I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had neighbours hijack
my connection, and having discovered that my own kids were sometimes
inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's connection.
Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of the
law, then:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm
[quote]
A recent court case, which saw a West London man fined £500 and sentenced to
12 months' conditional discharge for hijacking a wireless broadband
connection, has implications for almost every user of wi-fi networks. It is
believed to be the first case of its kind in the UK, but with an estimated
one million wi-fi users around the country, it is unlikely to be the last.
"There are a lot of implications and this could open the floodgates to many
more such cases," said Phil Cracknell, chief technology officer of security
firm NetSurity. Details in this particular case are sketchy although it is
known that Gregory Straszkiewicz had "piggybacked" on a wireless broadband
network of a local Ealing resident, using a laptop while sitting in his car.
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:08:10 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net>
wrote:
>I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had neighbours hijack
>my connection, and having discovered that my own kids were sometimes
>inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's connection.
>
>Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of the
>law, then
I don't have a lot of sympathy - anyone who doesn't put security on
their wireless network deserves all they get as far as I am concerned.
Paul.
--
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Humour is very subjective. One man's light-hearted comment is another's insult.
.. Is there a moron carrot above? Have you replied to it? Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:08:10 +0100, The Todal in message
<news:3krljuFvksnvU1@individual.net> wrote:
> I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had neighbours hijack
> my connection, and having discovered that my own kids were sometimes
> inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's connection.
>
> Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of the
> law, then:
>
About bloody time!
I have been arguing that this was against the law for years, and always
get met with the response "where is the case law then".
And it isn't a way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of
the law. It has to be done knowingly before it is illegal.
When you are sitting in a car piggybacking on whatever open network you can
find, that is obviously knowingly accessing without authorisation.
But when you accidentally pick up the neighbours' instead of your own, that
is a different kettle of fish entirely.
But it is still a good idea to secure your own network - and change the
SSID. If you don't change the SSID, then any neighbours with the same brand
of router will have the same SSID, and your laptops won't usually know
which one they are accessing.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
"Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message
news:6i9he1hog3fnnt9lifridsfcdlr7jjj2r9@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:08:10 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had neighbours
>>hijack
>>my connection, and having discovered that my own kids were sometimes
>>inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's connection.
>>
>>Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of
>>the
>>law, then
>
> I don't have a lot of sympathy - anyone who doesn't put security on
> their wireless network deserves all they get as far as I am concerned.
Agreed. I now use security on my home wireless broadband. It does
unfortunately mean that when my kids are trying to connect, their computers
connect them to the neighbour's service and seemingly I can't prevent that.
Or at least, if there is a way I'd like to know it.
The suggestion is, though, that if you go looking for free wireless
connections you are likely to be breaking the law as soon as you make a
connection to someone's service. Not a lot of people know that, I should
think.
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:43:45 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net>
wrote:
>But it is still a good idea to secure your own network - and change the
>SSID. If you don't change the SSID, then any neighbours with the same brand
>of router will have the same SSID, and your laptops won't usually know
>which one they are accessing.
Agreed. And setting the router to not broadcast the SSID is good too.
Paul.
--
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Humour is very subjective. One man's light-hearted comment is another's insult.
.. Is there a moron carrot above? Have you replied to it? Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:45:21 +0100, The Todal in message
<news:3krnpkFughvgU1@individual.net> wrote:
> "Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message
> news:6i9he1hog3fnnt9lifridsfcdlr7jjj2r9@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:08:10 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had neighbours
>>>hijack
>>>my connection, and having discovered that my own kids were sometimes
>>>inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's connection.
>>>
>>>Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of
>>>the
>>>law, then
>>
>> I don't have a lot of sympathy - anyone who doesn't put security on
>> their wireless network deserves all they get as far as I am concerned.
>
> Agreed. I now use security on my home wireless broadband. It does
> unfortunately mean that when my kids are trying to connect, their computers
> connect them to the neighbour's service and seemingly I can't prevent that.
> Or at least, if there is a way I'd like to know it.
>
Quite easy.
All wireless routers I am aware of have the facility to change the SSID (it
usually defaults to something like "NETGEAR", or "3COM").
If you change it to something unique to you, and then set the kids laptop
to only connect to that network, rather than to "any network in range",
then they should always use yours.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
You have to be sharp to be on the cutting edge.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
On 28 Jul 2005, The Todal wrote
> "Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message
> news:6i9he1hog3fnnt9lifridsfcdlr7jjj2r9@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:08:10 +0100, "The Todal"
>> <deadmailbox@beeb.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had
>>> neighbours hijack my connection, and having discovered that my
>>> own kids were sometimes inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's
>>> connection.
>>>
>>> Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in
>>> breach of the law, then
>>
>> I don't have a lot of sympathy - anyone who doesn't put security
>> on their wireless network deserves all they get as far as I am
>> concerned.
>
> Agreed. I now use security on my home wireless broadband. It does
> unfortunately mean that when my kids are trying to connect, their
> computers connect them to the neighbour's service and seemingly I
> can't prevent that. Or at least, if there is a way I'd like to
> know it.
Have you mentioned it to your neighbour, in case he's unaware of
people using his unsecured network, or unaware that it should be
secured? (Or is he likely to punch you out rather than thank you?)
FWIW, I set up a laptop for my sister-in-law this past spring which,
out of the box, was set up to search for networks. It picked up 5,
exactly *none* of which were secured. 4 of them were wireless Internet
connections, but one of them was an unsecured wireless LAN for the
local branch of Deloitte & Co -- the accountants/whatever firm.
I wasn't surprised to see the home networks, but an unsecured company
LAN?
> FWIW, I set up a laptop for my sister-in-law this past spring which,
> out of the box, was set up to search for networks. It picked up 5,
> exactly *none* of which were secured. 4 of them were wireless Internet
> connections, but one of them was an unsecured wireless LAN for the
> local branch of Deloitte & Co -- the accountants/whatever firm.
>
> I wasn't surprised to see the home networks, but an unsecured company
> LAN?
Just because they aren't using WEP/WPA or MAC Filterting doesn't mean
there isn't any security. Its possible they are using some other
security (ie. a VPN). The only way to find out is to connect.
> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I set up a laptop for my sister-in-law this past spring
>> which, out of the box, was set up to search for networks. It
>> picked up 5, exactly *none* of which were secured. 4 of them
>> were wireless Internet connections, but one of them was an
>> unsecured wireless LAN for the local branch of Deloitte & Co --
>> the accountants/whatever firm.
>>
>> I wasn't surprised to see the home networks, but an unsecured
>> company LAN?
>
> Just because they aren't using WEP/WPA or MAC Filterting doesn't
> mean there isn't any security. Its possible they are using some
> other security (ie. a VPN). The only way to find out is to
> connect.
True -- and I didn't try it, so I can't say if they were.
I was just surprised to see what looked like a potentially gaping hole,
and would have thought their IT guys should have secured it -- and made
it *look* secure -- from all angles.
"The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:3krnpkFughvgU1@individual.net...
>
> The suggestion is, though,
no, its not a suggestion. It has been law for a wee while now.
> that if you go looking for free wireless connections
Yup - ***IF YOU GO LOOKING***
> you are likely to be breaking the law as soon as you make a connection to
> someone's service. Not a lot of people know that, I should think.
I think you think wrong.
I also think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The perp as
reported in The Register 3 days ago was actively driving around the
neighbours looking for open connections. Hardly the same as your kids
linking inadvertently to your neighbours connection is it?
"Alex Heney" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:dwejgzv9j1v2$.1evdvohjiu4bk$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>
> But when you accidentally pick up the neighbours' instead of your own,
> that
> is a different kettle of fish entirely.
>
Exactly.
Methinks Todal has over-reacted a little to the reported case.
The police arent going to be banging down your door at 4am Todal.
"Alex Heney" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3vwcbzcuy8u5.mdegbmq8y9tv.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:45:21 +0100, The Todal in message
> <news:3krnpkFughvgU1@individual.net> wrote:
>
>> "Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message
>> news:6i9he1hog3fnnt9lifridsfcdlr7jjj2r9@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:08:10 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had neighbours
>>>>hijack
>>>>my connection, and having discovered that my own kids were sometimes
>>>>inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's connection.
>>>>
>>>>Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of
>>>>the
>>>>law, then
>>>
>>> I don't have a lot of sympathy - anyone who doesn't put security on
>>> their wireless network deserves all they get as far as I am concerned.
>>
>> Agreed. I now use security on my home wireless broadband. It does
>> unfortunately mean that when my kids are trying to connect, their
>> computers
>> connect them to the neighbour's service and seemingly I can't prevent
>> that.
>> Or at least, if there is a way I'd like to know it.
>>
>
> Quite easy.
>
> All wireless routers I am aware of have the facility to change the SSID
> (it
> usually defaults to something like "NETGEAR", or "3COM").
>
> If you change it to something unique to you, and then set the kids laptop
> to only connect to that network, rather than to "any network in range",
> then they should always use yours.
Hmmm. I'll have a go. I seem to remember that you can anyway ask your
computer for a list of wireless services and can then ask it to connect to
one, even if the default is your own one. I might be wrong. I would feel a
bit uncomfortable asking the neighbour to use security in case my kids
browse their network, because I don't know how the neighbour would react to
that.
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
> On 28 Jul 2005, Chris S. wrote
>
>> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>>
>>> FWIW, I set up a laptop for my sister-in-law this past spring
>>> which, out of the box, was set up to search for networks. It
>>> picked up 5, exactly *none* of which were secured. 4 of them
>>> were wireless Internet connections, but one of them was an
>>> unsecured wireless LAN for the local branch of Deloitte & Co --
>>> the accountants/whatever firm.
>>>
>>> I wasn't surprised to see the home networks, but an unsecured
>>> company LAN?
>>
>> Just because they aren't using WEP/WPA or MAC Filterting doesn't
>> mean there isn't any security. Its possible they are using some
>> other security (ie. a VPN). The only way to find out is to
>> connect.
>
> True -- and I didn't try it, so I can't say if they were.
>
> I was just surprised to see what looked like a potentially gaping
> hole, and would have thought their IT guys should have secured it --
> and made it *look* secure -- from all angles.
Simply having a visible SSID doesn't make it unsecure.
--
Alex
Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"
Paul Harper <paul@harper.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:43:45 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>But it is still a good idea to secure your own network - and change the
>>SSID. If you don't change the SSID, then any neighbours with the same brand
>>of router will have the same SSID, and your laptops won't usually know
>>which one they are accessing.
>
>Agreed. And setting the router to not broadcast the SSID is good too.
That is *not* a good idea. It acomplishes nothing of value, but
it does make it difficult for people to *avoid* your network.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:29:37 +0100, The Todal in message
<news:3krqclFvjdg1U1@individual.net> wrote:
> "Alex Heney" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:3vwcbzcuy8u5.mdegbmq8y9tv.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:45:21 +0100, The Todal in message
>> <news:3krnpkFughvgU1@individual.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message
>>> news:6i9he1hog3fnnt9lifridsfcdlr7jjj2r9@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:08:10 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had neighbours
>>>>>hijack
>>>>>my connection, and having discovered that my own kids were sometimes
>>>>>inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's connection.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of
>>>>>the
>>>>>law, then
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a lot of sympathy - anyone who doesn't put security on
>>>> their wireless network deserves all they get as far as I am concerned.
>>>
>>> Agreed. I now use security on my home wireless broadband. It does
>>> unfortunately mean that when my kids are trying to connect, their
>>> computers
>>> connect them to the neighbour's service and seemingly I can't prevent
>>> that.
>>> Or at least, if there is a way I'd like to know it.
>>>
>>
>> Quite easy.
>>
>> All wireless routers I am aware of have the facility to change the SSID
>> (it
>> usually defaults to something like "NETGEAR", or "3COM").
>>
>> If you change it to something unique to you, and then set the kids laptop
>> to only connect to that network, rather than to "any network in range",
>> then they should always use yours.
>
> Hmmm. I'll have a go. I seem to remember that you can anyway ask your
> computer for a list of wireless services and can then ask it to connect to
> one, even if the default is your own one.
You can, but the problem with that is if the two of you have the same brand
of router (say Netgear), with default settings, then it won't know which is
your "NETGEAR" network, and which is their "NETGEAR" network.
That is why (apart from a little added security) I say to change the SSID.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
Please Tell Me if you Don't Get This Message
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:33:04 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson in message
<news:871x5jusnz.fld@barrow.com> wrote:
> Paul Harper <paul@harper.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:43:45 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>But it is still a good idea to secure your own network - and change the
>>>SSID. If you don't change the SSID, then any neighbours with the same brand
>>>of router will have the same SSID, and your laptops won't usually know
>>>which one they are accessing.
>>
>>Agreed. And setting the router to not broadcast the SSID is good too.
>
> That is *not* a good idea. It acomplishes nothing of value, but
> it does make it difficult for people to *avoid* your network.
Huh?
It certainly does no such thing. Unless, of course, you have left it to the
default value, which both Paul and I were suggesting be changed first.
It means that "casual" browsers won't see it at all, so there is no danger
of them connecting to it. It most certainly does not make it difficult for
them to avoid it.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
Oxymoron: Safe Sex.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
"Fat Freddy's Cat" <port_26@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zsKdnUfD6KwML3XfRVnyuQ@pipex.net...
>
> "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net> wrote in message
> news:3krnpkFughvgU1@individual.net...
>>
>> The suggestion is, though,
>
> no, its not a suggestion. It has been law for a wee while now.
>
>> that if you go looking for free wireless connections
>
> Yup - ***IF YOU GO LOOKING***
>
>> you are likely to be breaking the law as soon as you make a connection to
>> someone's service. Not a lot of people know that, I should think.
>
> I think you think wrong.
I think you think wrong. I think many people buy their wireless gear in the
belief that free internet is available, and there was a time occasionally
the newspapers would tell you where there was free wireless broadband to be
had. A typical journalist's view is at http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/sto...383604,00.html
>
> I also think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The perp as
> reported in The Register 3 days ago was actively driving around the
> neighbours looking for open connections. Hardly the same as your kids
> linking inadvertently to your neighbours connection is it?
Is it? Or isn't it?
I shut off my kids' internet access at 11pm. Hypothetically (of course) they
might then, with my knowledge, try to circumvent this curfew by seeing
whether they can connect to any network within range. And hypothetically (we
aren't talking about young infants, here) they might browse any available
files on that network. If I am the householder and I turn a blind eye to
this, I think I might be liable.
Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>Agreed. And setting the router to not broadcast the SSID is good too.
>>
>> That is *not* a good idea. It acomplishes nothing of value, but
>> it does make it difficult for people to *avoid* your network.
>
>Huh?
>
>It certainly does no such thing. Unless, of course, you have left it to the
>default value, which both Paul and I were suggesting be changed first.
Disabling the SSID broadcast has *no* security value. Enabling
the SSID broadcast *does* allow others to easily notice that a
given channel is being used and should be avoided.
>It means that "casual" browsers won't see it at all, so there is no danger
>of them connecting to it. It most certainly does not make it difficult for
>them to avoid it.
It only means that the "casual" browsers might not see it
/quickly/; but anyone who is intent on finding something to
break into *can* find it... if it is turned on and absolutely so
if it is actually being used.
It most certainly *does* make interference possible to avoid
too. That is the purpose of having it "broadcast", which merely
makes it available at regular (short) intervals. That way
someone who is setting up a network *can* see it immediately,
and realize that setting up on that channel will cause
interference. If the broadcasts are disabled it is less likely
that *your* network will be avoided!
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
"Fat Freddy's Cat" <port_26@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bpqdnWzcavx8L3XfRVnygA@pipex.net...
>
> "Alex Heney" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:dwejgzv9j1v2$.1evdvohjiu4bk$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>>
>> But when you accidentally pick up the neighbours' instead of your own,
>> that
>> is a different kettle of fish entirely.
>>
>
> Exactly.
> Methinks Todal has over-reacted a little to the reported case.
>
> The police arent going to be banging down your door at 4am Todal.
I never thought they were. But see my other post in this thread. If the
unauthorised access is known to me and is done on a regular basis I think
there might be a knock not necessarily at 4am but maybe later in the day.
Scenario: your neighbour is puzzled that his broadband performance is slow.
He gets an expert like you to come and check whether his system is working
properly. He is told "there's your problem - the people next door are using
your connection and they seem to be downloading stuff using Kazaa and
Limewire all day and all night. Do you like your neighbour? If not, let's
tell the police".
In article <3krqclFvjdg1U1@individual.net>, The Todal
<deadmailbox@beeb.net> writes
>I would feel a
>bit uncomfortable asking the neighbour to use security in case my kids
>browse their network, because I don't know how the neighbour would react to
>that.
Why don't you just print off a copy of that article from the BBC website
you referred to and show it to your neighbour saying something like
"hey, have you seen this article about people hijacking wireless
networks? I'll have to make sure *my* network is secure ..." etc, etc
--
Mr X
In article <bpqdnWzcavx8L3XfRVnygA@pipex.net>, Fat Freddy's Cat
<port_26@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"Alex Heney" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:dwejgzv9j1v2$.1evdvohjiu4bk$.dlg@40tude.net. ..
>>
>> But when you accidentally pick up the neighbours' instead of your own,
>> that
>> is a different kettle of fish entirely.
>>
>Exactly.
>Methinks Todal has over-reacted a little to the reported case.
>
>The police arent going to be banging down your door at 4am Todal.
But for all Todal knows somebody could have been connecting to his
network and trawling "dodgy" websites ...
Would explain the reason why the police might want to batter his door at
4.00am
--
Mr X
In article <nqwueimqnjjb$.13l3gd1vql5v1$.dlg@40tude.net>, Alex Heney
<me8@privacy.net> writes
>It means that "casual" browsers won't see it at all, so there is no danger
>of them connecting to it. It most certainly does not make it difficult for
>them to avoid it.
If a wireless router can't "see" the SSID is there a danger it will
plonk its carrier onto the same channel as the SSID it can't "see"?
I think this is what the other poster is meaning.
--
Mr X
In article <6i9he1hog3fnnt9lifridsfcdlr7jjj2r9@4ax.com>, Paul Harper wrote:
> >I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had neighbours hijack
> >my connection, and having discovered that my own kids were sometimes
> >inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's connection.
> >
> >Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of the
> >law, then
>
> I don't have a lot of sympathy - anyone who doesn't put security on
> their wireless network deserves all they get as far as I am concerned.
Does this mean that you also think anyone who is careless enough to leave their
front door unlocked "deserves all they get" if they are burgled? Do you think
thieves should not be prosecuted if they steal from people who have not taken
adequate precautions against this?
In fact, if you think about it, anybody who has anything stolen from them could
be said not to have taken adequate precautions, because if the precautions *had*
been adequate the items would not have been stolen, so on that basis any theft
is exonerated if the thief can carry it out successfuly.
Personally I prefer the old-fashioned morality wherein theft is wrong, the
wrongness being defined on the basis of who the stolen items belong to, and
nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is easy or difficult for the thief to
take them.
On 28 Jul 2005 06:34:05 -0500, Mr X <Mr-X@privacy.net> wrote:
>In article <bpqdnWzcavx8L3XfRVnygA@pipex.net>, Fat Freddy's Cat
><port_26@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>"Alex Heney" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:dwejgzv9j1v2$.1evdvohjiu4bk$.dlg@40tude.net ...
>>>
>>> But when you accidentally pick up the neighbours' instead of your own,
>>> that
>>> is a different kettle of fish entirely.
>>>
>>Exactly.
>>Methinks Todal has over-reacted a little to the reported case.
>>
>>The police arent going to be banging down your door at 4am Todal.
>
>But for all Todal knows somebody could have been connecting to his
>network and trawling "dodgy" websites ...
>
>Would explain the reason why the police might want to batter his door at
>4.00am
I seem to recall some of our more dodgy bretheren across the pond have
a policy of making sure that their wi-fi network is *not* secured, and
advertising that fact, so that if any wrongdoings are detected by
their ISP they can claim that there is doubt about who did it, thereby
avoiding the legal consequences (criminal and, less likely, civil).
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:03:44 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net>
wrote:
<snip>
>All wireless routers I am aware of have the facility to change the SSID (it
>usually defaults to something like "NETGEAR", or "3COM").
>
>If you change it to something unique to you, and then set the kids laptop
>to only connect to that network, rather than to "any network in range",
>then they should always use yours.
Indeed. The configuration I use is a broadband 'modem', with *two*
wireless routers hooked-up to it. One with site-specific SSID, WEP
configured at 128 bits, for our 'private' LAN. The other with default
SSID and no security, for guests who bring laptops, and as a useful
public service.
By setting up an unsecure default network I consider I'm inviting J.
Random Hacker to use it.
Using MAC filtering on the router with the changed SSID is another good
step. While a MAC address can be falsified by a freeloader, those that do so
are definitely aware of what they are doing with their hijacking and thus
legally can be shown to have intent. Inadvertent hijacking can well be a
valid defence but all WiFi networks should have some level of security in
place, even if it is only changing the SSID from the default "out of the
box" setting.
With the large number and proximity of WiFi networks now appearing, even
residentially, and the limited number of useable channels available, at
least different SSIDs usually means that a few different networks can
co-exist on the same channel without undue stress or problems. With a common
SSID, who knows where you might be connected!
Pierre
"Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message
news:ejahe1lvakigbeobed06s7li5sos5dco72@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:43:45 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >But it is still a good idea to secure your own network - and change the
> >SSID. If you don't change the SSID, then any neighbours with the same
brand
> >of router will have the same SSID, and your laptops won't usually know
> >which one they are accessing.
>
> Agreed. And setting the router to not broadcast the SSID is good too.
>
> Paul.
>
> --
> . A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
> . Humour is very subjective. One man's light-hearted comment is another's
insult.
> . Is there a moron carrot above? Have you replied to it? Are you sure?
> . EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be
automatically deleted.
> Hmmm. I'll have a go. I seem to remember that you can anyway ask your
> computer for a list of wireless services and can then ask it to connect to
> one, even if the default is your own one. I might be wrong. I would feel a
> bit uncomfortable asking the neighbour to use security in case my kids
> browse their network, because I don't know how the neighbour would react to
> that.
Why would you feel uncomfortable? If you noticed your neighbour had
left their car unsecured would you not tell them? I'm sure if you just
let them know that *anybody* can access their network they would
tighten security.
I don't see why not. There's no law that I know of that states that you
have to (attempt to) secure your network (or house or car for that
matter. Guns yes but not the rest).
Therefore it's pretty simple to introduce reasonable doubt and that's
all you need to do to defeat a prosecution which in a criminal case has
to be "beyond reasonable doubt".
The only problem is that Derby Constabularly for example are a year
behind evidence collection in kiddie porn alone, let alone anything
else. They have racks of computers awaiting forensic inspection so
you'd lose your PC for a long time if nothing else.
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:16:15 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote:
>In article <6i9he1hog3fnnt9lifridsfcdlr7jjj2r9@4ax.com>, Paul Harper wrote:
>> >I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had neighbours hijack
>> >my connection, and having discovered that my own kids were sometimes
>> >inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's connection.
>> >
>> >Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of the
>> >law, then
>>
>> I don't have a lot of sympathy - anyone who doesn't put security on
>> their wireless network deserves all they get as far as I am concerned.
>
>Does this mean that you also think anyone who is careless enough to leave their
>front door unlocked "deserves all they get" if they are burgled? Do you think
>thieves should not be prosecuted if they steal from people who have not taken
>adequate precautions against this?
Your analogy and conclusion are both flawed.
Having an unsecured and fully-announced wireless network is like
leaving your door not only unlocked, but wide open with a "please help
yourself" sign outside. In such an instance, I definitely have no
sympathy.
Also, you assume that because I have no sympathy with the "victims", I
think that the people taking advantage of the blind stupidity of those
with open networks shouldn't be prosecuted. Where did I say that?
Apart from those, you're spot-on.
Paul.
--
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Humour is very subjective. One man's light-hearted comment is another's insult.
.. Is there a moron carrot above? Have you replied to it? Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.
Hijacking a broadband connection 
Linear Mode
