Wi-Fi Food For Thought 1

[MasterRacker]

Interesting proposal. I'd have to say I agree with him.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1568550,00.asp

Jeff
The future is already here - it's just not widely distributed yet...

 

[CajunCenturion]

Very interesting - good post.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[edfair]

As far as I'm concerned, it is like throwing money over my fence. If you are stupid enough to throw it at me, I'll play stupid enough to pick it up.

Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.

 

[sleipnir214]

I see the proposal in the article as common sense.

After all, if I own an apple tree, the branches of which extend out and above your property, you are entitled to any apples that fall on your side of the fence.



Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[bluedragon2]

I am trying to come up with a good counterpoint to the author's ideology, and I can’t...



[Blue]Blue[/Blue] [Dragon]

If I wasn't Blue, I would just be a Dragon...

 

[ecobb]

And also cleaning up the dead leaves....



Hope This Helps!

Ecobb

"My work is a game, a very serious game." - M.C. Escher

 

[rosieb]

But you're entitled to sling the leaves back over the wall.

Rosie
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think" (Niels Bohr)

 

[DrJavaJoe]

So we should allow hackers and spammers to go crazy with these networks knowing that the average user can be a bit ignorant about security?

"Two strings walk into a bar. The first string says to the bartender: 'Bartender, I'll have a beer. u.5n$x5t?*&4ru!2[sACC~ErJ'. The second string says: 'Pardon my friend, he isn't NULL terminated'."

 

[CajunCenturion]

Not at all DrJavaJoe, but the responsibility for securing the connection lies with the connection provider, not the person who uses that connection.

The hacker should be held accoutable for whatever is done over that (or any) connection, but not be help liable for simply using the connection.

Analogously, the person who drives while intoxicated is held accountable for DWI, but not for using the highway.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[DrJavaJoe]

Securing the connection? Some of these people can't figure out why their computer isn't working when the power cord is unplugged.

What exactly are we going to hold the spammer responsible for even if caught?

"Two strings walk into a bar. The first string says to the bartender: 'Bartender, I'll have a beer. u.5n$x5t?*&4ru!2[sACC~ErJ'. The second string says: 'Pardon my friend, he isn't NULL terminated'."

 

[sleipnir214]

I don't know we were talking about spammers. I thought we were talking about hackers.



Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[DrJavaJoe]

I give, I was really trying to throw out a counterpoint and that was pretty much the best that I could think of. As you said the proposal in the article is pretty much the most common sense approach.

"Two strings walk into a bar. The first string says to the bartender: 'Bartender, I'll have a beer. u.5n$x5t?*&4ru!2[sACC~ErJ'. The second string says: 'Pardon my friend, he isn't NULL terminated'."

 

[CajunCenturion]

The spammer/hacker would held accountable for any/all damages incurred by other parties as a result of the hackers actions.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Grenage]

Definately good common sense, you should not be held accountable for using a connection on your property or a public place.

 

[SF18C]

Same goes for cordless phones. If I pick up my phone in my house and hear your conversation am I guilty for picking up your signal? (It would be rude to actually keep listening) Maybe a simple analogy work: If a radio or TV station send out a signal and violates FCC "decency" policy, I as a "receiver" should not be held accountable for the imposed fine. Just think if everyone who saw Janet’s wardrobe malfunction or heard Howard Sterns many comments had to pay a part of the bill. Goes back to my own principle, if I don’t secure my network then I’m the one who is responsible for those that can access it.

Just my 2 cents


SF18C
CCNP, MCSE, A+, N+ & HPCC

"Tis better to die on your feet than live on your knees!"

 

[mattKnight]

> if I don’t secure my network..

or attempt to secure.

I have an access point at home, which I have "secured" with WEP, is this secure or not?

My point is that WEP is not that secure i.e. it is relatively easy to crack. In my view, it is sufficient to argue that any access through that point would be an offense.

Take Care

Matt
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

 

[SF18C]

WEP is only one layer of defense. Enabling the 802.1x protocol by MAC address is another. For my wireless devices I also put them in their own subnet with DHCP reserver addresses by MAC.

SF18C
CCNP, MCSE, A+, N+ & HPCC

"Tis better to die on your feet than live on your knees!"

 

[sleipnir214]

mattKnight:
There is a difference between getting an inadvertent connection through an unsecured access point and hacking an access point. One is unintentional use of a broadcast resource that I have no control over being available to me -- the other requires active participation on my part to wrest access to the resource from you.


To continue my earlier analogy, connecting through an unsecured access point is gathering from my own yard the apples that fall from your tree.

But if I hack the access point, I've trespassed on your property to climb your tree to steal apples. Or possibly lassoed one of the limbs of your tree to pull it over my property to insure the apples fall on my yard.



Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[octothorpe]

mattKnight:
The relative security of WEP isn't relevant. Most people on this board will agree that hacking anything is wrong, no matter how weak the security is. Enabling WEP, no matter how easy it is to break, is a "keep out" sign, and nobody is going to "accidentally" hack into a WEP enabled network.

By contrast, a completely open access point is a "welcome" sign, and current wireless technologies treat it as such. It would be incredibly wrong to accuse a person of hacking if you are broadcasting "WELCOME".

 

[zebratech]

Now I'll show my age. There used to be a TV commercial that showed an unoccupied car with the keys left in it, alone and dangling from the dash. A young teenager wanders along and sees the keys there. The voice over continues with "Why help a good boy go bad...."
Lock your networks the best way that you can. If he busts the window and tries to steal the car thats one thing, if you give him the keys it's your own fault.