-2007, 08:19
OK. I guess I'm still living in the 90's in some respects.



Could even be seen as an advantage, making the users pay a performance penalty on the box they're using, for using the network. Makes file-sharing less attractive, for instance.



Even B wifi is fine for surfing the net, with one WAP and one node. I just don't like laptops ... their only time and place is semi-portable application, like travelling on public transport. (I say "semi" because they're pretty much useless if you can't sit down.)

Large numbers of employees bringing their personal laptops inside the network sounds like a complete nightmare to me. Making that idiot-friendly by not bothering with passwords ... well ...
I love my laptop. It allows me to have another computer on my desk. Now I can be on Facebook and NSG while playing WoW.
UpwardThrust
29-12-2007, 20:52
OK. I guess I'm still living in the 90's in some respects.

Thats ok processing power just keeps running away from requirements, that and stand alone devices like PIX firewalls will do point to point and hub and spoke VPN's so there is no processing overhead on the box

Could even be seen as an advantage, making the users pay a performance penalty on the box they're using, for using the network. Makes file-sharing less attractive, for instance.

Actually lol encrypting traffic is the BIGGEST new improvement to most bit torrent networks

The reason

In the middle bandwidth throttlers (like packet shapers) can not read what type of packet it is so can not tell if it is P2P and usually will not take action on it because of that allowing it to be unlimited

Even B wifi is fine for surfing the net, with one WAP and one node. I just don't like laptops ... their only time and place is semi-portable application, like travelling on public transport. (I say "semi" because they're pretty much useless if you can't sit down.)

Large numbers of employees bringing their personal laptops inside the network sounds like a complete nightmare to me. Making that idiot-friendly by not bothering with passwords ... well ...
It can be hard ... I cut my teeth on 3000 + user wireless school networks so I understand and guess what we used VPN's and WPA Enterprise level encryption for a reason.