Anyone got experience with Wardriving?

[Fubak]

Will the wireless CF card I got with my Axim be enough? If so, what else do I need?

[MPSmith]

Will it be enough for what? To connect wirelessly? Please describe what you are wanting to do.

[Fubak]

I want to be out in town, find a wireless network, and use it to check my email or use IM.

[WyattEarp]

That's all you need if you go to a Starbucks for example that has wifi access.

[Fubak]

Well, what if I'm sitting someplace and I see that I have a wireless signal. How would I use that wireless network? Catch my drift? :D

[Rirath]

Either the folks are being really naive, or just vague. :wink:
I don't think many folks here have any experience with wardriving, or would admit to it.

Try searching the web for info on how, what you need, and hotspots. Most of it will be about laptops, but you should be able to adapt the info if you really wanted. Personally I've never used Wireless in any form. :oops:

War Driving (wôr dri'vin) v.
1 Driving around looking for unsecured wireless networks.
-term coined by Pete Shipley

[Pony99CA]

Either the folks are being really naive, or just vague. :wink:
I don't think many folks here have any experience with wardriving, or would admit to it.

Try searching the web for info on how, what you need, and hotspots. Most of it will be about laptops, but you should be able to adapt the info if you really wanted. Personally I've never used Wireless in any form. :oops:

War Driving (wôr dri'vin) v.
1 Driving around looking for unsecured wireless networks.
-term coined by Pete Shipley
There's a long, heated thread going on at Pocket PC Passion (http://www.pocketpcpassion.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27654) about wardriving and the ethics behind it. Check it out.

For WiFi hotspot information, check out WiFi Free Spot (http://www.wififreenet.com/) or 802.11 Hot Spots (http://www.80211hotspots.com/).

Steve

[TheBacklash]

Either the folks are being really naive, or just vague. :wink:
I don't think many folks here have any experience with wardriving, or would admit to it.

Try searching the web for info on how, what you need, and hotspots. Most of it will be about laptops, but you should be able to adapt the info if you really wanted. Personally I've never used Wireless in any form. :oops:

War Driving (wôr dri'vin) v.
1 Driving around looking for unsecured wireless networks.
-term coined by Pete Shipley

I think you hit it there.... 8)

I "drove" from my house to my parents... and "found" about 24 signals along the way.

with about 3 of them secured.... 8O that was amazing, and I was not driving in residential areas much. the Card actualy stopped blinking and was logged on at one stoplight. Didn't have time to check e-mail quick enough though :(

Just my quick observations, you would need a few programs as well. Obviously pocket warrior or ministumbler, depending on which card you have. but just because you have the signals, you still need an ip and gateway ip on the network... unless you guess or get lucky, you going to need another program to determine an ip you can use.

also need a mac address spoofer if the network restricts the usage by Mac address...

Also need a program to break the fairly weak encryption if there is any...

I only have pocket warrior, and haven't done anything else beyond "driving" personaly.

Too much hassle for me right now to try and hack in to someone's network just to check my e-mail... and there is no denying it, it is hacking into someone else's network... except if it's a starbucks public access type thing.



Just a side note.... If anyone does get onto someone else's network by wardriving... don't do anything beyond just using the signal to get *your* e-mail or get to a webpage or two... don't mess with their computer, what if someone use's your signal to do the same to you?

Personaly If someone used my signal to check their e-mail, i'd be upset, but not as pissed if they screwed with my computer.

[Pony99CA]

Just my quick observations, you would need a few programs as well. Obviously pocket warrior or ministumbler, depending on which card you have. but just because you have the signals, you still need an ip and gateway ip on the network... unless you guess or get lucky, you going to need another program to determine an ip you can use.

also need a mac address spoofer if the network restricts the usage by Mac address...

Also need a program to break the fairly weak encryption if there is any...

And those last two have taken you from the "benign" act of wardriving to the illegal act of network hacking.


Just a side note.... If anyone does get onto someone else's network by wardriving... don't do anything beyond just using the signal to get *your* e-mail or get to a webpage or two... don't mess with their computer, what if someone use's your signal to do the same to you?

Don't even get your E-mail or browse the Web unless you know that you have permission to access that network. Finding a wireless access point isn't illegal, but I think anything more would constitute an unauthorized use of somebody's network, which is likely a crime.

Steve

[fargonaz]

For the average guy, and the average(now) unsecured AP, you need not touch the settings for the card installed in your ppc. Most have DHCP, and will automagically configure the DNS and IP of your ppc, if the AP has internet connectivity and DHCP you will be connected. I doubt there are any legal questions about detecting an open access point. As to the legality of using the internet from the open AP, I doubt that there's any legal worries there, if the owner wishes to encrypt his AP he has every right to do so. As to war driving, it's what you do before you warchalk the AP.

[Pony99CA]

As to the legality of using the internet from the open AP, I doubt that there's any legal worries there, if the owner wishes to encrypt his AP he has every right to do so.

Go to that Pocket PC Passion link I posted and read that. I'd prefer not to rehash that discussion here. The analogy I use is that, just because I may leave the door to my house open, that doesn't give you the right to come in. You can't say, "If the owner wished to lock the door, he had every right to do so."

A network is somebody's property, just like their house is. If you don't know that you have permission to use a network, don't use it.

Steve

[fargonaz]

I'm not a lawyer, and while your anology is somewhat reasonable, I don't beleive that it is totally applicable in this instance. I'm trying to keep things in context here. The average ppc user isn't going to be leeching MBs worth mp3's off the net while driving around town, and if he were, he would then be depriving the owner of his bandwidth.
Also, in the land of the politically correct the law works both ways, I believe the burden of proof would rest with the plaintiff, and whether malicious intent could be proven.
A parting thought, and I will leave this thread also. I feel that a more accurate anology is: If a tree falls in a forrest and no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound?

[TheBacklash]

Just my quick observations, you would need a few programs as well. Obviously pocket warrior or ministumbler, depending on which card you have. but just because you have the signals, you still need an ip and gateway ip on the network... unless you guess or get lucky, you going to need another program to determine an ip you can use.

also need a mac address spoofer if the network restricts the usage by Mac address...

Also need a program to break the fairly weak encryption if there is any...

And those last two have taken you from the "benign" act of wardriving to the illegal act of network hacking.


Just a side note.... If anyone does get onto someone else's network by wardriving... don't do anything beyond just using the signal to get *your* e-mail or get to a webpage or two... don't mess with their computer, what if someone use's your signal to do the same to you?

Don't even get your E-mail or browse the Web unless you know that you have permission to access that network. Finding a wireless access point isn't illegal, but I think anything more would constitute an unauthorized use of somebody's network, which is likely a crime.

Steve

True, and thats why I said don't mess with the persons computer. using the signal to get your e-mail is one thing, using it to damage someone elses computer is another. both illegal, but using the signal for e-mail is a whole lot less noticable.

Thats the whole thing with PUBLIC access terminals. this sort of thing IS legal, permission is granted to all. *but* when you use Joe Blow's signal.... that becomes illegal because you *do not* have the owner's permission to use the signal. I don't care how you look at it, your in the wrong. the choice though is up to you what you do with the signal.

And sorry to say but "malicious intent" does NOT have to be proven... A drunk driver gets pulled over for driving drunk, not running off the road and killing someone. But running of the road and killing someone was his intent right? Prove it.

You can be charged with cell phone hacking, for just having in your possesion the box that grabs the passing cell phones ESN... regardless of what your intent with it is.

If your driving around looking for signals, then using that signal to log on to someone's network, and get on the net, your breaking the law.

If you drive around looking for unlocked houses, then go in and use their computer to access the net. whats the difference from wardriving? :?:

Wireless is the only difference.

[Fubak]

Mind if we get back on topic?

I want to know how to do this in detail. Please take discussions about ethics elsewhere.

thx

[GoldKey]

I have done wardriving, or more specifically, warwalking using my Dell, a D-link card, and WinC. I have done this both personally within my neighborhood and driving around town as well as professionally as a part of security reviews in conjunction with IT audits.

I have never connected to a network that I was not authorized to connect to, but I have often thought about the ethics of doing so. For example, if walking around my suburban neighborhood, I find a completely unsecured network, I would still assume it is private and would be wrong to tresspass on that network. However, our downtown area has a free publicly available wireless network. Theoreticaly, a user connecting to that network could connect to a private network in the same area that was not properly secured. It is not such a clear cut case as to whether an open network you find in downtown is OK to use or not. How would the user know?

[Rirath]

Mind if we get back on topic?

I want to know how to do this in detail. Please take discussions about ethics elsewhere.

thx

Oh okay then... you take that green wire there and...
If you can't take the hint already, I doubt anyone is going to say it flat out. It's been spelled out pretty clearly a few times now.
Anything more would probably be removed by moderators anyhow.

[karen]

Mind if we get back on topic?

I want to know how to do this in detail. Please take discussions about ethics elsewhere.

thx

Oh okay then... you take that green wire there and...
If you can't take the hint already, I doubt anyone is going to say it flat out. It's been spelled out pretty clearly a few times now.
Anything more would probably be removed by moderators anyhow.

Not to mention that most APs have logging features...if they also use a 'sniffer' or detailed logs on their own network, the can get your e-mail login and passwords, not to mention all the content of the services you use. You never know for sure why that AP is open, do ya? I predict that wartrapping (capturing info from those that want to get something for nothing) will become a greater security risk than wardriving.

Karen

[Pony99CA]

Mind if we get back on topic?

I want to know how to do this in detail. Please take discussions about ethics elsewhere.

I agree with Rirath (amazing as that may be :-D). You sound like you're asking to do something illegal, and nobody with any ethics will tell you how on this board. Just for reference, here's what you said:


I want to be out in town, find a wireless network, and use it to check my email or use IM.

You didn't ask how to find a public wireless access point, and don't seem interested in that, because I posted two links to check. I can only assume that you want to illegally access somebody else's network, and I won't help with that.

By the way, the topic is wardriving, and we're talking about it, so I'd say we're on topic. The ethics of it are certainly reasonable to discuss, in my opinion, whether you want to read about it or not.

Steve

[TheBacklash]

I haven't seen anywhere that we ever went off topic...

But, if you want to know how to wardrive, and what you need to wardrive.
I'll explain it as simple as possible.

Search the net for wardriving.

I will bet you can find everything you need, as long as you are willing to do some searching. You want to know the answer? don't count on somebody else to help you. besides what you are asking of us is to help you break the law... Sorry I'm not willing to be an accomplice, I think you have found out more than you need so far from us.

Sure, I do know what you need to know... I did some searching. But just don't ask me to teach. I learn in order to protect myself, for the most part...

[pez]

I didnt even know something like this even existed..

Wow.. Thanks for all informing me of something that I may have gotten myself introuble for if i didnt know about :D

[Pat Logsdon]

I think that there are two points that a lot of people don't think about: 1) you almost always need specialized software to access someone else's network, and 2) most people with wireless AP's can't be held accountable for using the default settings that their routers/AP's came with.

So instead of the "Open Door" analogy, I'd like to use the "garage door code grabbing" analogy. :D

Most of the argument that I've heard on this subject relates to the fact that people with wireless AP's are "broadcasting" their signal, and that it's therefore in the public domain. Well, when you use your garage door opener, you're also broadcasting a signal. If I, using special software on my PPC ("GarageStumbler", perhaps?) manage to detect your broadcast of that signal, does that then give me the right to go into your garage and look at your stuff? And what if you have a phone in there? Can I use to place local calls?

To me, the concepts are the same - I need special software to detect the signal in the first place, and that software then gives me access to the garage/computer. If I choose to enter, that's tresspassing/hacking in my book. Unless I hang a sign on my garage door inviting you in, you're not allowed in, and shouldn't try.

[grohl]

Well, I for one think the ORIGINAL topic offered is still a legitimate question.

Can someone out of town, or across town, for that matter, access an unsecured WAP to check email? I don't think this question was one of hacking, really. I don't buy the arguement that accessing an unsecured WAP to check email is illegal. I just don't. That is my opinion, feel free to disagree.

I mean, we are all reasonably smart people, right? It takes a small amount of intelligence to set up ones own wireless network at home. Why in the world someone wouldn't enable WEP after going through all this is beyond me.

No, I am not saying, let's punish the stupid. BUT, I think plenty of people out there might not care, and actually could be SHARING wireless to those who care to "look" for it. Long live altruism! Think how cool it would be to seamlessly glide along interconnected hotspots, maybe dream of a city-wide intranet. :lol:

[Pony99CA]

Can someone out of town, or across town, for that matter, access an unsecured WAP to check email?

Of course they can. Whether they should is another issue.


I don't think this question was one of hacking, really. I don't buy the arguement that accessing an unsecured WAP to check email is illegal. I just don't. That is my opinion, feel free to disagree.

Cool -- I'll disagree. :-)


I mean, we are all reasonably smart people, right? It takes a small amount of intelligence to set up ones own wireless network at home. Why in the world someone wouldn't enable WEP after going through all this is beyond me.

A lot of people might think they live in an isolated area where they don't need to worry about bandwidth thieves and don't want to suffer the overhead WEP implies. Or, perhaps, they've heard how insecure WEP is and decide not to bother with it.


No, I am not saying, let's punish the stupid. BUT, I think plenty of people out there might not care, and actually could be SHARING wireless to those who care to "look" for it. Long live altruism! Think how cool it would be to seamlessly glide along interconnected hotspots, maybe dream of a city-wide intranet. :lol:
Sure, they could be sharing. They also might not be sharing. You don't know if they're sharing intentionally unless you've had some indication they are -- a sign, a posting on a Web site or they've told you.

You're a smart guy, right? Suppose you accidentally leave the door to your house open and I drive by and see it. I think, "Hey, there's an altruistic guy, I'll go watch the game on his satellite dish." You come home and find me on your couch. I haven't damaged anything or taken anything. What do you do? Do you call the police?

Steve

[grohl]

Steve, your comments are appreciated, as well as your opinions. Shoot, you have about ONE HUNDRED times as many posts here as I do.

At the risk of going off-topic, or making this a personal reply, I disagree that having an open WAP is the same as leaving a front door open.

Personal safety. Trespassing. These are laws in lawbooks that are defensible. The laws for hacking are murky and unclear. Thus leaving the front door open is much different than leaving ones WAP wide open. I know, in cyberspace it's the same thing, but I don't think our lawmakers think so. Is stealing crappy MP3s the same as cozying up to the DVD player and stereo? The answer is no.

I respect your opinion and will not reply further, but I salute those who do leave open WAPs for those of us to use.

[mirkazemisaman]

For the average guy, and the average(now) unsecured AP, you need not touch the settings for the card installed in your ppc. Most have DHCP, and will automagically configure the DNS and IP of your ppc, if the AP has internet connectivity and DHCP you will be connected. I doubt there are any legal questions about detecting an open access point. As to the legality of using the internet from the open AP, I doubt that there's any legal worries there, if the owner wishes to encrypt his AP he has every right to do so. As to war driving, it's what you do before you warchalk the AP.
According to the law setting up a wirless network is using the public "air" (for the lack of a better word) and so anyone can "recieve and use" the signal. Now what the word "use" means is debatable and is a "cruel and unusual punishment" type of thing. I am sure screwing around with people's computers or viewing their personal info etc will be considered a crime. But simply going on the internet is completely legal, even if you decrypt an encryption to access the network!

Source:
:lol: Local Staples rep :lol:

[Rirath]

Source:
:lol: Local Staples rep :lol:

:rofl: Thanks for making me about fall out of my chair for the second time today. XD
It's possible the guy knows... we're humans too (former Staples guy)... but man that sounds funny.

[Pony99CA]

Steve, your comments are appreciated, as well as your opinions. Shoot, you have about ONE HUNDRED times as many posts here as I do.

At the risk of going off-topic, or making this a personal reply, I disagree that having an open WAP is the same as leaving a front door open.

I don't think you were off the topic or too personal.

As for the number of posts, don't worry about it. Just because somebody has a lot of posts doesn't mean they're smarter or correct more often. It may just mean we have no life. :-)


Personal safety. Trespassing. These are laws in lawbooks that are defensible. The laws for hacking are murky and unclear. Thus leaving the front door open is much different than leaving ones WAP wide open. I know, in cyberspace it's the same thing, but I don't think our lawmakers think so. Is stealing crappy MP3s the same as cozying up to the DVD player and stereo? The answer is no.

I respect your opinion and will not reply further, but I salute those who do leave open WAPs for those of us to use.
I see a difference between intentionally providing free Internet access and accidentally leaving your WiFi point open. I too salute the former, but I don't think we should abuse the latter.

You mentioned laws, and there are laws against computer trespassing and abuse, too. My next post will deal with that in more detail.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

According to the law setting up a wirless network is using the public "air" (for the lack of a better word) and so anyone can "recieve and use" the signal.

Which "law" is that? That "airwaves are free" claim is abused by people trying to do illegal things. Here are a few counterexamples.

Consider WiFi. You're not just using the airwaves; you're also using my access point/router when you transmit. I would view that as an intrusion into my computer network, which I believe is against that law unless I have authorized you to access it. You are also using the bandwidth I paid for, which could constitute a theft of services.

Consider cell phones. While you may be able to listen in on conversations legally with a scanner, you certainly can't clone someone's cell phone and use the account that somebody else is paying for. I'm paying for my ISP account, and you aren't, and if you use my WiFi access, you're using my account.

Consider telephones. If you have a cordless phone that happens to work with my cordless base, do you think you could make a call out on your phone? (Assume you're not within range of your base so you can't claim you thought you were using your phone line.)


Now what the word"use" means is debatable and is a "cruel and unusual punishment" type of thing. I am sure screwing around with people's computers or viewing their personal info etc will be considered a crime. But simply going on the internet is completely legal, even if you decrypt an encryption to access the network!

Even if you accept the "airwaves are free" argument, you're completely wrong here. By your logic, that would make satellite descramblers legal, and they aren't. Scrambing is just a form of encryption.

In addition, you might also be violating the DMCA (regardless of what you think of that), which makes cracking encryption illegal.

Even if catching somebody is very difficult, that doesn't mean what you're doing is legal. I suppose it eventually comes down to your morals. No law can prevent a crime; they're just there to punish people who get caught. Morals are what prevent crimes, and, if somebody believes that cracking somebody's encryption is OK to use their bandwidth, I'd venture to say they don't have a very high moral standard.

Steve

[mirkazemisaman]

According to the law setting up a wirless network is using the public "air" (for the lack of a better word) and so anyone can "recieve and use" the signal.

Which "law" is that? That "airwaves are free" claim is abused by people trying to do illegal things. Here are a few counterexamples.

Consider WiFi. You're not just using the airwaves; you're also using my access point/router when you transmit. I would view that as an intrusion into my computer network, which I believe is against that law unless I have authorized you to access it. You are also using the bandwidth I paid for, which could constitute a theft of services.

Consider cell phones. While you may be able to listen in on conversations legally with a scanner, you certainly can't clone someone's cell phone and use the account that somebody else is paying for. I'm paying for my ISP account, and you aren't, and if you use my WiFi access, you're using my account.

Consider telephones. If you have a cordless phone that happens to work with my cordless base, do you think you could make a call out on your phone? (Assume you're not within range of your base so you can't claim you thought you were using your phone line.)


Now what the word"use" means is debatable and is a "cruel and unusual punishment" type of thing. I am sure screwing around with people's computers or viewing their personal info etc will be considered a crime. But simply going on the internet is completely legal, even if you decrypt an encryption to access the network!

Even if you accept the "airwaves are free" argument, you're completely wrong here. By your logic, that would make satellite descramblers legal, and they aren't. Scrambing is just a form of encryption.

In addition, you might also be violating the DMCA (regardless of what you think of that), which makes cracking encryption illegal.

Even if catching somebody is very difficult, that doesn't mean what you're doing is legal. I suppose it eventually comes down to your morals. No law can prevent a crime; they're just there to punish people who get caught. Morals are what prevent crimes, and, if somebody believes that cracking somebody's encryption is OK to use their bandwidth, I'd venture to say they don't have a very high moral standard.

Steve

Sorry if It wasn't clear, but the whole thing was a joke. I just couldn't stop laughing for a couple of days after I heard this from my "Local Staples rep" and thought I might post it here, just as a little humor. But you are right, I too disagree with my own post or should I say my :lol: "Local Staple's rep"... :lol:

[Pony99CA]

Sorry if It wasn't clear, but the whole thing was a joke. I just couldn't stop laughing for a couple of days after I heard this from my "Local Staples rep" and thought I might post it here, just as a little humor. But you are right, I too disagree with my own post or should I say my :lol: "Local Staple's rep"... :lol:
I wondered about the "source" attribution. So you're saying that somebody at Staples actually suggested breaking someone's encryption? Or was the whole thing a joke passed on by the Staples rep?

I'm so confused. :oops:

Steve

[Rirath]

I do believe the joke is Staples reps are know nothing know it alls. :)
The amount of bad advice I heard given like it was rock solid fact was staggering. 8O Perhaps you just have to hear a Staples guy say it out loud to get the full effect of the humor.

[yunez]

aww they locked my thread in pocketpcpassion! :lol:

[targetdrone]

You're not just using the airwaves; you're also using my access point/router when you transmit. I would view that as an intrusion into my computer network, which I believe is against that law unless I have authorized you to access it. You are also using the bandwidth I paid for, which could constitute a theft of services.

<SNIP> I'm paying for my ISP account, and you aren't, and if you use my WiFi access, you're using my account.




Now what the word"use" means is debatable and is a "cruel and unusual punishment" type of thing. I am sure screwing around with people's computers or viewing their personal info etc will be considered a crime. But simply going on the internet is completely legal, even if you decrypt an encryption to access the network!

Even if you accept the "airwaves are free" argument, you're completely wrong here. By your logic, that would make satellite descramblers legal, and they aren't. Scrambing is just a form of encryption.



By this argument, I would think the criminal is the guy broadcasting the wireless signal unencrypted. He would be giving away a signal without paying for rebroadcast rights, actually giving away somebody else's property. If he told the cable company he was giving it free to the neighborhood, what would their response be?

If someone leaves a garage door open, should you be prosecuted because you saw what he had inside while you were standing in the street?

I will eventually, hopefully sooner, get a wireless card and set up a wireless network at home. Is there a way to protect my home system, yet allow others access to the signal?

[Pony99CA]

You're not just using the airwaves; you're also using my access point/router when you transmit. I would view that as an intrusion into my computer network, which I believe is against that law unless I have authorized you to access it. You are also using the bandwidth I paid for, which could constitute a theft of services.

<SNIP> I'm paying for my ISP account, and you aren't, and if you use my WiFi access, you're using my account.


Now what the word"use" means is debatable and is a "cruel and unusual punishment" type of thing. I am sure screwing around with people's computers or viewing their personal info etc will be considered a crime. But simply going on the internet is completely legal, even if you decrypt an encryption to access the network!

Even if you accept the "airwaves are free" argument, you're completely wrong here. By your logic, that would make satellite descramblers legal, and they aren't. Scrambing is just a form of encryption.

By this argument, I would think the criminal is the guy broadcasting the wireless signal unencrypted. He would be giving away a signal without paying for rebroadcast rights, actually giving away somebody else's property. If he told the cable company he was giving it free to the neighborhood, what would their response be?

Whether the guy sharing WiFi is doing anything wrong is up to the ISP. You're new here, so check out how Time Warner Cable in New York (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1926) dealt with this. To summarize, they may well claim you're violating your terms of service and prevent you from sharing. Other companies allow sharing. Ask your ISP.


If someone leaves a garage door open, should you be prosecuted because you saw what he had inside while you were standing in the street?

Of course not, and that's why wardriving -- the act of merely locating wireless access points -- is not illegal. Once you go beyond locating to using, however, you may have crossed the line -- unless you know that the connection is intentionally being shared.


I will eventually, hopefully sooner, get a wireless card and set up a wireless network at home. Is there a way to protect my home system, yet allow others access to the signal?

Sure. I'm no security expert, but I'd suggest at least two points.

Put a firewall on your computer(s) or on your LAN between your router and WAN connection.
Ensure password protection is turned on for any network shares you have.

Steve

[GoldKey]

I will eventually, hopefully sooner, get a wireless card and set up a wireless network at home. Is there a way to protect my home system, yet allow others access to the signal?

Enable WEP even though it can be broken easily if someone can sniff between 100MB and 1 GB of traffic and then change your key periodically. I change mine every few weeks.

[Pony99CA]

I will eventually, hopefully sooner, get a wireless card and set up a wireless network at home. Is there a way to protect my home system, yet allow others access to the signal?
Enable WEP even though it can be broken easily if someone can sniff between 100MB and 1 GB of traffic and then change your key periodically. I change mine every few weeks.
Enabling WEP will defeat the purpose of allowing others access to his signal. I assume he wants his WiFi connection open to the public, and WEP would prevent that.

Even if he didn't mean the general public by "others", he'd still have to distribute his WEP key to anybody he wanted to allow access to. He could create a separate WEP key for people outside of his home, but he'd still have to distribute it.

And, if he only meant a select few others, he should also implement MAC filtering.

Steve

[TheBacklash]

The laws for hacking are murky and unclear.

Actualy they are not.... Unlawful use of someone elses computer. is just that.

We have any lawyers here? (another site I frequent is packed with lawyers, questions like this are easy for them to explain, usualy)

For the cabel descrambler question... cable descramblers ARE legal to own, ILLEGAL to use. screwy law.

[rzanology]

guys?....i am a straight A student and technology freak...there are two things that never leave my side, 1. my ipaq and 2 my t68i. Both of which i asure you i use, perhaps over use everyday. Part of having technology like this is being able to use it for what its worth. Now you can add to that the fact that i have lots of friends, lots of e-mail accounts, and i am addicted to this site. So why should i be called a criminal or be branded as some kind of hacker only because i want to run aim, send some e-mails and check my favorite site? I don't think thats fair. You guys can argue all you want about the legal issues, but all of us here have mp3's on our cpus, and i bet you that none of use ripped them all. So why then must you try to hit me with the legal talk (by me i mean in general :) ) I just got my cable modem 3 days ago, and i love the speed. Needless to say i will be getting my own AP. And i see nothing wrong with allowing people in the area to use it. As long as i know my network is safe and no one can screw something up, then i'll be doing just that!!! Futher more, even you guys that swear this is illegal and just plain wrong...if you were in the car waiting for your wife, or in the doctors office waiting for your turn, im sure you would have no problem useing some ones bandwidth for a few minutes just to entertain yourself of get something done online that you forgot to do. My point is....sure it might be unlawful....but here in new york where jay walking is illegal....i would love to see you try to stop the 134 people who cross with out the light saying walk on any given corner....latah guys

[GoldKey]

guys?....i am a straight A student and technology freak...

I take it you have not taken a class in ethics. :D

Your arguemet is just because you would not mind someone using your bandwith, that it is OK for you to use others. The rest of your arguement is that because people break other laws, it must be OK for you break this one. Both lines of reasoning are flawed.

[Pony99CA]

guys?....i am a straight A student and technology freak...there are two things that never leave my side, 1. my ipaq and 2 my t68i. Both of which i asure you i use, perhaps over use everyday. Part of having technology like this is being able to use it for what its worth. Now you can add to that the fact that i have lots of friends, lots of e-mail accounts, and i am addicted to this site. So why should i be called a criminal or be branded as some kind of hacker only because i want to run aim, send some e-mails and check my favorite site?

Nobody called anybody a criminal for wanting to do something. Even if you do run AIM, check a Web site or send an E-mail, that's not illegal -- as long as it's your network to use. What is illegal is using somebody else's network without their permission.

I don't think thats fair.

Life isn't fair. Get used to it. :lol:

You guys can argue all you want about the legal issues, but all of us here have mp3's on our cpus, and i bet you that none of use ripped them all.

That's quite a generalization. I'm surprised a straight-A student would succumb to that.

So why then must you try to hit me with the legal talk (by me i mean in general :) ) I just got my cable modem 3 days ago, and i love the speed. Needless to say i will be getting my own AP. And i see nothing wrong with allowing people in the area to use it. As long as i know my network is safe and no one can screw something up, then i'll be doing just that!!! Futher more, even you guys that swear this is illegal and just plain wrong[....]

Nobody said that it was illegal for you to share your network. If your ISP allows you to do that, go for it.


My point is....sure it might be unlawful....but here in new york where jay walking is illegal....i would love to see you try to stop the 134 people who cross with out the light saying walk on any given corner....latah guys
Just because you can get away with it doesn't make it right. We all have to decide for ourselves what laws we follow. However, if you choose to break a law and get caught, don't whine about how unfair the law is or how everybody else does it without getting caught.

Steve

P.S. You'd think a straight-A student would know how to use paragraphs, wouldn't you? :twisted:

[PetiteFlower]

Oh jeez, are we getting into this argument AGAIN?????

[Steven Cedrone]

Oh jeez, are we getting into this argument AGAIN?????

Apparently, it never ended... :roll:

Steve

[TheBacklash]

using your comment about Jaywalking...

Speeding is illegal as well.... Do the cops pull over EVERY car doing 1mph over the limit? nope. that would mean pulling damn near every car over all day long....

For a striaght A student, your argument has many holes, in many areas. :roll:

Federal laws are above state laws, and state laws are above local laws, and local laws are above personal viewpoints.

If a Federal law says that using someones computer without their express permission is illegal.... it don't matter one bit if YOU allow anyone to acess your computer. it's illegal.

Bottom line: no matter how you look at it, it's a FEDERAL crime to use someone else's network without their express permission.
you can twist your views a million different ways, but the law is the law.

Wardrive and use the info at your own risk. you get caught, you pay the price.
no Judge in the world will side with you.... the Judge will read you the law all day long if you argue with him and say it's legal, in the end you will lose.

[Pony99CA]

Wardrive and use the info at your own risk. you get caught, you pay the price.
no Judge in the world will side with you.... the Judge will read you the law all day long if you argue with him and say it's legal, in the end you will lose.
Bingo! Even the inventor of war driving -- Pete Shipley -- said you shouldn't use another's network (Source: TechTV's "Fresh Gear" show on wireless (http://www.techtv.com/freshgear/shownotes/story/0,23008,3420008,00.html)).

Steve

[dh]

At my apartment complex, there are five wireless networks that have strong signals in my apartment. Of these five only one has security enabled and that's only because of some of the comments I've read here. If not for you guys, mine would be open as well.

I know the security is easy to crack, but with four others with instant access, there's not much point in getting into mine.

One thing is that the documentation that comes with the wireless equipment does not really give much detail on security features and how to set them. In fact the text on the boxes tends to give the impression that the system is secure right out of the box which is probably why no-one bothers to do the set-up.

Oh, and my cabel company does not like open networks at all. I noticed in the terms of service that the service covers one connection to one computer. By networking the connection to my three computers I would be in breach of this. If my network was open, it could probably be used by at least twenty families. A lot of lost revenue there.

[quote=fargonaz]But simply going on the internet is completely legal, even if you decrypt an encryption to access the network!

Source:
:lol: Local Staples rep :lol:

I can't believe your Staples guy was serious. While I can see there might be a situation when using an unsecured network to check your mail, breaking into a secured one crosses the line for sure.

The idea of everyone setting up open networks to make a citywide system sounds great. How long before the ISPs yank these people's service I wonder?

[PetiteFlower]

I find it incredible that some broadband ISPs don't allow home networks to be set up. When I called to sign up for my cable service, I asked about multiple computers and they said that was just fine with them. Go Comcast :) I *think* they even offered to help us set it up, but we're not going to be moved in yet when they come to install the service so our computers aren't going to be there yet :) But I can't believe some seriously expect people to get a separate cable modem for each computer or something ridiculous like that....

[dh]

I find it incredible that some broadband ISPs don't allow home networks to be set up. When I called to sign up for my cable service, I asked about multiple computers and they said that was just fine with them. Go Comcast :) I *think* they even offered to help us set it up, but we're not going to be moved in yet when they come to install the service so our computers aren't going to be there yet :) But I can't believe some seriously expect people to get a separate cable modem for each computer or something ridiculous like that....

Our ISP is Comcast as well. If you look at the terms of service you will see the note about one computer per connection. Now, I'm sure this is not enforced and I'm sure that all the Comcast people have wireless networks in their own homes.

This clause does give Comcast an "out" to remove service from people abusing it, ie providing access to a whole apartment building.

I didn't talk to anyone at Comcast about it, I had the regular cable installed then went and bought my cable modem and network stuff.

[PetiteFlower]

I can understand them not wanting you to run servers or anything like that, or set up a huge network for the whole neighborhood, but I don't see why they wouldn't allow a reasonable number of computers owned by the people on the bill. If the service agreement says that, it must not be enforced strictly.

They have to come out to do the installation though, I'm moving into a house that was previously owned by an old lady(now being rented to me and roommates) and so has never been wired for cable at ALL before. We're gonna rent the modem though, for $3 a month it's not worth buying it; it would take almost 3 years for the rental to equal the cost of the modem and since we have so many other moving expenses(including the router) none of us want to put out the money for it.

[Pony99CA]

I know the security is easy to crack, but with four others with instant access, there's not much point in getting into mine.

You don't understand the hacker mentality -- yours is the only challenge. :-D They might also think you're the only one with anything worth hiding. :lol:

Steve

[Janak Parekh]

You don't understand the hacker mentality -- yours is the only challenge. :-D They might also think you're the only one with anything worth hiding. :lol:
Heh. The thing is, if he didn't have security then not only the hackers, but also the average Joes would be accessing his network. At least he slows down most of the crowd. ;)

--janak

[dh]

I know the security is easy to crack, but with four others with instant access, there's not much point in getting into mine.

You don't understand the hacker mentality -- yours is the only challenge. :-D They might also think you're the only one with anything worth hiding. :lol:

Steve

No self respecting hacker is going to waste 2 seconds of his/her life trying to defeat my 64 bit encription. I just didn't want anyone to be able to use my connection, I need it for my work and I don't want to piss of my cable company.

You don't understand the hacker mentality -- yours is the only challenge. :-D They might also think you're the only one with anything worth hiding. :lol:
Heh. The thing is, if he didn't have security then not only the hackers, but also the average Joes would be accessing his network. At least he slows down most of the crowd. ;)

--janak

Right on Janak. Another thing is, right next door to my apartment is a hotel. You get a signal (weak but usable) over there. My thought is that someone staying there wanting to check their email is going to go for the easiest route, not mine. What business traveller is going to spend time hacking into a network when they can check mail and get to the bar. (I'm speaking from experience here :lol: )

[Pony99CA]

I know the security is easy to crack, but with four others with instant access, there's not much point in getting into mine.

You don't understand the hacker mentality -- yours is the only challenge. :-D They might also think you're the only one with anything worth hiding. :lol:

No self respecting hacker is going to waste 2 seconds of his/her life trying to defeat my 64 bit encription. I just didn't want anyone to be able to use my connection, I need it for my work and I don't want to piss of my cable company.

Geez, did I need more smilies in my post to indicate it was a joke? :bangin: I'm glad you encrypt; I use 128-bit encryption in my house in a fairly small city (30,000 people).

Steve

[TheBacklash]

If I am not mistaken 128bit encryption is almost as weak as the 64bit encryption.... I know for a fact that it is not true 128bit anyway.

As far the hacker aspect. Fear not the self respecting hacker, fear the script-kiddie that can't get on your network for weeks..... the day he does, you will soon find things not working correctly.....

[Kaber]

This whole thread is a good example of why you have to be accepted into the forums at netstumbler.com before you can even post anymore.

Wardriving is the act of documenting where wireless networks are. It does not involve illegal use of said networks. If you do not have explicit authorization to connect to a private network, and you intentionaly connect to it, you are commiting a crime. This is what the FBI has told WarDrivers who have bothered to ask.

You can read more about real WarDriving at the World Wide WarDrive (http://www.worldwidewardrive.org) site.

Some WarDrivers just like to make maps (http://mysite.verizon.net/res02afy/kaberwd.jpg)

WarDriving is not a crime (http://wardrivingisnotacrime.com)

[PetiteFlower]

And of course even if your encryption isn't ironclad, at least if a malicious hacker DOES get into it and do something nasty, you can't be accused of not taking reasonable precautions against it.

[Janak Parekh]

If I am not mistaken 128bit encryption is almost as weak as the 64bit encryption.... I know for a fact that it is not true 128bit anyway.
No - 128bit is 128bit, but there is a more fundamental weakness in most WEP implementations that lets you circumvent having to guess the 128bit key. Cisco and ORiNOCO have developed workarounds that enable truly secure encrypted WLANs.

--janak

[Pony99CA]

If I am not mistaken 128bit encryption is almost as weak as the 64bit encryption.... I know for a fact that it is not true 128bit anyway.
No - 128bit is 128bit, but there is a more fundamental weakness in most WEP implementations that lets you circumvent having to guess the 128bit key.
Yes, they use 64 bits and 128 bits to encrypt, but 40 bits of those are not chosen by the user. That's why you'll sometimes see people call it 24-bit encryption and 88-bit encryption.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

This whole thread is a good example of why you have to be accepted into the forums at netstumbler.com before you can even post anymore.

Wardriving is the act of documenting where wireless networks are. It does not involve illegal use of said networks. If you do not have explicit authorization to connect to a private network, and you intentionaly connect to it, you are commiting a crime. This is what the FBI has told WarDrivers who have bothered to ask.

Which sounds like what I have said in the thread. :-)

That said, you have to wonder what the point is. At DefCon, they had a wardriving contest to see who could locate the most (unsecured?) WiFi access points. Why? It doesn't take much skill, like their other hacking contests do. At best, it shows who has the most senstive/longest range equipment.

Trying to find out who had unsecured access points to let the owners know they might have problems would be useful. Trying to ascertain if the access points were intended to be public and creating a directory of the intentionally public ones would be useful. Posting a map without SSIDs even is just stupid.

Steve

[Janak Parekh]

Yes, they use 64 bits and 128 bits to encrypt, but 40 bits of those are not chosen by the user.
You mean 24 bits. That's why it's really sometimes called 40-bit and 104-bit. :)

--janak

[PetiteFlower]

Ok considering I'm going to be getting a wireless router soon, how do I go about making my signal secure? Is it just in the settings that will come with the router? I won't need additional hardware or anything crazy like that right?

I want to be a responsible broadband user ;)

[Janak Parekh]

Ok considering I'm going to be getting a wireless router soon, how do I go about making my signal secure? Is it just in the settings that will come with the router? I won't need additional hardware or anything crazy like that right?
Yes, 99% of wireless-enabled routers have all you need to make it reasonably secure. You're not going to get corporate-level security -- that's much more expensive -- but you probably don't need it.

To be precise, disabling SSID broadcast and setting up a WEP key should make you quite safe.

--janak

[Pony99CA]

Yes, they use 64 bits and 128 bits to encrypt, but 40 bits of those are not chosen by the user.
You mean 24 bits. That's why it's really sometimes called 40-bit and 104-bit. :)

I thought 88-bit looked weird. :lol: Maybe the "40-bit encryption" part is where I got the 40 bits from. :oops:

But the point is the same, at least; just the value is different. :-)

Steve

[Pony99CA]

Yes, 99% of wireless-enabled routers have all you need to make it reasonably secure. You're not going to get corporate-level security -- that's much more expensive -- but you probably don't need it.

To be precise, disabling SSID broadcast and setting up a WEP key should make you quite safe.
Not all routers support disabling SSID broadcasting. My SMC 7004AWBR doesn't, for example.

Regardless of whether your router supports turning off SSID broadcasting or not, I'd recommend changing the SSID. Also change the router's administration password and implement MAC filtering.

Steve

[PetiteFlower]

Man I hope all that makes sense once I have the thing and am setting it up :) That's a lot of letters!

I'm probably going to go to Best Buy in a few days and get whatever brand has the best deal....but are there any brands that are absolute crap and I should stay away from? So far it looks like it's between Netgear, Linksys, and D-Link.

[dh]

Man I hope all that makes sense once I have the thing and am setting it up :) That's a lot of letters!

I'm probably going to go to Best Buy in a few days and get whatever brand has the best deal....but are there any brands that are absolute crap and I should stay away from? So far it looks like it's between Netgear, Linksys, and D-Link.

I bought a D-Link at Circuit City. It was pretty cheap and also had a $30.00 rebate (if I ever fill in the forms). I also have a D-Link PCMCIA card for my Thinkpad and a LinkSys CF card for my Axim. These are all pretty cheap items and all seem to work just fine.

The D-Link router also has 4 sockets for network connections and my desktop is hooked into it with a cable (one less adapter to buy).

Next on the shopping list is a USB adapter to get my daughters IMac on the network.

The D-Link router is real easy to set up. You just work through the steps after using their install CD. Took me 15 minutes from when I opened the box to having the two PCs on-line. (I already had the cable connection set up before starting this. Getting this activated with Comcast tech support was a bit of a pain).

Since you mentioned there are several of you sharing the house, a wireless network will be perfect for you.

[Janak Parekh]

Not all routers support disabling SSID broadcasting. My SMC 7004AWBR doesn't, for example.
True, unfortunately. In my case, I use all ORiNOCO products, which have had the option before SMC had a wireless router. :D

Regardless of whether your router supports turning off SSID broadcasting or not, I'd recommend changing the SSID. Also change the router's administration password and implement MAC filtering.
Agreed on the first two; MAC filtering is a bit of a wash IMHO, since it's easy to spoof, but it doesn't hurt if you only use a few cards.

Man I hope all that makes sense once I have the thing and am setting it up :)
Don't worry about it. You know who to ask. ;)

--janak

[TheBacklash]

Yes, they use 64 bits and 128 bits to encrypt, but 40 bits of those are not chosen by the user.
You mean 24 bits. That's why it's really sometimes called 40-bit and 104-bit. :)

--janak

This is what I was talking about... Should have been a little more specific I guess.
the basic encryption of Wep is weak...

WEP (in)security (http://www.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu/isaac/wep-faq.html)

[PetiteFlower]

Since you mentioned there are several of you sharing the house, a wireless network will be perfect for you.

Unfortunately my roommates are both cheapskates and don't want to spring for wireless networking cards(yes I know they're not that expensive) so we're actually going to be using the wired ports for now. I'm getting the wireless router so that I have the option of getting the wifi card for my Axim later, and just because I think it's a good thing to have in general(I expect it to last a while!), and because there's not THAT much of a price difference between that and a regular router. At least our rooms are close together....

[dh]

Since you mentioned there are several of you sharing the house, a wireless network will be perfect for you.

Unfortunately my roommates are both cheapskates and don't want to spring for wireless networking cards(yes I know they're not that expensive) so we're actually going to be using the wired ports for now. I'm getting the wireless router so that I have the option of getting the wifi card for my Axim later, and just because I think it's a good thing to have in general(I expect it to last a while!), and because there's not THAT much of a price difference between that and a regular router. At least our rooms are close together....

That's cool. When you have the $70.00 or so to spare you can just get a CF card and you will be in business.

Shame about those cheapskates!!

[PetiteFlower]

I ended up going with the D-Link, was $90 with a $20 rebate, not bad at all. I saw a wifi CF card for $45 after rebate when I was there, but I resisted :) I'm not even going to have the router set up for another 2 weeks(after I move) so there really is no point to me spending money on a cf card NOW, not when I have so many other moving expenses! I'm very proud of myself for actually being able to walk into a Best Buy, get exactly what I need and nothing more, and walk out :)

[ruizric]

8O
Hello,
I've been "monitoring" this thread, it is fascinating.
The whole thing about someone getting into an AP without permission and causing "harm" (monetary, breaking isp EULA, degrading net performance etc,) can be turned around a little:
I' know almost nothing about WiFi or its niceties, but it seems to me that (according to some posts Ive seen here and at other forums, the typical PDA w/WiFi will signal the existance of an open AP without any user intervention.
Does that not implicitly make the access and use of said AP a response to an "invitation" by the AP. Or are PDA's natively accessorized for "wardriving".
Any Thoughts?

PS I live in Mexico City and a large chain of restaurants are advertising that they now have WiFi APs in all of their locations (in the cafeteria).
At the same time, the largest ISP, (which also owns said restaurant chain, as well as half the country, is selling a contract for WiFi access for about 20 dollars a month. How does that work? will they give you a password for all the WiFi APs they operate?

ruizric

[Pony99CA]

I' know almost nothing about WiFi or its niceties, but it seems to me that (according to some posts Ive seen here and at other forums, the typical PDA w/WiFi will signal the existance of an open AP without any user intervention.

Does that not implicitly make the access and use of said AP a response to an "invitation" by the AP. Or are PDA's natively accessorized for "wardriving".

Any Thoughts?

Thoughts? Of course. If you leave the front door of your house open, it "signals" an open house to anybody "war driving" by. Does that not implicitly make the access and use of said house a response to your "invitation" by the open door?

See how silly that sounds? WiFi access points are no different. If it's not your access point and you're not sure it's open to the public, don't use it.

Steve

[PetiteFlower]

*sings* This is the thread that never ends....

[Pony99CA]

*sings* This is the thread that never ends....
Hey, it's better than starting a new thread about the same old topic. ;-)

By the way, the name picking and avatar threads are like that, too.

Steve

[PetiteFlower]

Yeah but I don't read those :)

[David Prahl]

How many people actually check their AP logs to look for "visitors?" If they can analyze a log and understand how to track down a wardriver, they should know how to enable WEP.

(I'm not sure...) Just how would someone check to see who visits their hotspot? Can someone send in a screenshot???

How far can someone track an "air hacker?" So what if they get a hotmail address, password, or MAC?

[Mike Temporale]

*sings* This is the thread that never ends....
Hey, it's better than starting a new thread about the same old topic. ;-)


Sorry PetiteFlower, I'm going to chime in now (only because Steve linked to this thread....) You might want to unsubscribe if you're truely sick of this topic :wink:


Here's a scenario: I'm running WinXP Pro, and do not connect my laptop to my clients network. Sitting at my desk, my laptop picks up a WAP, and automatically configures the connection. This is a feature in XP. MSN Messanger then detects that there is an active internet connection and logs me in. My Messanger then lights up as my friends attempt to contact me.

At what point was a law broken? And who is at fault? I'm curious to see what people think on this.

[sponge]

You can't compare a network to a house. What if your "house/network" is on my property? By this thinking, I could possibly take legal action about it!

The fact is, there is no definite answer, until a court hands down a ruling stating one way or another. It's the same thing as Napster, etc, something big and new, with no real legal backing yet.

I'm going to keep on using open wireless networks though, I haven't a problem with it. If they're going to be uneducated about their product's abilities, that's their perogative. They bought it, they better secure it if they don't want people coming in.

(besides, we can have all the laws we want, but it won't help track the person down, and security by legislation never works)

SUPERNERD_DAVE: It all depends on the router. Mine for example says "Wireless PC Connected", then DHCP lease IP 192.168.0.8 to gamblealanc, where gamblealanc was the client. (This is actually from my logs, someone was using my network briefly a few days back.)

What you call "air hacking" is no different than normal hacking, just that it's much more anonymous. Probably a bit easier, considering your already on an internal network. But I practice security outside and in, hence my keeping my AP open (that and the fact it barely reaches to the road)

[Pat Logsdon]

In that scenario, I think Microsoft broke the law - you didn't do anything but sit there fiddling with a Word document (or whatever).

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the majority of people a) don't know about that Windows XP "feature" and b) don't know much (if anything) about WiFi. That being the case, I think it would be hard for a prosecutor to successfully argue that there was any kind of criminal intent on the part of the user in the above scenario. The fault lies with the party that actually committed the illegal act - in this case, a piece of software "owned" (as per the licensing agreement) by Microsoft, which was acting on its own with no input from the user.

On the other hand, there's the saying "ignorance is no excuse for the law". If you noticed the connection, and then proceeded to connect to Kazaa and download "The Matrix", that would probably be a pretty good indication that you knew that what you were doing was illegal. :wink:

[Pony99CA]

You can't compare a network to a house. What if your "house/network" is on my property? By this thinking, I could possibly take legal action about it!

Of course I can compare the two; in fact, I did. :-D

If you want a closer analogy, though, cordless phone connections could conceivably reach onto your property, too. Does that give you the right to call out on someone else's phone line? Both cordless phones and WiFi are just wireless means of accessing a specific network.

The fact is, there is no definite answer, until a court hands down a ruling stating one way or another. It's the same thing as Napster, etc, something big and new, with no real legal backing yet.

That's only partially true. Existing laws applied quite clearly to the people doing the swapping. The only real issue is whether Napster itself was guilty of anything.

I'm going to keep on using open wireless networks though, I haven't a problem with it. If they're going to be uneducated about their product's abilities, that's their perogative. They bought it, they better secure it if they don't want people coming in.

(besides, we can have all the laws we want, but it won't help track the person down, and security by legislation never works)

You certainly can't legislate morality. If you're going to be a criminal, that's your prerogative. And make no mistake about it -- you are a criminal regardless of how dumb you think the victim is or how difficult you may be to catch.

I agree that tracking a violator down isn't easy, but don't whine about it if you do get caught. The old saying applies: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

Steve

[Pony99CA]

I think it would be hard for a prosecutor to successfully argue that there was any kind of criminal intent on the part of the user in the above scenario. The fault lies with the party that actually committed the illegal act - in this case, a piece of software "owned" (as per the licensing agreement) by Microsoft, which was acting on its own with no input from the user.

I would hope that the prosecutor would realize that there was no criminal intent and decline to prosecute the case. I certainly would dismiss it as a judge.

Steve

[Mike Temporale]

Okay, let me change a couple things....

Instead of you, me, or any of us "tech savy" folk at the keyboard, you put Joe Manager. He only uses the machine for word, excel, and email. He has no understanding of the inner workings of the computer, or network, or WAP. All he knows is that the IT guys gave him this new fancy laptop that has a wireless networking card so that he can send his emails from the warehouse.

One night he's riding his train home. While at one the trains stops he sees the pop-up saying he's connected to a network. Having no knowledge that this is any different than the warehouse, he sends his email and downloads the weather.

Has he broken the law?

In my understanding, trespassing implies an unwarranted, unlawful, or offensive intrusion. If I was walking on a public hiking path. The path splits. There are no signs indicating which path is public, and which isn't, so I take the trail to the right. It leads through the forest and up to farmer John's house. Have I trespassed?

[thomas1973]

You can't compare a network to a house. What if your "house/network" is on my property? By this thinking, I could possibly take legal action about it!

Of course I can compare the two; in fact, I did. :-D

Steve
Clever answer - not :twak: The area the wireless network covers isn't necessarily yours, so you need to put up some kind of access protection to tell people to keep out. The other thing is that your home is a very sacred place, both in most peoples minds and in the law. Do you feel you can shoot and kill people that gain access to your WiFi, as it is the same as if they walked into your house in the middle of the night? Do you feel violated in the same way if someone walked into your house, as if they downloaded their mail from your network? Come on! I totally agree with sponge that you can't compare the two.

How about if you leave your newspaper on a bench in the park? It's still yours, so it would be a criminal offence to read it, even if the reader gave it back when you returned??? Or more far fetched (just to get the 'twak' back :wink: ): You put up a drinking fountain - constantly running - in a public place, with no signs on it, but still you complain when people drink from it.

And the wireless phone thing: That's the reason they are protected. The same goes for sattelite/cable TV. How do you know the channels you're watching are free? You probably assume the ones you can recieve are free, or are the ones you've paid for, as the provider will probably put up some kind of scrambling if he wants you to pay.

Thomas.

[Pat Logsdon]

If I was walking on a public hiking path. The path splits. There are no signs indicating which path is public, and which isn't, so I take the trail to the right. It leads through the forest and up to farmer John's house. Have I trespassed?
If there are no signs posted, I don't think you've trespassed. If, however, Farmer John yells at you from his fishin' spot on the creek to get the heck off his property and you DON'T, that's trespassing.

I got my interpretation from the information contained in this link:

http://santamonicapd.org/information/trespass.htm

Obviously, as laws are different in different parts of the world, YMMV. :D

I think that the trespassing analogy kind of breaks down with this particular issue, since there isn't a real-world analogy for what the software does. Until there are new laws for this sort of thing, I think it's all just splitting hairs.

[Pony99CA]

You can't compare a network to a house. What if your "house/network" is on my property? By this thinking, I could possibly take legal action about it!

Of course I can compare the two; in fact, I did. :-D

Steve

Clever answer - not :twak: The area the wireless network covers isn't necessarily yours, so you need to put up some kind of access protection to tell people to keep out. The other thing is that your home is a very sacred place, both in most peoples minds and in the law. Do you feel you can shoot and kill people that gain access to your WiFi, as it is the same as if they walked into your house in the middle of the night? Do you feel violated in the same way if someone walked into your house, as if they downloaded their mail from your network? Come on! I totally agree with sponge that you can't compare the two.

Clever editing -- NOT. Of course, I realize that it makes your argument much easier when you quote me out of context, doesn't it?

First, you certainly can compare the two; you may not be able to equate them, though. As I've always said, comparing apples and oranges is easy; what's at issue is whether the comparison is relevant -- as I believe it was.

Second, while I may not be able to shoot someone who is on my network, I certainly wouldn't have any compunction against using their computer. Oops, did I delete all of your files? :twisted:

The degree of punishment should be comparable to the potential harm caused -- someone in my house could kill me, but it's doubtful someone on my network could. That doesn't mean both aren't crimes and aren't analogous at some level.

Finally, next time you want to attack my post, leave the relevant points in -- like my analogy with a cordless phone -- OK? Leaving only my flippant statement and editing out the important content is intellectually dishonest. (And you can't say you just deleted everything after the comment, as my signture was still quoted.)


Steve

[thomas1973]

Finally, next time you want to attack my post, leave the relevant points in -- like my analogy with a cordless phone -- OK? Leaving only my flippant statement and editing out the important content is intellectually dishonest. (And you can't say you just deleted everything after the comment, as my signture was still quoted.)


Steve
I guess I just wanted to use the :twak: :D , and I really think your comment deserved it. I guess I should have kept the rest of your quote there as well, or at least cut your name from the quote, as the name implied that the short comment was your entire post - sorry. In my defense, I did follow up on the cordless phone thing...

First, you certainly can compare the two; you may not be able to equate them, though. As I've always said, comparing apples and oranges is easy; what's at issue is whether the comparison is relevant -- as I believe it was.

When comparing two things like you did, in this context, you imply a close resemblance - that they are, in many ways, the same. I do not believe trespassing into someones home has any other resemblance to using someones network, than that you call them both crimes.
And as for just comparing two crimes, I don't feel it's always intellectually proper to do so, as in comparing a person littering to a cold blooded serial killer: They're both criminals. Of course, you can do so, as you proved in your previous post - but it might look silly...


Thomas.

[Pony99CA]

First, you certainly can compare the two; you may not be able to equate them, though. As I've always said, comparing apples and oranges is easy; what's at issue is whether the comparison is relevant -- as I believe it was.
When comparing two things like you did, in this context, you imply a close resemblance - that they are, in many ways, the same. I do not believe trespassing into someones home has any other resemblance to using someones network, than that you call them both crimes.

There is more in common than both being crimes. The house is my property, something I'm paying for, as is my network.

In both cases, someone is "coming into" my property without my permission. Lack of security on my network doesn't imply permission to use it, just like leaving the door of my house open doesn't imply that anybody is free to walk in.

If you don't like the analogy, feel free to forget about it. Just explain how a lack of security on anyone's network makes you think you have the right to use it. Saying you didn't know that it was private is irrelevant; if you don't have a reasonable expectation to believe it's public (like an SSID with the word "open" or "public" in it), don't use it.

In my defense, I did follow up on the cordless phone thing...
Actually, I wasn't sure that you did. You mentioned "wireless phones", not "cordless phones". You're not in the U.S, so maybe those terms mean the same thing in Denmark. Here, a wireless phone is usually a cellular phone, while a cordless phone uses normal landlines but the handset is connected to the base with radio, not a cord. If two people happened to have the same cordless phone channels set, they could hear each other's calls. If I set my handset to my neighbor's channel and set my base to a different channel, or if I was closer to his base than mine, I could even make calls on that neighbor's phone line.

If I didn't know that I was using his phone line and accidentally did, that's one thing. If my neighbor came to me and asked, I'd apologize and offer to pay for any calls I had made. I'd also change my phone's channel. But if I knew that I wasn't using my line, wouldn't you agree that I was committing a crime?

Now, if I discover a WiFi network and know that it's not one I have permission to use (my own, my work, etc.), but use it anyway, wouldn't you agree that that is taking a risk? Yes, it could be public, but it could be private, too. If you're not sure, why not err on the side of caution? Is checking your E-mail or Web surfing that important?

Steve

[thomas1973]

There is more in common than both being crimes. The house is my property, something I'm paying for, as is my network.

In both cases, someone is "coming into" my property without my permission. Lack of security on my network doesn't imply permission to use it, just like leaving the door of my house open doesn't imply that anybody is free to walk in.

If you don't like the analogy, feel free to forget about it.
Okay, I will...
Just explain how a lack of security on anyone's network makes you think you have the right to use it.
I was using my forgotten newspaper on a bench analogy for that.

In my defense, I did follow up on the cordless phone thing...
Actually, I wasn't sure that you did. You mentioned "wireless phones", not "cordless phones". You're not in the U.S, so maybe those terms mean the same thing in Denmark. Here, a wireless phone is usually a cellular phone, while a cordless phone uses normal landlines but the handset is connected to the base with radio, not a cord. If two people happened to have the same cordless phone channels set, they could hear each other's calls. If I set my handset to my neighbor's channel and set my base to a different channel, or if I was closer to his base than mine, I could even make calls on that neighbor's phone line.

If I didn't know that I was using his phone line and accidentally did, that's one thing. If my neighbor came to me and asked, I'd apologize and offer to pay for any calls I had made. I'd also change my phone's channel. But if I knew that I wasn't using my line, wouldn't you agree that I was committing a crime?

Now, if I discover a WiFi network and know that it's not one I have permission to use (my own, my work, etc.), but use it anyway, wouldn't you agree that that is taking a risk? Yes, it could be public, but it could be private, too. If you're not sure, why not err on the side of caution? Is checking your E-mail or Web surfing that important?

Steve
Sorry, that's my 'Danglish' shining through. Here in Denmark they often mix wireless/cordless in ads, and cell phone or mobile phone is mostly used for - well - cell phones. But I guess cordless is the correct term. And I actually agree more on using that analogy - it's way closer than the going into your home analogy. So with this one I see your point, except that with the phone, your using his only (or maybe 'only' one of two) line(s), and he's paying for the uptime - on a WiFi network you'll be using a negligable amount of the other guys connection, and he's paying for the connection, not how much he downloads (at least that's the case on 99% of networks in Denmark). Okay, so you can't say it's not a crime, just because what your taking is so small, and all that, but still - you can, as we all do, every day. We commit tiny little crimes because it makes our day run smoother, and we don't really feel we're hurting anyone (jaywalking an empty street, reading the newspaper on the bench, borrowing a pen without asking (thereby 'stealing' someones ink) and so on...). So, is downloading my mail that important? Well, is protecting your network from someone using 78kb of your 2Mb connection that important?

Personally I couldn't care less if someone used my WiFi to do so, as long as I could be certain they behaved, and didn't try to break into my PC or something.


Thomas.

[Pony99CA]

Just explain how a lack of security on anyone's network makes you think you have the right to use it.
I was using my forgotten newspaper on a bench analogy for that.

But the newspaper analogy breaks down on a few fronts. First, you could argue the owner actually committed a crime -- littering. Second, the newspaper could easily be viewed as abandoned, something I doubt would be true of a network.

Now, suppose instead of a newspaper, you found somebody's wallet on the park bench. Would you feel it was acceptable to take the money from the wallet because the owner didn't choose to "secure" it?

Now, if I discover a WiFi network and know that it's not one I have permission to use (my own, my work, etc.), but use it anyway, wouldn't you agree that that is taking a risk? Yes, it could be public, but it could be private, too. If you're not sure, why not err on the side of caution? Is checking your E-mail or Web surfing that important?
So, is downloading my mail that important? Well, is protecting your network from someone using 78kb of your 2Mb connection that important?

How do you know what bandwidth the user has? I currently have 768 kbps DSL, but it's only 200 kbps upstream. Before I got DSL, I actually had my router hooked to my 56 kbps modem (which of course was more like 50-53 kbps). I was basically the only user of my network, but I wanted my daughter to be able to access the Internet occasionally, too, so I put a WiFi card in her laptop.

Now suppose I hadn't secured my WiFi connection (I use WEP and MAC checking, but we're being hypothetical). Somebody downloading their E-mail could easily use a good portion of my 56 kbps line. Does that change your feeling about this? It shouldn't, of course -- even if I have my own OC3 line, that doesn't mean I want other people using it.

Here's a true story. When I got my new laptop, I was having trouble accessing the Internet from it. I could see the other machines on the LAN, but not the Internet.

As a test, I put my laptop in my router's DMZ, but that didn't work. I eventually called my ISP and they helped me find the problem. I had set my Gateway IP address to my ISP's gateway machine instead of my router. I changed my laptop to fix that and went about my surfing.

A month later, while checking my router logs, I happened to check my other LAN settings. Surprise! My laptop was still in the DMZ. :oops:

So, just because I had forgotten to turn off my DMZ, my laptop was exposed to the Internet for a month. Would my forgetfulness mean that gave permission for others to access my computer? I don't think so.

Steve

[thomas1973]

No, people shouldn't access your computer, but I feel that if outsiders are using a company's or person's network, and they don't secure it, it's because they don't notice the extra use, or don't care. If they have a 56kb modem, they probably will notice, and will most probably secure it, with a simple password or MAC filtering.

I just feel it's blowing this stuff out of proportions to get so worked up about someone accessing and using a tiny portion of your network access. It's like going into a frenzy over someone using your ballpoint for a second without asking.

Thomas.

[Mike Temporale]

Until there are new laws for this sort of thing, I think it's all just splitting hairs.

Exactly. The software/hardware has made it far to easy.

I don't think you'll see any successful legal action until the hardware starts shipping secured. It would be easy enough to do. Just auto-generate a WEP code, and stick a warning notice on the top of the WAP.

[Pony99CA]

Until there are new laws for this sort of thing, I think it's all just splitting hairs.
Exactly. The software/hardware has made it far to easy.

Why don't you think existing anti-hacking laws would be sufficient? Just because something is easy doesn't make it legal. If somebody produced software that made it easy to break into a bank's records and transfer money to your account, I don't think the ease would mitigate the blame.

Now, if you want to say that the hardware and software make it more likely to be done accidentally, that's true. However, the limited range of most WiFi installations makes it harder to claim that you thought you were on a network that you had permission to be on.

For example, if your WAP and your neighbor's WAP both shared default SSIDs, and you ended up accidentally using his, I would agree that no crime had occurred. It's just interference of a type. Once you move beyond 500 feet from your WAP, though, that excuse disappears.

Steve

[thomas1973]

OK, I'm off... I guess we just disagree to how serious this 'crime' is. I think it's nothing. You can yell crime! all you want, I just can't take that very seriously. If that makes me a hard boiled criminal in some peoples eyes, so be it. Just as other great crimes like jaywalking across an empty street or borrowing a pen for a minute without asking, I will - if I ever get a WiFi card for my PPC - get my mail and weather at any open network I can find if I'm out of town or something. So if you don't like it, get a password or MAC filtering on your WiFi network. As I will not break into any network (not that I could :lol: ), and under no circumstances would I abuse the network by downloading huge files, or trying to access the computers on it - I just want to borrow a tiny piece of bandwidth for a couple of minutes - hope that doesn't piss you off too much.

And Pony99CA, you're welcome to use my WiFi network any time you're in Denmark. That's a standing invitation, so no need to ask permition - you've already got it :D


Thomas.

[Pony99CA]

And Pony99CA, you're welcome to use my WiFi network any time you're in Denmark. That's a standing invitation, so no need to ask permition - you've already got it :D
OK, deal. And if you ever get to Hollister, California, I'll add your MAC to my router while you're here.

Steve

[Mike Temporale]

Why don't you think existing anti-hacking laws would be sufficient? Just because something is easy doesn't make it legal. If somebody produced software that made it easy to break into a bank's records and transfer money to your account, I don't think the ease would mitigate the blame.

Now, if you want to say that the hardware and software make it more likely to be done accidentally, that's true. However, the limited range of most WiFi installations makes it harder to claim that you thought you were on a network that you had permission to be on.

For example, if your WAP and your neighbor's WAP both shared default SSIDs, and you ended up accidentally using his, I would agree that no crime had occurred. It's just interference of a type. Once you move beyond 500 feet from your WAP, though, that excuse disappears.

Steve

Why? because there is no intent. Remember, I'm not talking about you, me or any other tech guy. This technology is being used by the average Joe, that has no understanding of networking or computers.

I have to disagree with the bank comparison. If someone said "Download this software and every time you run it, you will get $100." I would say "What's the catch". There is no money for nothing. Regardless of my computer knowledge. Now, if someone told me "Buy this laptop. It has a wireless network card so you can connect to the internet without wires" Free internet access can be had across most of North America, so I doubt that the average Joe would understand what is really happening.

Is he breaking the law? Yes. Will he be found guilty? no way.

As for 500 feet, that all depends. One of my clients (a large automobile maker) installed wireless in the plant. They also put an antenna on the roof reaching 5 kilometers. More than a couple employees could access the wireless network from their house with company supplied laptops. I don't think some of those guys understand the difference between the signal in the local coffee shop, and the one in their house is any different.

[Pony99CA]

Why? because there is no intent. Remember, I'm not talking about you, me or any other tech guy. This technology is being used by the average Joe, that has no understanding of networking or computers.

[...] Now, if someone told me "Buy this laptop. It has a wireless network card so you can connect to the internet without wires" Free internet access can be had across most of North America, so I doubt that the average Joe would understand what is really happening.

Is he breaking the law? Yes. Will he be found guilty? no way.

Actually, I'm not even sure he's breaking the law. Generally there has to be intent.

If somebody knows accessing other people's networks is illegal, but isn't aware that they were accessing somebody else's network, I don't think a crime has been committed. If somebody intends to use a network that they don't believe they have legitimate access to, that's where I draw the line, whether or not the person knows it's illegal or not.

As for 500 feet, that all depends. One of my clients (a large automobile maker) installed wireless in the plant. They also put an antenna on the roof reaching 5 kilometers.
I know that WiFi can extend farther than the 300 feet claimed; 500 feet was just a ballpark for most cases. That's why I said, "the limited range of most WiFi installations" (emphasis added).

However, it's still irrelevant. If you have permission to use a network, I suspect you'll have a decent understanding as to how far away you can access it. Most home networks will probably be the standard 300 feet, corporate networks will likely try to limit their range to their premises (to avoid hacking) and public networks will probably tell users the coverage area.

Steve

[David Prahl]

Is there an online database of personal APs people are sharing? I found one for Washington state, U.S.A, but could not find a USA or world version.

I'd like to be able to share my 3mbps wireless with other nerds/geeks, and do it in a way so that spammers or crackers could not abuse it.

Is there some online database like this?

[thomas1973]

Is there an online database of personal APs people are sharing? I found one for Washington state, U.S.A, but could not find a USA or world version.

I'd like to be able to share my 3mbps wireless with other nerds/geeks, and do it in a way so that spammers or crackers could not abuse it.

Is there some online database like this?
Good man! :way to go:

Thomas.

[Pony99CA]

Is there an online database of personal APs people are sharing? I found one for Washington state, U.S.A, but could not find a USA or world version.

I'd like to be able to share my 3mbps wireless with other nerds/geeks, and do it in a way so that spammers or crackers could not abuse it.

Is there some online database like this?
There are lots of databases, actually. Do a :google: search on free wifi hotspots to see just how many.

As I haven't used any of these, I can't recommend any specific ones, and I don't know what their policy is for adding new hotspots.

Steve

[rzanology]

OMG!!! here we go again. Every time...EVERY TIME!!!! why can't you people just act like normal people for once. YES we all know what war driving yes...YES we have all down it in one way or the other...and YES most of you are lying through you teeth. I can bet 99.9% of you own wifi cards....so you are telling me you bought it just to use in your house and starbucks? lol come on man. You can't be serious. If he wants to know something about war drivng just tell him. If he gets in trouble then thats his fault. If he hacks the crap outtah one of you...then thats your fault for not protecting your stuff. FOR ONCE can you people just relax and stop acting like saints?!?!?!

[Steven Cedrone]

OMG!!! here we go again. Every time...EVERY TIME!!!! why can't you people just act like normal people for once. YES we all know what war driving yes...YES we have all down it in one way or the other...and YES most of you are lying through you teeth. I can bet 99.9% of you own wifi cards....so you are telling me you bought it just to use in your house and starbucks? lol come on man. You can't be serious. If he wants to know something about war drivng just tell him. If he gets in trouble then thats his fault. If he hacks the crap outtah one of you...then thats your fault for not protecting your stuff. FOR ONCE can you people just relax and stop acting like saints?!?!?!

Ummm....

No more coffee for you!!! :wink:

The key word from your little outburst is: relax

Steve

[Pat Logsdon]

most of you are lying through you teeth.
Scene from a field trip to the Internet Museum in 2035:

And over HERE, children, we can see the dreaded INTERNET TROLL (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll)! Note the broad, sweeping, derogatory generalizations, the terrible spelling and grammar, and the obscene use of punctuation. See how he tries to use insults to get a rise out of the thread participants? :roll:

[PetiteFlower]

I thought he hated Axims anyway, what's he doing in our forum?

You know my dad has a wireless laptop and told me he's been "wardriving" as we would call it. I told him it was illegal and unethical and he didn't believe me. I tried the "leaving door unlocked" metaphor but I still don't know if he got it.

[Janak Parekh]

...and YES most of you are lying through you teeth. I can bet 99.9% of you own wifi cards....so you are telling me you bought it just to use in your house and starbucks? lol come on man. You can't be serious.
I take offense at this. :? I own 2 Wi-Fi cards (an Orinoco PC card, and a Socket CF I card) and I have never even bothered to wardrive. Yes, I bought it to roam around home and to use it at workplaces or predetermined public access points.

--janak

[thomas1973]

OMG!!! here we go again. Every time...EVERY TIME!!!! why can't you people just act like normal people for once. FOR ONCE can you people just relax and stop acting like saints?!?!?!
I, for one, agree with rzanology here. This is what I wanted to point out on this thread, as well as the 'Kazaa is No. 1' thread. I mean, someone must be using this stuff for more or less illegal stuff - after all it is a big problem. But no one on this site, noooo. I've never downloaded any copyrighted material from Kazaa, I've never done any wardriving, I wouldn't even be around people who do, blah blah.... I never even drive too fast in my car or jaywalk, I never even stole an apple from the neighbors apple tree when I was a kid blah blah... :2gunfire: :angel:

I'm not condoning these acts, but sometimes 'the holier than thou' attitude often found here gets to me. :grumble:

Still, I love hanging out here for all the other threads. Maybe I should just avoid any controversial threads, as the goody goody attitude is sure to P me off... :roll: :D


Thomas.

PS. Surgical Snack, I liked your Wikipedia reference. Wikipedia is fantastic! Only problem is that every time I go there, I get stuck, following tangetial topics and not getting out until hours later :D ! DS.

[David Prahl]

On a recent business trip, my boss and I drove across the state to do some IT work. He loved wardriving more than I did! We found 20 networks along the highway (not many, but alot for highway driving!), and even found an entire town bathed in public wi-fi (no WEP, by the way! :lol: ). Turns out the city wanted to charge $33 a month! We were able to get in no sweat (it was his idea, and because I'm under 18 he gets in trouble, not me!). :wink:

Just to put the cherry on top, we work for a religious organization, and are good, law-abiding citizens. We both agree that there is nothing wrong with war driving.

There is nothing wrong with running netStumbler or pocketWiNc while you're driving around. In my opinion, you're "looking at the open front door," not "going in" (until you check e-mail or something).

[thomas1973]

On a recent business trip, my boss and I drove across the state to do some IT work. He loved wardriving more than I did! We found 20 networks along the highway (not many, but alot for highway driving!), and even found an entire town bathed in public wi-fi (no WEP, by the way! :lol: ). Turns out the city wanted to charge $33 a month! We were able to get in no sweat (it was his idea, and because I'm under 18 he gets in trouble, not me!). :wink:

Just to put the cherry on top, we work for a religious organization, and are good, law-abiding citizens. We both agree that there is nothing wrong with war driving.
That's what we need to hear! A bit of 'crazy' behaviour - break with the community's conformity!

I was about to talk about conformity and holding all deviating persons down, and pushing it further, until envoking Godwin's Law (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law) :lol: ... But I'll stop now.


Thomas

[David Prahl]

Here are some screenshots! :D

I was using pocket WiNc, and please don't try and use AP names to track me down!

I don't know why a second start button showed up in the shot... :?:

http://home.new.rr.com/prahl/Screen002.jpg

http://home.new.rr.com/prahl/Screen006.jpg
NOTICE HOW THEY USED THEIR WEP KEY AS THEIR SSID? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Pony99CA]

There is nothing wrong with running netStumbler or pocketWiNc while you're driving around. In my opinion, you're "looking at the open front door," not "going in" (until you check e-mail or something).
Actually, I believe that is true (contrary to what Petite Flower told her dad), and your analogy is basically correct. You can't be held accountable for noticing that somebody left their front door open; going in that door would be the point where you've crossed the line.

Of course, I think driving around looking for open doors (or active WiFi points) is a pretty strong indication of a really boring life. :-D

Steve

[David Prahl]

Of course, I think driving around looking for open doors (or active WiFi points) is a pretty strong indication of a really boring life. :-D


What else does one do on a three hour drive?? Look at the coutryside?
:way to go:

[Pony99CA]

What else does one do on a three hour drive?? Look at the coutryside?
I wonder how people with long drives survived before the invention of WiFi. :roll: Oh yeah, they listened to the radio or CDs, played driving games or maybe even talked about something. (I know, nerds aren't very good at conversation. :lol:)

When I visit relatives in Arizona, I have a 10+ hour drive along mostly boring freeways (I-5 and I-10). I didn't run a WiFi scanner once (not that I could; I was using my 3870 with its GPS sleeve).

But, out of curiosity, what do you if there's no WiFi point found? For that matter, what do you do if you do find one? Say "Hey, another WiFi point. Wow, that's a really funny SSID" or something?

Steve

[Janak Parekh]

But, out of curiosity, what do you if there's no WiFi point found? For that matter, what do you do if you do find one? Say "Hey, another WiFi point. Wow, that's a really funny SSID" or something?
My point exactly.

In my case, if I'm stuck on a trip, I'll have several ebooks and games to play with. The last thing I want to do is to be online on a random Wi-Fi network that might disappear in 3 seconds. ;)

--janak

[David Prahl]

It's not the focal point of my existence; I start PocketWiNc and set my Axim on the dashboard. The battery can last quite a while, so normal conversation (or at least normal for nerds) can continue, and only be augmented by the occasional discovery of a WLAN.

It's fun to see SSIDs pop up, and guess where they are (except for "linksys" and "default", the most common in residential areas!).

We found a store in a small town that sold grain and seed, but had WEP running! On the same trip we found an unsecured AP whose SSID was the name of a computer store directly where we found it.

It's interesting to see who has Wi-Fi, and who uses WEP!

An access point is a window into a man's soul...(or at least his network!) :mrgreen:

[PetiteFlower]

Actually, I believe that is true (contrary to what Petite Flower told her dad), and your analogy is basically correct. You can't be held accountable for noticing that somebody left their front door open; going in that door would be the point where you've crossed the line.

No he told me he actually USES other people's networks. Sorry if I used the wrong word. Of course there is a difference and it's not illegal/immoral if you're not actually trying to enter someone's network.

[Pony99CA]

No he told me he actually USES other people's networks.
Ah, then your advice is probably good. :-) If he knows the people, I'd suggest having him ask them if it's OK.

If somebody wanted to use my network, I'd likely give them permission if they asked. If they didn't, I'd give them something else. :devilboy:

Steve

[Kaber]

What I can offer to this conversation is this...

I like to WarDrive. I like to know where wireless networks are and who is using them. It interests me, just as my other hobbies also interest me. I would relate it to birdwatching and geochaching. It gets you outdoors to mingle with the environment.

As far as who uses WiFi networks without permission, Steve Ballmer (http://www.infoworld.com/article/02/07/19/020722opcurve_1.html) does. Or he was 1 year ago.

For all his success at bringing Microsoft's warring constituencies together, there are still things beyond Bill and Steve's control. "I was in a hotel in Sun Valley last week that was not wired," Ballmer recalls. "So I turned on my PC, and XP tells me there is a wireless network available. So I connect to something called Mountaineer.

"Well, I don't know what that is. But I VPN into Microsoft. It worked! I don't know whose broadband I used," he chuckles. "I didn't see it in Bill's room. I called him up and said, 'Hey, come over to my room.' So soon everyone is there and connecting to the Internet through my room."

Lastly, anyone who involves themselves in criminal enterprises or illegal activities is a fool to ever talk about them in a public forum.

Especially today.

[Pony99CA]

As far as who uses WiFi networks without permission, Steve Ballmer (http://www.infoworld.com/article/02/07/19/020722opcurve_1.html) does. Or he was 1 year ago.

And we know that a CEO would never do anything illegal. <cough>Enron, Worldcom, Martha Stewart, Adelphia<cough>

Lastly, anyone who involves themselves in criminal enterprises or illegal activities is a fool to ever talk about them in a public forum.

Especially today.
Definitely, but I guess he figured the "crime" was so minor that he didn't worry about it. I think it would be interesting if Mountaineer filed charges based on his public statement. :-D

Steve

[Mike Temporale]

Sorry for the delay in responding here. Things got a little hairy at work, and then vacation kicked in. Of course, now I'm busy reading up on all the new stuff that happened while I was away. :mrgreen:


As for 500 feet, that all depends. One of my clients (a large automobile maker) installed wireless in the plant. They also put an antenna on the roof reaching 5 kilometers.
I know that WiFi can extend farther than the 300 feet claimed; 500 feet was just a ballpark for most cases. That's why I said, "the limited range of most WiFi installations" (emphasis added).

However, it's still irrelevant. If you have permission to use a network, I suspect you'll have a decent understanding as to how far away you can access it. Most home networks will probably be the standard 300 feet, corporate networks will likely try to limit their range to their premises (to avoid hacking) and public networks will probably tell users the coverage area.

Steve

I think you're expecting too much from the average user. When I started working, I spent a good amount of time on a helpdesk. It took me a while before I fully grasped the lack of knowledge that the average user has. Most know enough to do their job and that's it. These people will not understand that wireless access at work is any different than wireless access from a private unsecured AP. It's even worse when you consider that they see RIM/BlackBerry users connecting from anywhere. It's "wireless". There is a big difference in these methods, but most people don't understand. That's my point. Until the public becomes more educated on WiFi, you won't see any successful action taken against people that "borrow" bandwidth. (Note: this is different than people that use an open AP to attack that network)

[Mike Temporale]

I like to WarDrive. I like to know where wireless networks are and who is using them. It interests me, just as my other hobbies also interest me. I would relate it to birdwatching and geochaching. It gets you outdoors to mingle with the environment.


I wouldn't consider it a past time or anything. However, on my recent vacation, I turned on NetStumbler a couple times to see what's around. We stayed in a B&B in the NY Finger Lake region. The town was so small, there was no signals. On the way home we stayed in Niagara Falls (Canada side) and I found that my hotel had a WiFi unsecured. As did a couple other hotels. I would assume that these are meant for the hotel guests.

Oh, and to the guy on McLeod Rd. (just down the street from my hotel) nice SSID. I thought about stopping to let you know, but we had places to go. :)