Slashdot Mirror
Responsible Wireless Access For Your Access Point
bgood writes: "O'Reilly Network has an interesting article on authentication for wireless networks. The author discusses both the technical aspects, specifically NoCatAuth, and the overall context of why someone would choose (or not choose) to monitor or track the use of their wireless network. While geared towards network neighborhoods, the article definitely has applicability in more formal settings."
... would be if you could easily set aside a certain percentage of your bandwidth (say 10-15%) for use by other people, and more if its available. That way you aren't taking a backseat to freeloaders on your own network, but you also aren't curring people off whenever you start a big, bandwidth-heavy transfer.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
Otoh, any marketing folks from Verisign reading here? Could be a whole new niche...
NeighborCert (tm)
The major problem with access points are the ACL rules, and no the auth process. Even 128bit keys can be sniffed and cracked, the only mildly effective method for security of the AP is IPSEC on IP, and MAC address based firewall rules.
I live near Sonoma County and heard about the community networks, problem is that using a anything other than a regular computer with a wireless 802.11b device can't get access. I had my Ipaq with linux installed, and with a good signal. Maybe it just needs tweaking.
"Get them before they get....
I would gladly open up my wireless network, but the firewall/switch/access point puts the wireless network on my side of the firewall. That kindof defeats the whole purpose of the firewall - Sure it's secure from 99.999% of the internet, but people can get in via wireless. Ideally, I'd like to manage the rules between the wireless part and my wired desktop computer, but I guess that would require the purchase of a real firewall. It's a shame; it would just take a little more software!!
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
- All clients get immediete dhcp lease with minimal bandwidth from local gateway
- client optionally posts credentials via SSL to auth service (using server SSL, no client cert required, although this could save steps)
- auth service sends PGP-encrypted credentials in a message to local gateway
- local gateway decrypts and validates data from master and matches to client credentials
- client is upgraded with more bandwidth, or other goodies (if he's neighborly
:-)
All in all, sounds like a cool perl script to me!Welcome to my Cable[2Mbps] WAP kind neighbor!
1) Login as Anonymous Terrorist.
2) Login as Registered Patriot (same as above, only more inconvenient)
3) Login as Port80 Leech-Only.
4) Login as Power-Tripping Network Admin.
5) Exit and try down the street.
Power to the Peaceful
I see a lot of this on /. . Can you explain why? Isn't it boring to write dumb stuff on the web that nobody reads? You'll be modded down and it will disappear. Why do this?
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
What model router/switch/accesspoint are you using?
I plan on using NoCatAuth in the future but currently I have my 802.11 network setup free and clear (minus a simple wep key that is only on for a joke reason (ask me what the key is :)).
I don't really have to worry much about the bandwidth because no one that would use a wireless freenet comes into my area of town. Most of them have their own dsl, thats the irony of setting it up so far. If your in Santa Rosa near railroad square and you want free access (while traveling etc) send me an email.
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
The Linksys BEFW11P1 - router+firewall+wirelessAP+printserver
Also, the version without the printserver but with more local wired outputs (3 vs. 1) looks similar, but is totally different! Mine has a crummy PCMCIA antenna, the other has 2 nice external antennas. (Same price for either)
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Something that requires the use of HTTP and human intervention just to get IP-level access is no good. Your laptop can't connect itself up and poll for mail without manual intervention. Back to the drawing board.
Good. I was going to scream if this was another article whose only set of instructions began 'right click on Network Neighborhood'.
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
Hello. I might be considered an "insider" in this field. I work at a semi-large ISP where we provide wireless connectivity using BreezeCom network equiptment. Employing large (from 9-24 inch) antennas, and uni-and omni-directional antennas mounted on prominent structures, we are able to send up to 3Mb/s to hosts.
The security here is terrible. We use no authentication via radius or any other method. Anyone with a 802.11 network card, and a sufficient antenna could steal connectivity, and we could not currently tell.
There exists ways to detect this, by monitering the MAC addresses connecting to the APs on the towers, but this is not employed. Neither is each radio catalogued, and IPs, for the most part, are assigned by the DHCP server with no logging.
I do not know if this is typical of most wireless companies, but if it is, then things should be ripe for the taking. I'm posting anonymously, because my company has a history of firing and suing for less
.
Sounds like you need to create another side to your network.
If you have one machine running a firewall with the public internet connection (that is, it has a real IP address), you can have one set of rules for computers that you trust, one for wireless access. The wireless network has different rules for Owner, Co-Op, and Public, and does not have to use the same firewall rules as your wired network. You can still block the wireless access (different blocking for each group, ie owner might have access to the wired network, Co-Op and Public do not).
Stateful firewalls do not have to filter only one direction, and you could not run No-Cat without a stateful firewall.
Troll Like a Champion Today
NoCatAuth is unnecessary...
802.1x is the standard to follow
Of course, 802.1x needs to have the ability to pass authentication of to a third, external party (like Verisign) added to the spec., but that's a simple matter of sematic and coding (which, of course, is trivial).
You know... I expected more from the IEEE, but, hey, from what I understand they're handing out EE degrees these days like lollypops to children.
The biggest issue for freenets, IMO, is liability - if someone wanders past your access point and sends a huge amount of spam, or starts a DoS attack on remote sites, you may well find your ISP cuts off your access. In the worst case, you might be legally liable under various anti-spam or other laws.
Just as ISPs have contracts with their customers, and authenticate them, it may end up being necessary to have contracts with your freenet users and to authenticate them. Of course, if they are friends it may be enough to just authenticate them... IANAL but something that indemnifies you against lawsuits etc would be very useful.
This goes against the freenet ideal but unfortunately providing Internet access can be a legal minefield.
The AUP on my @home account explicitly forbids sharing the service with "third parties." I can either pay for up to 5 distinct IP addresses ($6.95 extra) or I can use a Linksys router and then there is no limit in how many computers I connect as long as they are all within my household.
:-(
My linksys is currently sitting in a box waiting for me to put in on eBay. It is a great piece of work, but my company installed a checkpoint firewall and the router won't work with our VPN even if I put the machine in the DMZ.
I am planning on switching my assigned PC at work for a laptop, and What I would like to have is a wireless access point that works as a hub or switch, not as a router. And I want something that won't allow access to the access point unless there is some real encryption. This way I can have wireless access for my household and I don't have to worry about @home killing my account for violating AUP. I cannot afford to lose my broadband since we don't have DSL around here yet
Any suggestions?
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
The thing that I have to wonder about in all of this is potentially nasty liability that having an open access point may open you up to.
We have all read the stories of the FBI busting people's doors down and confiscating equipment because they were suspected of a heinous act, be it hacking, kiddie-porn, etc.
Hell, just inviting a few thousand of your closest friends to join your pyramid scheme is usually enough to get your ISP to cut your connection with no warning. Do you really want to risk becoming spam central?
The last thing I want is my door being busted down because of what an anonymous freak with an 802.11 card did from behind MY IP address!
Although I applaud the generosity of the people who provide the so-called "community networks", I would have to think they are just opening themselves up to a world of hurt.
And then later:
No, it also requires Javascript. I'm sure I could script a workaround, but it's one more damn thing to go wrong. And if ubiquitous 802.11 existed, I'd want to use it primarily for ssh, not web. Reading between the lines, 'the public' would not be allowed to ssh. This scheme is oriented towards the idea that internet==web, and of course everyone has javascript.
On the whole, however, I'm impressed by this system. The idealistic idea of free open wireless was threatened by the possibility of anonymous abuse and bandwidth hogging. Nocat appears to make it viable, even in the face of real-world threats. This could have far-reaching effects in undermining the emerging broadband monopolies. The ability to charge for unrestricted access could lead to financially healthy networks with lots of upstream bandwidth. And the ability to use before buying means that you would already know a network's reliability and coverage.
Lastly, I'm a little concerned by the centralization of power implied in the article. If I read it correctly, there is a single trusted authentication service at nocat.net. If the nocat scheme takes off, this center will be a natural target for foes of the internet such as MPAA/RIAA/etc. I hope that if the system takes off, multiple authentication sites will emerge.
it's all GPL'd so you could start your own authentication server. There's nothing stopping you. It's also set up so that groups could roam from group to group. Say you're from Seattle and you're in NYC. You should be able to get co-op status.
And both of those are totally different to the WAP11, which has wireless and one wired output. (The WAP11 supports wireless network bridging to similar units, both point-point and point-multipoint).