Go Back   Wireless and Wifi Forums > News > Newsgroups > alt.internet.wireless
Register FAQ Forum Rules Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Advertise Mark Forums Read

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2005, 03:47 PM
roger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Best way to steal neighbor's wireless signal?

have a wireless card in my laptop and picked up a pretty good signal
from someone's Linksys access point in my building.


I bought a Netgear cable/dsl wireless router (4 Ethernet ports also )
thinking I can set it up as a repeater (for the stolen signal) and be
able to hook in other (wired) PC's in my apartment. The problem is, the

antenna is only a transmitter (as far as I can tell) and the router
expects an Internet connection to come from the dsl/cable port. Did I
get the wrong box? I saw an Ethernet bridge on the Netgear site. Is
this what I need?


Thanks
Rog


Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2005, 03:58 PM
Duane Arnold
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Best way to steal neighbor's wireless signal?

roger wrote:

> have a wireless card in my laptop and picked up a pretty good signal
> from someone's Linksys access point in my building.
>
>
> I bought a Netgear cable/dsl wireless router (4 Ethernet ports also )
> thinking I can set it up as a repeater (for the stolen signal) and be
> able to hook in other (wired) PC's in my apartment. The problem is, the
>
> antenna is only a transmitter (as far as I can tell) and the router
> expects an Internet connection to come from the dsl/cable port. Did I
> get the wrong box? I saw an Ethernet bridge on the Netgear site. Is
> this what I need?


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._wi_fi_theft_1

The above is what's in the link below and it may be of interest to you.

<g>

http://tinyurl.com/bukt2

Duane :)


Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2005, 04:06 PM
Duane Arnold
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Oops, it doesn't look like the link is there anymore.

Anyway, it was about a person who went to jail for stealing neighbor's
wireless connection to access the Internet.

<g>

Duane :)

Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2005, 04:16 PM
Duane Arnold
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Here you go. ;-)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search

http://tinyurl.com/77uuz

Duane

Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2005, 05:44 PM
Avalanche
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Best way to steal neighbor's wireless signal?

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:58:01 GMT, Duane Arnold <Notme@notme.com>
wrote:

>roger wrote:
>
>> have a wireless card in my laptop and picked up a pretty good signal
>> from someone's Linksys access point in my building.
>>
>>
>> I bought a Netgear cable/dsl wireless router (4 Ethernet ports also )
>> thinking I can set it up as a repeater (for the stolen signal) and be
>> able to hook in other (wired) PC's in my apartment. The problem is, the
>>
>> antenna is only a transmitter (as far as I can tell) and the router
>> expects an Internet connection to come from the dsl/cable port. Did I
>> get the wrong box? I saw an Ethernet bridge on the Netgear site. Is
>> this what I need?

>
>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._wi_fi_theft_1
>
>The above is what's in the link below and it may be of interest to you.
>
><g>
>
>http://tinyurl.com/bukt2
>
>Duane :)


Unfortunately that link has expired or is unavailable.

Gee, at least when someone asks here how to do stuff like this, they
usually (or often) ask whether it's legal or moral!

Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2005, 05:52 PM
johnny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Best way to steal neighbor's wireless signal?

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:47:01 -0700, roger wrote:

> have a wireless card in my laptop and picked up a pretty good signal
> from someone's Linksys access point in my building.
>
>
> I bought a Netgear cable/dsl wireless router (4 Ethernet ports also )
> thinking I can set it up as a repeater (for the stolen signal) and be
> able to hook in other (wired) PC's in my apartment. The problem is, the
>
> antenna is only a transmitter (as far as I can tell) and the router
> expects an Internet connection to come from the dsl/cable port. Did I
> get the wrong box? I saw an Ethernet bridge on the Netgear site. Is
> this what I need?
>
>
> Thanks
> Rog


Steal? I hope they catch your sorry ***.



Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2005, 05:59 PM
Duane Arnold
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Best way to steal neighbor's wireless signal?


> Gee, at least when someone asks here how to do stuff like this, they
> usually (or often) ask whether it's legal or moral!


Why mess around? ;-)

Duane :)


Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2005, 06:00 PM
sam1967
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Best way to steal neighbor's wireless signal?

I could easily steal my neighbours signal if i wanted to. i dont need a
router or an access point, i just need an antenna to point at the wall
to pick up the signal coming from his access point,
set my ssid to be the same as his (it is default of course) and set my
card to get an ip address from his access point / router.


Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2005, 07:19 PM
roger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Best way to steal neighbor's wireless signal?

Yes. I can get my laptop to work fine. I just wanted to hook up other
PCs via wired Ethernet ports also.


Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2005, 08:17 PM
sam1967
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Best way to steal neighbor's wireless signal?

you are taking the p now roger.
why not chap his doore and ask him if you can drill a hole in the hole
and feed through an ethernet cable.


Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2005, 08:17 PM
sam1967
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Best way to steal neighbor's wireless signal?

you are taking the p now roger.
why not chap his door and ask him if you can drill a hole in the wall
and feed through an ethernet cable.


Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2005, 08:54 PM
Luddite
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Oops, it doesn't look like the link is there anymore.

Duane Arnold <Notme@notme.com> wrote:
> Anyway, it was about a person who went to jail for stealing neighbor's
> wireless connection to access the Internet.


My client beleived he was connecting to his own access point,which by
coincedence,and by default of the wireless equipment makes his and the
complainants wireless systems interoperable. we plead not guilty
> <g>


> Duane :)


Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2005, 11:23 PM
sam1967
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Oops, it doesn't look like the link is there anymore.

my client's access point was wide open and his network was abused by
persons unknown to commit internet fraud over which my client had no
control.
further my clients computers were infested with trojans and remote
control programs meaning his computer could be
used to launch fraudulent activities again which he had no control
over.
HIs credit card details were also abused and used to purchase illegal
material over the internet,
my client has been the victim of identity theft and has had his
computer used as a trojan to undermine further his privacy and abuse
his name and identity,
i put it to you that you will find it impossible to prove that my
clients computer and network were abused in the way i have outlined and
therefore all charges against my client should be dropped as it is
impossible to prove my client performed any of the illegal acts without
further evidence such as video evidence and witness statements which
can prove conclusivley it was my client who execute the instructions
and not a malicious third party with access to my clients computer and
his network.


Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-21-2005, 11:29 PM
sam1967
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Oops, it doesn't look like the link is there anymore.

last post should read :

"I put it to you that you will find it impossible to prove that my
clients computer and network were NOT abused in the way I have
outlined"


Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2005, 12:01 AM
Duane Arnold
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Hey why no comments here? ;-)

<g>

Duane :)

Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2005, 12:14 AM
Duane Arnold
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Best way to steal neighbor's wireless signal?

sam1967 wrote:

> you are taking the p now roger.
> why not chap his door and ask him if you can drill a hole in the wall
> and feed through an ethernet cable.


LOL

Duane :)

Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2005, 12:47 AM
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Best way to steal neighbor's wireless signal?

"sam1967" <footballdvds@gmail.com> wrote:
>you are taking the p now roger.
>why not chap his door and ask him if you can drill a hole in the wall
>and feed through an ethernet cable.


Ask for a key to his house, a key to his car, and the PIN on his
credit cards too, while you're at it.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2005, 01:34 AM
Doug Jamal
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Oops, it doesn't look like the link is there anymore.


On 21-Jul-2005, "sam1967" <footballdvds@gmail.com> wrote:

> my client's access point was wide open and his network was abused by
> persons unknown to commit internet fraud over which my client had no
> control.


Although it is unlikely that your client would be charged with internet
fraud, an argument can be made that your client was negligent. Due to the
recent "worldwide" reporting of identity fraud and electronic related
crimes, he should have known to take "reasonable" steps to secure his "wide
open" network in an attempt to prevent him and others from being victims of
such crimes.

> further my clients computers were infested with trojans and remote
> control programs meaning his computer could be
> used to launch fraudulent activities again


Because a great deal of computer owners are in the same situation, this
particular claim would be excused.

> which he had no control
> over.


B.S.! It is not difficult to practice safe computing. There are plenty of
resources, both online and in print that will help a computer user practice
safe computing.


> HIs credit card details were also abused and used to purchase illegal
> material over the internet,


See above regarding "safe computing"

> my client has been the victim of identity theft and has had his
> computer used as a trojan to undermine further his privacy and abuse
> his name and identity,


A trail starts and ends somewhere. When money is involved, that trail has a
scent. So if your client actually committed the fraud, he will be sniffed
out. (LOL)

> i put it to you that you will find it impossible to prove that my
> clients computer and network were abused in the way i have outlined and
> therefore all charges against my client should be dropped as it is
> impossible to prove my client performed any of the illegal acts without
> further evidence such as video evidence and witness statements which
> can prove conclusivley it was my client who execute the instructions
> and not a malicious third party with access to my clients computer and
> his network.


You do realize that law enforcement agencies use hackers to assist them in
claims such as yours. In other words, don't be so quick to acquit.



--
Just Me, D

Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2005, 02:08 AM
Pierre
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Here you go. ;-)

There have been successful prosecutions in both the USA and Australia
recently for WiFi theft. It is generally cheaper to do it legally than hire
a good lawyer.

Pierre

"Duane Arnold" <Notme@notme.com> wrote in message
news:w%ODe.168859$x96.29855@attbi_s72...
>

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...+jail+for+stea
ling+wireless+connection&btnG=Google+Search
>
> http://tinyurl.com/77uuz
>
> Duane




Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2005, 04:57 PM
TV Slug
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Here you go. ;-)

It appears that Pierre <rainsford@ihug.com.au> shook an Etch A Sketch
before scribbling:
> There have been successful prosecutions in both the USA and Australia
> recently for WiFi theft. It is generally cheaper to do it legally
> than hire a good lawyer.
>


Not to mention that hopping on an open access point is a great way to open
*your* computer up to someone else.



Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2005, 05:42 PM
Jeff Liebermann
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Oops, it doesn't look like the link is there anymore.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:34:07 GMT, "Doug Jamal"
<bishiv6AT@yahooDOT.com> wrote:

Yawwwwwwwwwwwnnnn.... OK, let's play lawyer.

>Although it is unlikely that your client would be charged with internet
>fraud, an argument can be made that your client was negligent. Due to the
>recent "worldwide" reporting of identity fraud and electronic related
>crimes, he should have known to take "reasonable" steps to secure his "wide
>open" network in an attempt to prevent him and others from being victims of
>such crimes.


Define "reasonable" and what construes due diligence in this case?
Does having an SSID of "default" or "linksys" represent prima fascia
evidence of negligence? Does such neglect also constitute an
attractive nuisance? What are the generally accepted practices?

Is the owner and operator of the wireless contrivance totally
responsible for its operation? Or do the deep pockets of the
negligent manufactory offer better hunting grounds? Perhaps the
dealer was also negligent by not informing the purchaser of their
risks? Was the customer properly informed that they may be at risk if
they failed to follow instructions (i.e. warning labels)? How about:

Warning. Operating this electronic contraption in an
insecure manner may constitute an information security risk
and may cause data or financial loss.

Personally, I would like to see all unsecured access points have port
80 redirected to an initial splash page that says:

You are a clueless idiot for operating this router without any
encryption. Click here to indemnify the manufacture from any
responsibility and damages resulting from your ineptitude.
[ OK ]

There also is the issue of what constitutes "permission" of the owner
to use the access point. Does it need to be in writing? Are there
any limitations and restrictions? Does giving permission also include
cruising the owners unsecured Windoze computer? Does giving
permission indemnify the user from any subsequent actions and
consequential damages? What is the procedure for revoking permission?

In most states, it is necessary to demonstrate financial loss in order
to sue for damages. The criminal charge of "unauthorized access"
probably also exposes the user to civil charges of financial damage.
However, to what extent does the lack of due diligence on the part of
the access point owner and manufacturer affect the awards?

In my never humble opinion, the issues totally unclear and will
probably be settled inconsistently on a regional basis. I also
suspect that the manufacturers will continue to ship access points
that are by default insecure until some court assigns them partial or
total responsibility for someone's financial loss. Then, it will
swing the other way, and we'll be seeing overwhelming security
features enabled by default. It usually takes a hole in their profits
to get their attention.

>B.S.! It is not difficult to practice safe computing.


That's not the issue. The customer has a "reasonable expectation"
that the wireless contrivance will operate in the advertised manner.
If the wireless contrivance is advertised as having security features,
and those security features are neither functional nor easily enabled,
then the customer cannot be expected to safely operate the device.
Also, the courts tend to rule that a customer must be first informed
of what constitutes "safe computing" in order from them to be
responsible for doing so. Seen any "computer security checklist"
documents included with wireless routers?

>There are plenty of
>resources, both online and in print that will help a computer user practice
>safe computing.


Yep. How many of those documents are in the box with the router? The
alleged victim could also claim that access to all those safe
computing documents first requires internet access, which was
unavailable until AFTER the wireless router was setup in an unsafe
manner.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2005, 07:45 PM
David Taylor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Oops, it doesn't look like the link is there anymore.

> Define "reasonable" and what construes due diligence in this case?

Just to muddy, the terms "reasonable diligence" and "due diligence" are
certainly not the same in the UK, totally different level of diligence
needs to be demonstrated.

:)

David.

Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2005, 08:13 PM
Christian
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Best way to steal neighbor's wireless signal?

A Linksys WET54GS5 will do what you want to do but I suggest you get
approval first from the source you want to use.

"roger" <coretech007@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121957221.885019.123470@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> have a wireless card in my laptop and picked up a pretty good signal
> from someone's Linksys access point in my building.
>
>
> I bought a Netgear cable/dsl wireless router (4 Ethernet ports also )
> thinking I can set it up as a repeater (for the stolen signal) and be
> able to hook in other (wired) PC's in my apartment. The problem is, the
>
> antenna is only a transmitter (as far as I can tell) and the router
> expects an Internet connection to come from the dsl/cable port. Did I
> get the wrong box? I saw an Ethernet bridge on the Netgear site. Is
> this what I need?
>
>
> Thanks
> Rog
>




Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2005, 10:53 PM
Doug Jamal
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Oops, it doesn't look like the link is there anymore.

Point taken.

--
Just Me, D

Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2005, 11:13 PM
Mark McIntyre
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Oops, it doesn't look like the link is there anymore.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:42:40 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , Jeff
Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>Define "reasonable" and what construes due diligence in this case?


Depends on the person, their skill levels, and the role they have. A
computer admin could be reasonably expected to have a certain level of
skill. A mentally impaired person a different one.

>Is the owner and operator of the wireless contrivance totally
>responsible for its operation?


Yes. At least in the US, and until a successful suit shows
otherwise...

>Personally, I would like to see all unsecured access points have port
>80 redirected to an initial splash page that says:
>
> You are a clueless idiot for operating this router without any
> encryption. Click here to indemnify the manufacture from any
> responsibility and damages resulting from your ineptitude.
> [ OK ]


hear hear. Though I'd much prefer routers to be shipped with a
firmware that would not operate till it had run through the minimum
security configuration, and compelled the user to enter a new SSID,
and turn on some sort of encryption.


--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 07-23-2005, 05:56 AM
Jeff Liebermann
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Oops, it doesn't look like the link is there anymore.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:13:34 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:42:40 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , Jeff
>Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>Define "reasonable" and what construes due diligence in this case?


>Depends on the person, their skill levels, and the role they have. A
>computer admin could be reasonably expected to have a certain level of
>skill. A mentally impaired person a different one.


I meant the legal definition, not the functional definition. The way
I under stand it, "reasonable" means average, typical, normal, and
common as in a non-expert in the field. Where this will eventually
cause trouble is defining what are "reasonable expectations" for a
wireless router. For example, the advertising material and package
for wireless routers all proclaim and substantial number of security
features. Everything from encryption to stateful packet inspection.
Would a *REASONABLE* person (i.e. not a computer admin) expect these
features to be functional by default? I think so, and I suspect a
judge would also agree. A reasonable person purchases a vehicle with
anti-lock brakes, said reasonable person would normally expect those
brakes to be functional on delivery. You can walk through an
electronics store and read box and box of advertised features, all of
which are enabled out of the box. The one exception are wireless
routers security features. A liability and assignment of blame tends
to drift toward the culprit with the deepest pockets, I suspect there
will trouble ahead for the manufactories. Also, if they claim that it
can't be done economically, there's always 2Wire.com, which has been
shipping secure by default wireless routers for years.

>>Is the owner and operator of the wireless contrivance totally
>>responsible for its operation?


>Yes. At least in the US, and until a successful suit shows
>otherwise...


It's rather common for class action suits to revolve around advertised
features which are disabled or missing. Verizon's crippling of the
Motorola V710 cell phone has already precipitated such a suit. How
long will it be before some attorney decides that the non-activation
of security features by default constitutes negligence and false
advertising on the part of the manufactory?

As for responsibility, I somewhat follow product liability legislation
and decisions. I consider many of the suits and decisions to be great
entertainment value. It's very common for the "victim" to prove that
he was not properly informed or warned of what constitutes proper
operation and is therefore not responsible for consequential damages.
By default, that means the manufacturer is responsible. That's what's
driving the current generation of instruction booklets, that are
mostly legal repudiations of responsibilities and attempts to inform
the buyer of their allegedly very limited rights. Same with the
useless warning labels and drug disclosure documentation. A friend
just bought a new Toyota Prius. Before being allowed to drive the
vehicle, the LCD panel presents a stupid repudiation of responsibility
declaration and demands that the driver hit "ok" to agree to the
terms. I'm rather surprised that Microsoft hasn't done something
similar when Windoze first boots.

>>Personally, I would like to see all unsecured access points have port
>>80 redirected to an initial splash page that says:
>>
>> You are a clueless idiot for operating this router without any
>> encryption. Click here to indemnify the manufacture from any
>> responsibility and damages resulting from your ineptitude.
>> [ OK ]


>hear hear. Though I'd much prefer routers to be shipped with a
>firmware that would not operate till it had run through the minimum
>security configuration, and compelled the user to enter a new SSID,
>and turn on some sort of encryption.


Well, the old Cayman 3220h routers would not function until you
assigned a non-default password. I think the later Netopia models are
similar. The firmware mods to do this are trivial. Perhaps the right
approach would be to convince the Sveasoft people that their
alternative firmware for the WRT54G might benefit from being secure on
installation, or at least demand some level of security on initial
setup as you suggested.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# jeffl@cruzio.com AE6KS

Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 07-24-2005, 01:46 AM
Avalanche
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Best way to steal neighbor's wireless signal?

On 21 Jul 2005 10:00:31 -0700, "sam1967" <footballdvds@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I could easily steal my neighbours signal if i wanted to. i dont need a
>router or an access point, i just need an antenna to point at the wall
>to pick up the signal coming from his access point,
>set my ssid to be the same as his (it is default of course)


>and set my
>card to get an ip address from his access point / router.


Despite my prior post, how zactly do you do this? What is "set my
card"?


Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 07-24-2005, 02:03 AM
Avalanche
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Oops, it doesn't look like the link is there anymore.

Aw s***. Just like my washer and my microwave instruction books are
fat, because the first hundred pages are warnings like "DO NOT PLUG IN
THIS WHILE GRIPPING THE PLUG PRONGS WHILE STANDING IN WATER ON A
MOUNTAIN DURING A THUNDERSTORM".


On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:42:40 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:34:07 GMT, "Doug Jamal"
><bishiv6AT@yahooDOT.com> wrote:
>
>Yawwwwwwwwwwwnnnn.... OK, let's play lawyer.
>
>>Although it is unlikely that your client would be charged with internet
>>fraud, an argument can be made that your client was negligent. Due to the
>>recent "worldwide" reporting of identity fraud and electronic related
>>crimes, he should have known to take "reasonable" steps to secure his "wide
>>open" network in an attempt to prevent him and others from being victims of
>>such crimes.

>
>Define "reasonable" and what construes due diligence in this case?
>Does having an SSID of "default" or "linksys" represent prima fascia
>evidence of negligence? Does such neglect also constitute an
>attractive nuisance? What are the generally accepted practices?
>
>Is the owner and operator of the wireless contrivance totally
>responsible for its operation? Or do the deep pockets of the
>negligent manufactory offer better hunting grounds? Perhaps the
>dealer was also negligent by not informing the purchaser of their
>risks? Was the customer properly informed that they may be at risk if
>they failed to follow instructions (i.e. warning labels)? How about:
>
> Warning. Operating this electronic contraption in an
> insecure manner may constitute an information security risk
> and may cause data or financial loss.
>
>Personally, I would like to see all unsecured access points have port
>80 redirected to an initial splash page that says:
>
> You are a clueless idiot for operating this router without any
> encryption. Click here to indemnify the manufacture from any
> responsibility and damages resulting from your ineptitude.
> [ OK ]
>
>There also is the issue of what constitutes "permission" of the owner
>to use the access point. Does it need to be in writing? Are there
>any limitations and restrictions? Does giving permission also include
>cruising the owners unsecured Windoze computer? Does giving
>permission indemnify the user from any subsequent actions and
>consequential damages? What is the procedure for revoking permission?
>
>In most states, it is necessary to demonstrate financial loss in order
>to sue for damages. The criminal charge of "unauthorized access"
>probably also exposes the user to civil charges of financial damage.
>However, to what extent does the lack of due diligence on the part of
>the access point owner and manufacturer affect the awards?
>
>In my never humble opinion, the issues totally unclear and will
>probably be settled inconsistently on a regional basis. I also
>suspect that the manufacturers will continue to ship access points
>that are by default insecure until some court assigns them partial or
>total responsibility for someone's financial loss. Then, it will
>swing the other way, and we'll be seeing overwhelming security
>features enabled by default. It usually takes a hole in their profits
>to get their attention.
>
>>B.S.! It is not difficult to practice safe computing.

>
>That's not the issue. The customer has a "reasonable expectation"
>that the wireless contrivance will operate in the advertised manner.
>If the wireless contrivance is advertised as having security features,
>and those security features are neither functional nor easily enabled,
>then the customer cannot be expected to safely operate the device.
>Also, the courts tend to rule that a customer must be first informed
>of what constitutes "safe computing" in order from them to be
>responsible for doing so. Seen any "computer security checklist"
>documents included with wireless routers?
>
>>There are plenty of
>>resources, both online and in print that will help a computer user practice
>>safe computing.

>
>Yep. How many of those documents are in the box with the router? The
>alleged victim could also claim that access to all those safe
>computing documents first requires internet access, which was
>unavailable until AFTER the wireless router was setup in an unsafe
>manner.



Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 07-24-2005, 02:17 AM
Avalanche
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Oops, it doesn't look like the link is there anymore.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 04:56:20 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:13:34 +0100, Mark McIntyre
><markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:42:40 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , Jeff
>>Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>>>Define "reasonable" and what construes due diligence in this case?

>
>>Depends on the person, their skill levels, and the role they have. A
>>computer admin could be reasonably expected to have a certain level of
>>skill. A mentally impaired person a different one.

>
>I meant the legal definition, not the functional definition. The way
>I under stand it, "reasonable" means average, typical, normal, and
>common as in a non-expert in the field. Where this will eventually
>cause trouble is defining what are "reasonable expectations" for a
>wireless router. For example, the advertising material and package
>for wireless routers all proclaim and substantial number of security
>features. Everything from encryption to stateful packet inspection.
>Would a *REASONABLE* person (i.e. not a computer admin) expect these
>features to be functional by default? I think so, and I suspect a
>judge would also agree. A reasonable person purchases a vehicle with
>anti-lock brakes, said reasonable person would normally expect those
>brakes to be functional on delivery. You can walk through an
>electronics store and read box and box of advertised features, all of
>which are enabled out of the box. The one exception are wireless
>routers security features. A liability and assignment of blame tends
>to drift toward the culprit with the deepest pockets, I suspect there
>will trouble ahead for the manufactories. Also, if they claim that it
>can't be done economically, there's always 2Wire.com, which has been
>shipping secure by default wireless routers for years.
>
>>>Is the owner and operator of the wireless contrivance totally
>>>responsible for its operation?

>

Yes, how much common sense are we obliged to use?

A Maasachusetts lady bought a new house next to the ninth hole a few
years ago. She sued the golf course for balls hitting her house, car,
etc. (Her landscape crew wears helmets:)

Superior Court found against her.

Appeals Court just overturned, saying she was entitled to relief!

Hey, you buy a beach house, ypu should know you risk waves!
>>Yes. At least in the US, and until a successful suit shows
>>otherwise...

>
>It's rather common for class action suits to revolve around advertised
>features which are disabled or missing. Verizon's crippling of the
>Motorola V710 cell phone has already precipitated such a suit. How
>long will it be before some attorney decides that the non-activation
>of security features by default constitutes negligence and false
>advertising on the part of the manufactory?
>
>As for responsibility, I somewhat follow product liability legislation
>and decisions. I consider many of the suits and decisions to be great
>entertainment value. It's very common for the "victim" to prove that
>he was not properly informed or warned of what constitutes proper
>operation and is therefore not responsible for consequential damages.
>By default, that means the manufacturer is responsible. That's what's
>driving the current generation of instruction booklets, that are
>mostly legal repudiations of responsibilities and attempts to inform
>the buyer of their allegedly very limited rights. Same with the
>useless warning labels and drug disclosure documentation. A friend
>just bought a new Toyota Prius. Before being allowed to drive the
>vehicle, the LCD panel presents a stupid repudiation of responsibility
>declaration and demands that the driver hit "ok" to agree to the
>terms. I'm rather surprised that Microsoft hasn't done something
>similar when Windoze first boots.
>
>>>Personally, I would like to see all unsecured access points have port
>>>80 redirected to an initial splash page that says:
>>>
>>> You are a clueless idiot for operating this router without any
>>> encryption. Click here to indemnify the manufacture from any
>>> responsibility and damages resulting from your ineptitude.
>>> [ OK ]

>
>>hear hear. Though I'd much prefer routers to be shipped with a
>>firmware that would not operate till it had run through the minimum
>>security configuration, and compelled the user to enter a new SSID,
>>and turn on some sort of encryption.

>
>Well, the old Cayman 3220h routers would not function until you
>assigned a non-default password. I think the later Netopia models are
>similar. The firmware mods to do this are trivial. Perhaps the right
>approach would be to convince the Sveasoft people that their
>alternative firmware for the WRT54G might benefit from being secure on
>installation, or at least demand some level of security on initial
>setup as you suggested.



Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 07-24-2005, 08:27 AM
David Taylor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Best way to steal neighbor's wireless signal?

> >and set my
> >card to get an ip address from his access point / router.

>
> Despite my prior post, how zactly do you do this? What is "set my
> card"?


Exactly what it said "set my card to get an ip address from his access
point / router"

Replace "my" with "your" to make it work for you.

David.

Reply With Quote
Reply


« wireless access point | Capturing MAC Addresses from an Access Point with SNMP »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Repeater, Access Point, Laptop Triangle of Death (Please Help) TheKingsCrown Network Troubleshooting 11 09-01-2010 10:59 AM
Wireless disconnections due to signal noise level? kimiraikkonen alt.internet.wireless 1 04-05-2007 03:18 PM
stealing wireless from weak signal Darren alt.internet.wireless 1 09-12-2006 04:44 PM
NEWS: Stealing your neighbor's Net Sandy A. Nicolaysen alt.internet.wireless 4 08-10-2005 02:16 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45