Slashdot Mirror


Warflying: San Diego

geogeek6_7 writes: "WarFlying over SanDiego reveals hundreds of WAPs, and some very interesting statistics. There is a second write up of the same adventure at the pilot's personal website. All this of course should not be confused with that 1500ft 'WarDriving' effort in Australia."

168 comments

  1. Regulations? by BenDalton · · Score: 1

    How long until someone makes a law prohibiting this sort of action?

    1. Re:Regulations? by doublesix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How, exactly, would this law be enforced? How long until someone makes a law against knee-jerk 'the man will keep us down' posts.

    2. Re:Regulations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because some corporations decide to trust their sensitive data to electromagnetic waves that spread in spherical shells according to 1/r^2, we need a new law to protect them and their silly use of technology?

    3. Re:Regulations? by BenDalton · · Score: 1

      I never said it could be enforced. I just suspect sooner or later someone will try to develop some regulation to prevent this sort of thing. This isn't a knee-jerk reaction, and im not a 15 year old on a 3000 dollar computer my parents bought. I think that, in the same way it is illegal to tune in your neighbor's old cell phone on your scanner (which is un-enforcable), it will be illegal to listen to packets on another person's WAN. I'm not saying I would agree with the law or disagree, I was just placing the question in a place where others could offer their oppinion. Ben

    4. Re:Regulations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean driving?

    5. Re:Regulations? by emitseum · · Score: 1

      By posting or linking to this type of material you are assisting an action that could easily be called terrorism. Consider yourselves reported...

      Yeah, maybe that's overreacting. But what would you think of someone who went all over your neighborhood checking for unlocked doors, and then published a map of the results?

      Sheesh!

    6. Re:Regulations? by Sogol · · Score: 2

      The answer, my friend, is blowin in the wind...

    7. Re:Regulations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we need is a special task force. Headed by the likes of Diane Feinstein,Barbara Boxter and Howard Berman. ...for me to poop on.

    8. Re:Regulations? by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      "How, exactly, would this law be enforced? "

      I'd send a few villagers over to build a couple of SAM sites.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    9. Re:Regulations? by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2

      "I'd send a few villagers over to build a couple of SAM sites."

      Not a bad idea! SAM sites only cost $600 and are fully automatic. Villagers work for 50 food. The only problem is that you'll have to keep your supply of wood up so you can build more power generators!

    10. Re:Regulations? by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 2

      The problems with making 'wardialing' illegal is that it's often done by accident. Consider the case of the guy who had a public access site up, and got overrun by StarBucks. Some of these people didn't want StarBucks. Are we going to throw people in jail because someone put up a conflicting access point?

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    11. Re:Regulations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd think they were exercising their right of free speech. Doing that is, after all, perfectly legal.

  2. gee... by Quasar1999 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    WAP... a word that will soon be in the same category as other failed ideas that should have been shot down the instant AOL agreed to endorse it.

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was the "shot down" pun intended?

  3. time to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    declare a no flight zone over my LAN!

    Oh, and is this a FP?

  4. Range by Hayzeus · · Score: 2, Interesting
    At one point we had to ascend to 2500', and yet the APs still kept rolling in. I guess the lack of intervening metal, wood, and concrete made a big difference. I didn't see a drop off in the home use (Linksys, etc) or the commercial (Cisco, etc.) APs.

    Not really surprising. With no intervening obstacles (or even a horizon) even a weak signal in the 2 ghz range can have incredible range. It might be amusing to try this kind of thing with a big tethered balloon in an urban area.

    1. Re:Range by dattaway · · Score: 2

      Never underestimate the power of a small yagi antenna. This compact miracle antenna can be aimed like a laser pointer into the windows of buildings miles away.

  5. Obsessive by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't get this obsession with finding WLANs.

    Okay, there are a lot of wireless access points out there. Okay, many of them aren't secured very well (if at all).

    So what? Why is it worth so much effort to reillustrate this point over and over again? Sure, Wardriving was a neat concept the first time someone pointed it out, but this is just more of the same thing. What's next? Wartraining? "Look, we got on these wireless LANs while riding the El in Chicago! Why the hell do we have to obsess on this over and over again? This has been overdone to the point where I'm sure we'll see a UserFriendly strip about it!

    Okay, rant over. Sorry.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Obsessive by crow · · Score: 4, Funny

      If only I could get a grant to fund doing this sort of "research." I want to do war sailing. I intend to chart all the unsecured access points I can find in the middle of the ocean.

    2. Re:Obsessive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If you try wardriving at 2500', you'll end up dead in a crushed car about 13 seconds later. See, this is not "just more of the same thing".

    3. Re:Obsessive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't want to be rude, but if you have to ask, you must not be a nerd.

      Why do people have any hobbies? I can't understand building model airplanes or collecting Beanie Babies, but I'm not bothered that other people are really into it

      For me the real thrill comes from seeing things like someone downloading from a P2P network and broadcasting the whole exchange in the clear. I just can't believe how clueless some people are. Maybe it's just an ego trip.

    4. Re:Obsessive by Megane · · Score: 2

      I know some guys at work who I'm sure would like to try wardiving (with no 'r'). All they need is someone to provide them with a couple of water-proof laptops and wireless NICs.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    5. Re:Obsessive by b1t+r0t · · Score: 2
      I don't get this obsession with finding WLANs.

      It's the high-tech equivalent of rubbernecking to see the accident on the oncoming lanes of the highway.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    6. Re:Obsessive by VivianC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's next? Wartraining? "Look, we got on these wireless LANs while riding the El in Chicago!

      Wartraining? What a great idea! If anyone does this, I'd love to know where I can check e-mail along the METRA Northwest Line. I imagine the metal train cars might make the connection difficult.

      --
      Viv

      Gmail invites for ip
    7. Re:Obsessive by ch-chuck · · Score: 2

      The next thing is: warcoptering, maybe warballooning. See, with wardriving you're limited to highways, war flying you pass over a target and only get a few seconds connectivity. But with warcoptering you can hover over a target and send out your entire spam payload. Drawback is that BigCorp with boobs for it mgmt might get suspicious of a 'Copter thupping overhead for a half hour. A balloon is pretty much at the mercy of the wind, but warzeppelening might have some possibilities, or warderigibeling.

      FWIW, 'war' is 'Wireless Access Reconnisance'.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    8. Re:Obsessive by Tracy+Reed · · Score: 1

      A few seconds connectivity? Let's say the range is a mile radius. That means flying directly over it I have 2 miles to work with. At 120kts (137mph) that gives me 53 seconds. Plenty of time to associate, dhcp an ip, check email, send queued outgoing mail, and scoot on to the next AP. Plus we could always circle and have as much time as we want.

    9. Re:Obsessive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was actually thinking that war ballooning might be in order -- seriously. You'd have a lot more control over your airspeed, which would be advantageous if you wanted to lock on to one access point and play for awhile. That said, $50 to the first person who is successful at war hanggliding.

    10. Re:Obsessive by dago · · Score: 2

      "I don't get this obsession with finding WLANs."

      (my) motivation : have fun !

      --
      #include "coucou.h"
  6. time to find a new hobby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is one of the most ill-conceived ideas i've heard in a long time.

    "hey, let's fly real slow (and probably quite low) over all the prominent area businesses, and see if any military jets have to be scrambled."

    seriously, it's time for these people to think about taking up stamp collecting or bowling.

    1. Re:time to find a new hobby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That what happens when you fly a plane with an oversized lawnmower engine.

      You can go get a license too you know.

      It's perfectly legal.

  7. hypocrisy rears its head... by stubear · · Score: 1, Troll

    ...over /. once again. Many here decry the government's attempts at gaining access to information through laws and other legal avenues yet you also have no problems poking your noses in other people's networks without permission or through legal means. Regardless of how open these networks might be you have no right to acces them nor use their bandwidth for your own personal enjoyment. One might get the that many /.'ers are self-centered narcissists.

    1. Re:hypocrisy rears its head... by antibryce · · Score: 2


      Who said anything about accessing these networks? He just scanned for them. If I walked around looking at phone boxes on the sides of buildings, I wouldnt' be guilty of making calls on them. I cant imagine at 2500ft. that he would be in range of one station long enough to even load Slashdot.


      I mostly find this interesting just because it is. Ham radio fans still have contests to see who can bounce their signal off the moon, and who can contact the furthest stations. There are a lot of dorks out there, and we need something to entertain us.

    2. Re:hypocrisy rears its head... by ScoLgo · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of dorks out there, and we need something to entertain us.

      Ahem... I believe the accepted term is geeks - not dorks... :-)

      --
      "Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."
    3. Re:hypocrisy rears its head... by kmellis · · Score: 2
      ...poking your noses in other people's networks without permission or through legal means...
      I'm sympathetic to you frustration with the distorted ethics often seen around these parts. In this case, however, your criticism is mistaken: the author spcifically disabled the IP stack on the XP laptop to ensure that no such intrusion could take place, even inadvertently.
    4. Re:hypocrisy rears its head... by Njoyda+Sauce · · Score: 1

      Had you read the article, I dying fad for /. readers I fear, you would have seen that the entire excersise was devoted to:

      a) Science - how many connections can we see warflying?

      b) Curiousity - can we see these connections form the air

      c) Good Hacking - Alerting people that there are hundereds of unprotected or poorly protected nodes which may belong to businesses or military instillations, nevermind individuals.

      It's sad to see how fast some people jump to conclusions and think that just because people have the power to exploit security flaws that they will.

      --

      You can only be young once, but you can be immature forever.
    5. Re:hypocrisy rears its head... by filbo · · Score: 1

      I think it is worth noting that it can be really easy to access someone else's WAP without even meaning to. My neighbor has one and it is totally open. For some reason, his signal strength is so strong that in the front part of my house it sometimes squishes out my wireless network. I frequently wake up my laptop and begin surfing, only to notice ten minutes later that my computer chose his network over mine, or that mine isn't even showing up as a option.

      Also, if you set something up like this that is totally open, I don't see how you haven't authorized others to use it. I mean, it (the signal) is on my property. It's like my neighbor turning on his hose so that it floods my property and then claiming it's "his" water. It's on my property, it hasn't been secured, why isn't it mine to use? Hasn't my neighbor agreed to share his broadband connection by broadcasting over the neighborhood without taking the most basic steps to implement security? Based on the name of his network he uses Macs, and believe me implementing the security features in the Apple software is a matter of clicking a few boxes.

  8. Chalking... by Guido69 · · Score: 1

    has got to be a bitch.

    Very interesting statistics, though. With all the SSID's left at the default name it makes you wonder if any of these AP's have been secured.

    --
    - If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat? - Steven Wright
    1. Re:Chalking... by sporty · · Score: 2

      It's called skywriting. Just gotta watch out for those gusts of wind.

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    2. Re:Chalking... by madfgurtbn · · Score: 2

      I believe there are a lot of insecure WAPs out there because there are a lot of computers with nothing of interest on them. (or at least nothing the owner thinks would be of interest to anyone). And what do I care if someone leeches a little bandwidth now and then? Most users wouldn't even notice or know how to find out if someone was using their WAP.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
    3. Re:Chalking... by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2

      Even more interesting, since it is usually very easy to change it and then turn off SSID broadcasts on the access point, rendering stuff like netstumbler pretty much ineffective. All this basic security without even using wep.

  9. I have to wonder... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...If these guys happened to be of Arabic origin (I don't know if they are or aren't and don't care), do you think the FBI would have been all over them like sh*t on a stick by now?

    Since this was reported on ArsTechnica, the story had a focus on the coolness/tech factor, but if the story had been spun by our yellow rag mainstream media, the headline would have been something to the effect of "Hackers Use Airplane to Spy on National Information Infrastructure" or something similar...I can imagine the ramifications then.

  10. This makes me mad by i7dude · · Score: 0

    i hate people that do this...i really hate them...

    but only because i wish i had as much free time as them.

    dude.

  11. Garage door war driving... by Radi-0-head · · Score: 5, Interesting
    When I was a kid, my friend's mom was a realtor. We learned that when houses were put up for sale, most of the realtors set the dip switches in the garage door openers to a few easy combinations: on,off,on,off,on,etc... or the first half of switches on, the second half off, or vice versa.


    Armed with this information, we took a few common brands of garage door opener (Genie, MultiCode, Sears, etc.) and set them to these combinations. We then hopped on our bikes and started riding around the neighborhood clicking the buttons. You wouldn't believe how many garage doors opened.


    I sort of drew a parallel between unsecured WAPs and these unsecured garage doors. It was remarkably easy to do. Most people have no clue how to change the dip switches on their garage doors, just like most people have no idea how to change the default SSID, disable SSID broadcasts, and enable encryption.


    Because of what I learned about the security (or lack thereof) of the typical garage door opener, I now have a much more secure Linear DX Code receiver controlling my garage, just in case some kids get the same idea I once had.

    :)

    1. Re:Garage door war driving... by salmo · · Score: 2

      Along the same lines, I've wondered about the security of the keyless entry systems in cars. Going up and manually checking a key to see if it works is a little more dangerous, since you would be seen walking from car to car in a parking lot, but driving up and down the rows in a large parking lot like a Walmart or a mall would be a lot easier. The only reason I think of this is that my friend once got in a car and started it before he realized that it wasn't his, but it was a Taurus that was the same color blue.

      To be honest though I have no clue about keyless entries except that some use radio signals and some are infrared. Then again, I don't have one so I really don't have to worry. I'm sure someone in the Slashdot audience knows more about this and can provide a little information.

    2. Re:Garage door war driving... by Hayzeus · · Score: 1

      I believe most are RF. Many are actually based on common chipsets -- Holtek makes a popular line of encoder/decoder chips.

    3. Re:Garage door war driving... by tiedyejeremy · · Score: 1

      I drive a taurus wagon, green, and walked up to a regular green taurus, unlocked the door and started to sit down when I noticed someone had "stolen" the console.... Then I realized it wasn't my car. I sheepishly relocked the door and got in my car, which was parked right next to it.

      spooky

      --
      Anything you say will be held against you. ... "tits"
    4. Re:Garage door war driving... by topham · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Keyless entry for cars uses an algorithm of somesort based on the remoteid or something. While it is probably possible to hack it (hell, broadcast a signal strong enough and it might unlock anyway) it is far easier to jimmy it. The key in use is generated each time the button is pressed so it isn't the same as the previous one. (You can't eavesdrop it for instance).

    5. Re:Garage door war driving... by Serk · · Score: 1

      Most of the modern keyless entry systems on cars employ an anti-hacking feature where the system 'listens' for repeated broadcasts on it's frequency using different combinations of the PIN. If it detects this happening, it assumes someone is trying an attack, and shuts the remote system down for X minutes.
      This way, the system is 'safe' from being hacked into, but the legit owner, who has a real key as well, can still easily get into the vehicle, they might have to set their groceries down first is all.....

      --
      Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away. -Rob Malda
    6. Re:Garage door war driving... by Tassach · · Score: 2

      I had a similar experience with a maroon Buick Regal I used to own. A few days after I bought it, I parked it at the mall. When I came out, I walked out, spotted what I thought was my car, and opened the door. I knew it wasn't mine when I smelled the cigarette smoke and noticed the child seat in the back. I locked it back up again and walked over one row and got in mine.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    7. Re:Garage door war driving... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're so cool. I wish I drove a Taurus station wagon. Do you live at home too?

    8. Re:Garage door war driving... by tiedyejeremy · · Score: 1

      Sarcasm suits you, anonymous coward. Yeah I drive a wagon. I also play taiko and found that my drums and stands fit best in a wagon. Neither of our other cars are long enough inside for the all the stands without them [the stands] protruding into the front seating area. Sometimes, function is more important than appearance. It may not be the "coolest" car on the block, but at least I'm not driving a gas guzzling lexus suv just to impress my friends. I bet you brag about your stuff all the time.

      Also, I'm sorry you have such a poor family relationship that you frown on those that live at home. Hope you never need the support of your family.

      --
      Anything you say will be held against you. ... "tits"
    9. Re:Garage door war driving... by TheSync · · Score: 2

      Along the same lines, I've wondered about the security of the keyless entry systems in cars.

      In 1986, I went out to my gray Ford Escort in a school parking lot, unlocked the trunk and opened it. Funny thing was, there was a light mounted in the trunk that wasn't there before. Upon further examination, I realized that this wasn't MY gray Ford Escort, I parked a few aisles over...

      I'm hoping that key technology has advanced since then ;)

    10. Re:Garage door war driving... by Schik · · Score: 1

      Doesn't everybody live at home by definition?

    11. Re:Garage door war driving... by MicroBerto · · Score: 2
      I wouldn't be too worried about the kids these days. I haven't seen a kid outside in my neighborhood since Nintendo 64 came out years ago!

      I think they're too fat and clumsy to ride bicycles too.

      And if they do want to, their overprotective parents will make them wear 3 helmets, knee pads, wrist protectors, and 2 gallons of sunscreen. It's just not worth it anymore.

      --
      Berto
    12. Re:Garage door war driving... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we can't honestly say that everyone has a roof other their heads.

      Could explain why this particular anonymous coward is rather envious of
      someone who drives a car-- of any kind.

    13. Re:Garage door war driving... by ces · · Score: 1

      The really funny thing is how many of these same parents are obsessive/compulsive about their own exersise or are into "extreme" sports.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
  12. No really sir, we're just sniffing for APs... by davetrainer · · Score: 2
    we planned to fly over or near high tech businesses, UCSD, Encinitas, Oceanside, Vista, Escondido, SDSU, Mission Valley, Pacific Beach, Mission Beach, Ocean Beach, Pt Loma, Chula Vista and then head to the airport to land. Tracy kept the airspeed low (about 120 knots) . . . we leveled off at 1500' . . .
    How fast do you suppose you could explain yourself to an F-16 pilot?
    1. Re:No really sir, we're just sniffing for APs... by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2

      "How fast do you suppose you could explain yourself to an F-16 pilot?"

      As opportune as it may seem, in a situation like that I wouldn't recommend cranking up the rock music and flipping him the bird.

    2. Re:No really sir, we're just sniffing for APs... by Tracy+Reed · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was in contact with controllers the entire time and explained to them that we were doing an aerial survey. It was no problem at all.

  13. Re:Warflying "American" Style by ComaVN · · Score: 1

    That was hilarious. Thank you.

    --
    Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
  14. Re:Warflying "American" Style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeing as how you posted this _article_ within two minutes of the posting of this slashdot article, I think you should give credit to whomever wrote this piece. Since you are probably simply using it as a scare tactic joke (which is what it probably is, IMO, but I know nothing about this sort of thing, so someone else would have to prove him wrong) I suppose you don't care about bylines and such, but trying to pass this off as your own isn't cool.

    Hedonist23

  15. This just in... by MarkGriz · · Score: 3, Funny

    The FBI field office in San Diego has just issued the following warning:

    "If you see strange symbols floating in the sky above your corporate office, this might mean your wireless networks have been targeted by hackers or terrorists. Be sure to secure you wireless networks and contact the FBI immediately."

    --
    Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    1. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, now, we must be politically correct.

      Hackers ARE Terrorists.

    2. Re:This just in... by b1t+r0t · · Score: 3, Funny
      "If you see strange symbols floating in the sky above your corporate office, this might mean your wireless networks have been targeted by hackers or terrorists. Be sure to secure you wireless networks and contact the FBI immediately."

      Especially if the symbol is a bat.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
  16. Why this news is good... by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 2
    This news is good, but only if it makes it to the small managerial brains that run banks and such. Sure, the networks are insecure, but we are not talking about leaking office pr0n into the wild, it's about your credit card, and mine, being exposed all over the place. I'm to lazy to get the link, but didn't just this kind of thing happen to BestBuy?

    1. Re:Why this news is good... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      Sure, the networks are insecure, but we are not talking about leaking office pr0n into the wild, it's about your credit card, and mine, being exposed all over the place.

      Whatever, that's the credit card companies problem, not mine.

    2. Re:Why this news is good... by ces · · Score: 1

      It'll be your problem when you find all of your Credit Cards are maxed with charges you didn't make and you have to convince the issuer you didn't make the charges.

      Trust me this is not fun to clear up and can play hell with your credit report until fixed.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    3. Re:Why this news is good... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      It'll be your problem when you find all of your Credit Cards are maxed with charges you didn't make and you have to convince the issuer you didn't make the charges.

      Nonsense, I don't have to convince the issuer of anything. I simply call them and tell them "I didn't make the charge".

      Trust me this is not fun to clear up and can play hell with your credit report until fixed.

      No, I don't trust you. If this happened to you and it hurt your credit report, you didn't handle it properly.

  17. Engine quits... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a pilot I can tell you that one of the things drilled into your head, early and often during training, is the question "if the engine quits here, where are you going to land?"

    At 1500' over a heavily populated area the pilot could still be in trouble with the FAA. It is technically legal, but not necessarily safe or prudent. Simply put, there is not a whole lot of options for landing at 1500', and even less over a densely populated area.

    I have seen a great many tech folks at the airport who are smoking holes waiting for a place to touch down. If you consistantly treat an aicraft as a car with the z-axis, it will eventually catch up to you.

    My $0.02

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:Engine quits... by jhines · · Score: 2

      Airspace is controlled around major airports, in fact most of the Chicago area (north side) is under the O'hare TCA (tower controlled airspace). It is shaped like a funnel, centered on the airport.

      This I know, cause I live near one corner of it, and all the lowflying craft including ambulance copters come around my area. I can see a steady stream of planes coming in at night.

      I remember flying around downtown with a buddy in small plane, and we had to fly between the sky scrapers, cause the space above them was controlled. Really cool to do, but I beleive they have closed that airspace further after 9/11.

    2. Re:Engine quits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a valid argument. Every airplane flies over densely populated areas because that's where the airports are to begin with. If you take off out of LAX, even if you climb to 10,000 ft., if your engine cuts out, you aren't going to be able to glide out of LA. and land in a nice open field. If you're over a city, being higher just gives you a little more time to pick which building you're going to crash into.

      Besides, it's not like script kiddies are going to be stealing Cessna's in the middle of the night to go hijack some companies intranet.

    3. Re:Engine quits... by The+Wing+Lover · · Score: 2

      If your friend flew "between sky scrapers", he wasn't flying legally.

      Here in Canada, you have to stay at least 1000 feet above any obstacle less than 2000 feet horizontally from you (except while taking off or landing). This means that for all intents and purposes, you need to stay 1500 feet AGL (because of all the 50-story buildings around) when you're flying over a city.

      The laws in the USA are similar.

      --

      - In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!

    4. Re:Engine quits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your a moron, plain and simple, every flight coming into the San Diego airport passes very low over a densely populated area, the airport is in the middle of downton.They flew this plane over every major freeway in San Diego. If the engine quits, you land it on the freeway, it has been done before and it will be done again.
      Not to mention the fact that the flew over montgomery field, lindberg field, carlsbad airport, and a handful of landing strips (military and non-military) during their flight.

    5. Re:Engine quits... by The+Wing+Lover · · Score: 2

      In a big plane, maybe, but remember that small aircraft have some insane glide ratio, like in the neighbourhood of 8:1. So each extra 1000 feet in altitude means an extra 8000 feet of horizontal gliding distance (like, a mile and a half). If you keep yourself just 3000 feet above ground, you have 24000 feet (4.5 miles) to find a park to land in or head for the water to ditch, or whatever.

      Anyway, I really hope that warflyers bring along someone to do the electronic stuff. A plane requires a hell of a lot more attention to fly than a car does to drive, and pilots should be only flying.

      --

      - In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!

    6. Re:Engine quits... by The+Wing+Lover · · Score: 2

      Um, the law allows you to fly lower than normal when you are doing it "for the purpose of takeoff or landing".

      In general, flying that low over a big city, just for the fun of it (ie, when they could have flown higher but chose not to), is stupid stupid stupid!

      Here's hoping that you will never be licensed to fly an aircraft.

      --

      - In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!

    7. Re:Engine quits... by cwebster · · Score: 2

      the airspace around chicago is largely owned by the chicago TRACON (terminal radar approach control), and not any tower.

      Also, though you have to fly low if you dont want to get (or cant get) a clearance into the class B airspace, you still have to maintain at least 1000 ft in any direction from buildings people (being a densly populated area), so the legality of your friends flying may be questionable.

      And i wouldnt be surprised if your airspace is a bit more restriced now, your mayor likes to beg the FAA to setup TFR's around all his city's buildings.

    8. Re:Engine quits... by Tracy+Reed · · Score: 1

      Don't think for a second that I didn't consider this. As a pilot, you know that flying is all a matter of risk management. I normally control this risk by not flying this low over unlandable terrain and minimizing my time being away from landable terrain. But the fact is we were over highways the majority of the time, as the map shows.

    9. Re:Engine quits... by Mr.+Spock · · Score: 1

      This isn't entirely accurate. It actually is illegal to fly an aircraft over a densely populated area a) Less than 1000 feet above the highest structure within 2000 feet laterally, b) In such a way that in the event of an emergency a landing can be made without endangering any persons or property on the surface. It doesn't matter what altitude you're at, if you aren't satisfying (b) then you're breaking the law.

      In the case of these guys, they were obviously flying over interstate highways, which in a major population center can be your best option for an emergency landing... so I'd say they were doing a-ok.

    10. Re:Engine quits... by Mr.+Spock · · Score: 1

      If by "big plane" you mean airliner, they have a far better glide ratio than a "small plane" if by small plane you mean cessna. Airliners have glide ratios in the neighborhood of 20:1. Their airframes are designed to be very, very efficient.

      Cessna 172: 8.6 to 1
      Cessna 182: 10 to 1
      Mooney 231: 12 to 1
      Boeing 727-200: 16.4 to 1
      Douglas DC-9: 16.5 to 1
      Boeing 767-200: 19 to 1
      Albatross (the bird, not the plane): 20 to 1
      Grob 102 Glide: 36 to 1

    11. Re:Engine quits... by ces · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly on of the approches to Lindberg (the San Diego International airport) goes BETWEEN the skyscrapers downtown. I'm not sure how much actual separation there is but it is kind of freaky when you look out the window of the 737 you are in and can look directly across into people's offices.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    12. Re:Engine quits... by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 2

      At 1500' over a heavily populated area the pilot could still be in trouble with the FAA. It is technically legal, but not necessarily safe or prudent. Simply put, there is not a whole lot of options for landing at 1500', and even less over a densely populated area.

      Densely populated area? Not San Diego. San Diego isn't like those big Eastern cities. It's a large city, but it's really spread out. There are relatively few tall buildings except in the downtown area, due to a three-story limit on (most) new buildings that was in effect for a while (I don't recall all of the details). Also, there are lots of big open spaces, such as canyons, parks, golf courses, and of course, the ocean to the West. It's also surrounded by lots of smaller towns, which is where the pilot spent most of their time flying (according to the map on their webpage).

      Landing in San Diego might still be hard, but it's probably not as bad as you think.

    13. Re:Engine quits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever been to San Diego?

      Didn't think so.

      Ocean to one side. Freeways below. Canyons all over. The Flood Control Channel. Some rather sizable parking lots. And dinky little airports, a couple of military airports, and a big commercial airport.

      Simply put, there are probably more options than you think. Generalizing the concept of 'big city' and applying that to San Diego is more than just inappropriate.

      Come to San Diego for a visit. Make sure you grab a window seat.

  18. Warflying is passe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try warorbiting!

    (You know the feds are doing it.)

  19. What's next? by RealBeanDip · · Score: 1

    WarSkydiving?

    --

    You know you're a geek if you've ever replied to a tagline.

    1. Re:What's next? by bpfinn · · Score: 1

      Extreme WarBiking!

      "Wow! Fred just did an awesome 540, and discovered 3 unencrytped WAPs at the same time!"

    2. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's obvious. War segway-ing.

    3. Re:What's next? by esonik · · Score: 1

      Warsitting (hack all the other War-drivers/flyers/riders/walkers etc.)

  20. You sound like my wife. ;-) by flogger · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was reading /.'s article about warchalking the other day and my wife asked what I was reading! This is rare as she is familiar with the slashdot masthead and has always stayed away whilst I read. Anyway, I tell her. Our resulting conversation was like this:
    Wife: God, some people have way too much time.
    Me: yea pretty wild huh.
    Wife: Why are you grinning like that.
    Me: huh? I'm not grinning.
    Wife: You aren't thinking of going out to do this are you?
    Me: Can't. I don't have wireless connectivity.
    Wife: You've got DSL.
    Me: --Edited speech about differences between dialup, dsl, wireless, 801b.11 blah blah blah.--
    Wife: So you're telling me that you want to buy a laptop and walk around town with it?
    Me: I didn't say that. We don't have the money anyway.
    Wife: You'd do it though, wouldn't you?
    Me: I dunno.
    Wife: You would do it! Why the hell would you want to walk around and pry into other people computer networks.
    Me: Dunno. Curiosity?
    Wife: What? Curiosity. I might be curious to know why the neighbors are moaning so loud every night after letterman, but you don't see me over there with my x-10 camera laptop!

    From there the discussion went downhill....

    (ok moderators: Off topic, Funny, REAL LIFE)

    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
    1. Re:You sound like my wife. ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, my girlfriend on the other hand would say 'Cool, lets go'.

      I mean, I've convinced her that we should stop by all the Tim Hortons in the city and get their GPS co-ordinates. How did I convince her of this? Easy enough, I agreed we could do the 7-11s at the same time. (Note: I specificly want to stop and get the co-ordinates as I've found most Address lookups to be next to useless and wildly inaccurate for the creation of secondary databases.)

      Now, if while doing this I was to collect access points well, that would be a bonus.

    2. Re:You sound like my wife. ;-) by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 2

      Because you might need the net in an emergency or something.

      Say the international compter conspiracy ("The Beast") targets you and you, and suddenly you are being chased by the secret police and you need to hack into various agencies to clear your name or expose the truth to the public!! ....

      Maybe your wife is right, but I bet you if she heard a juicy conversation that got crossed over the neighbors baby monitor to yours, she would listen.

  21. Re:rears it's head, but doesn't read the article by liquidsin · · Score: 2

    If you'd read, you'd see that they didn't access the networks, just scanned for APs. The author specifically states that he doesn't access the networks he finds, and talks about setting up his own unsecured AP for the sake of seeing how far away he can get in a plane and still access it.

    --
    do not read this line twice.
  22. Sequels already in the works. by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    Yep, somebody got an idea from that Australian story. No points for originality, I guess. "Hey, i can make new too!". Ho-hum. Please don't post the follow-up stories for New York, Dallas, Seattle, etc, etc...

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:Sequels already in the works. by Rob.Mathers · · Score: 2

      Had you read the article, you would have seen that he states that they thought up the idea about a month before the Australians posted their results. I'm not saying they were the first or not, but before critisizing, you should read the article!
      I'm getting tired of the dozens of posts that obviously haven't read the article. People who do that simply show that they're missing the point of Slashdot alltogether.

      --

      My other sig is funny!
    2. Re:Sequels already in the works. by pi+radians · · Score: 1

      Did ya ever think of READING the article?

      Cause if you did you'd know why you look like a shmuk for saying what you just did.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    3. Re:Sequels already in the works. by VivianC · · Score: 1

      I'm getting tired of the dozens of posts that obviously haven't read the article. People who do that simply show that they're missing the point of Slashdot alltogether.

      I'm tired of the dozens of posts telling others to read the articles. They show that the poster doesn't understand how /. really works....

      --
      Viv

      Gmail invites for ip
  23. There already are by ACNeal · · Score: 1

    Since he has to get on the network to know where and what is there, he has already used the internal servers of that network.

    If he didn't have permission to use that network, he has already broken federal computer crime laws.

    1. Re:There already are by karnal · · Score: 2

      Nope, as said before, he looked at the broadcasts from the WAPs and discerned from there.

      It would be the same as me listening to music you broadcast over the radio (i.e. one of those cd-car radio thingys.) I could be driving by you, and tune into your "music" by accident... nothing illegal.

      --
      Karnal
    2. Re:There already are by ces · · Score: 1

      It would be the same as me listening to music you broadcast over the radio (i.e. one of those cd-car radio thingys.) I could be driving by you, and tune into your "music" by accident... nothing illegal ... for now, I'm sure the RIAA would love to change that.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
  24. According to that map... by One+Louder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...they flew over my apartment, so I'm probably one of those Apple access points. Oddly enough, because of the construction style of my unit (apparently Spanish Mission Faraday), I can't get a reliable signal from one end of my unit to the other. Glad I can be of service to local pilot community, though.

  25. Inexpensive airborne link is desparately needed by netringer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been searching for a few years for a way to get legit, reasonably priced, Internet connectivity in cockpit. There are many web sites where pilots can get nearly real time weather data. If we could connect in flight we could see radar images of storms ahead. Commercial weather avoidance devices cost tens of thousands of dollars. It's frustrating that every ground-based wireless connectivity solution just won't work at 3,000-10,000 feet. Besides many, such as cellular systems, are is illegal to use in flight.

    Commercial in flight internet links like ground-based AirCell and satellite phones, cost more than $3000 for equipment with conenct rates of $2-5 per minute.

    The $3,000 PDA-based AnyWhere WX shows the potential. The promised inflight access to NEXRAD will fill the bill, but most avionics makers are planning systems that are still in tens of thousands of dollars range, when a laptop or PDA will do the job.

    Your average weekend pilot isn't going to sign up for a $200 month subcription for something only used for a few hours on nice weekends. (Flamers should douse the fire. Most pilots are mere mortals that made flying a priority, just like those who sink money in hot cars or the hottest gaming machines. Most aren't really rich.

    It would be a godsend if 802.11b connectivity could be made to work reliably in flight. Does anybody have any ideas on which wireless technology might fill the need?

    --
    Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
    1. Re:Inexpensive airborne link is desparately needed by dracocat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Use your cell phone. If you read the FARS, part 91, you can use a cellphone. If you look at 91.21 it says:

      Sec. 91.21

      Portable electronic devices.

      (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:
      (1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or
      (2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
      (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
      (1) Portable voice recorders;
      (2) Hearing aids;
      (3) Heart pacemakers;
      (4) Electric shavers; or
      (5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
      (c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other
      aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.

      So, if you aren't flying IFR, its automatically allowed. If you are flying IFR, then see 91.21(b)(5) which says that the operator may make a determination of whether or not intereference will exist... And 91.21(c) says that the opeartor in your case is the pilot in command.

      The cell phone rule only applies to Commercial Aircraft. Unless as the pilot in command you want to dissallow yourself from using a cell phone. So... Use a cell phone it is the cheapest way.

    2. Re:Inexpensive airborne link is desparately needed by netringer · · Score: 2
      The cell phone rule only applies to Commercial Aircraft. Unless as the pilot in command you want to dissallow yourself from using a cell phone. So... Use a cell phone it is the cheapest way.
      I may try it. I have a Nokia 6100 that has a 9600bps modem built in.

      The problem, you know, is that in flight use of a cell phone is violation of FCC tariff. The word is that the FCC has never gone after a violator.

      I forgot to mention the Cheap Bastard solution which uses a Palm and OmniSky. The software is free. Here's a review. OmniSky is $19 amonth. Is OmniSky still around?
      --
      Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
    3. Re:Inexpensive airborne link is desparately needed by grimarr · · Score: 1

      You are correct that the FARs don't prohibit the use of cell phones in this circumstance. However, FCC regulations do. The cell networks are carefully engineered to work properly with cell phones on the ground or close to it, such as tall buildings. The system is not designed to deal with phones that can "see" scores of cell towers at the same time, as would be the case with a phone at altitude. I wish I knew the specific FCC reg, but I don't.

    4. Re:Inexpensive airborne link is desparately needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's been some talk recently about mesh networks, which are basically wireless networks that combine peer-to-peer and hub-and-spoke models of connectivity. It would be neat to see aircraft mesh-enabled -- the signal would jump from one aircraft to the next until it found a decent access point. If this ever comes into being, it might provide a nice solution for your problem.

  26. Re:In the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the US it is explicitly illegal to use the computer services of a system that you do not have permission to be in.

    Prove it.

  27. Re:In the US by phil+reed · · Score: 1

    Did you even read the story? Or do you know anything about how 802.11b hubs work? You don't have to enter their network - they broadcast their existence like crazy. All you have to do is listen for the broadcasts. It's like determining where the phones are by listening to them ringing.

    --

    ...phil
    "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
  28. Terminology by Erbo · · Score: 4, Informative
    Someone was pushing the term "warstorming" for detecting wireless networks from the air (from the "war-" prefix + "barnstorming"). That sounds a little better than "warflying."

    Incidentally, the "war-" prefix either comes from "wardialing" or is an acronym for "Wireless Access Reconaissance," depending on how politically-correct you feel like being.

    --
    Be who you are...and be it in style!
    1. Re:Terminology by SandSpider · · Score: 2, Informative
      Incidentally, the "war-" prefix either comes from "wardialing" or is an acronym for "Wireless Access Reconaissance," depending on how politically-correct you feel like being.

      If you're going to point out that it's based on Wardialing, you might also mention that Wardiling itself comes from the movie WarGames, where the a young Mr. Broderick finds an unsecured telephone line to a military computer by setting his computer to dial a sequence of numbers.


      =Brian

      --
      There is nothing so good that someone, somewhere, will not hate it.
    2. Re:Terminology by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2

      " where the a young Mr. Broderick finds an unsecured telephone line to a military computer by setting his computer to dial a sequence of numbers."

      This idea in the movie was probably inspired by the BBS's in those days. Before the internet, you could use the phone to dial up to ....

      Hmm.. I need some feedback here: How obvious is it that I'm sucking up for Karma? :)

    3. Re:Terminology by mesocyclone · · Score: 2

      Errr... I already did some warstorming this year... but not what you think.

      Every year we drive out to the midwest and chase tornados ("storm chasing"). We use a laptop and GPS to get weather over the internet (often over slow, unreliable voice over analog cell phone links).

      This year I put in netstumbler while we were driving around. Logged lots of AP's. Unfortunately, the GPS was tied to Delorme Maps, so netstumbler didn't get to use it (insert Linux plug vs Windows here... then find me good maps on Linux :-).

      We did hit one AP on I-40 about the New Mexico/Texas line - out in the middle of friggin nowhere!

      Anyway, I claim that WE were warstorming!

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    4. Re:Terminology by stereoroid · · Score: 2

      How about "warbuzzing"? Or would that just be applicable to using model planes for this purpose? (I've already posted on that topic above.)

      --
      (this is not a .sig)
    5. Re:Terminology by Erbo · · Score: 2
      Right. I thought everyone knew that part already. :-)

      "Wardialing" was originally known as "tone scanning" or "demon dialing" until WarGames came out. In fact, you'll notice that the disk that David (Matthew Broderick) pulls out to start the process of looking for game company ProtoVision's computers is labeled "Modem Tone Scan." But this is getting back into prehistory now...

      --
      Be who you are...and be it in style!
    6. Re:Terminology by Erbo · · Score: 2

      Sounds more like just a variation of wardriving to me. How about the term "warchasing" ("war-" + "storm chasing")?

      --
      Be who you are...and be it in style!
  29. Re:In the US by DustMagnet · · Score: 1
    Ok, I'll fall for the bait. . .

    In the US it is explicitly illegal to use the computer services of a system that you do not have permission to be in.

    I'm not sure this is true, but I'll assume it is. You should undersand that he didn't do this, not even accidentally. He didn't use any computer system other than his own laptop. You'd know that if you RTFA.

    --
    'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
  30. Re:In the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    note to idiot:

    read the article.

  31. Re:In the US by wikkiewikkie · · Score: 1

    It's hardly illegal. If you read the article you'll see that the IP stack on the laptop was disabled, so no communications were actually sent. I could go around looking at jewlery in stores, which someone might steal, but there's a big difference between that and stealing the jewelry. You honestly don't belive that just because something might be used for an illegal purpose that it should be illegal, do you? If so, how long have you been working for the RIAA?

  32. warh4x0r1ng by jukal · · Score: 2

    ...what so cool in this waring? If they are really looking for networks that want to be found, would not it be easier to just create a service using which you can broadcast your location, description, coverage and other details. I quess I am missing something, but I don't see anything fancy in driving, flying, walking or swimming around in search of some spectrum. Is it just because everyone is still astonished about the fact that you can transfer bytes over air too ?

    1. Re:warh4x0r1ng by ces · · Score: 1

      Couple of reasons why this is of interest:

      1) large numbers of APs left on default settings have been plugged into otherwise secure lans. Banks, R&D labs, courts, military, government, you name it.

      2) This provides an easy "back-door" into these lans for someone who is up to no good.

      3) There are many privacy concens about the way wireless technology is being deployed. The use of unsecured 802.11b devices for point-of-sale systems (credit cards), and in government offices such as courts concerns many who otherwise don't care about network security.

      4) Even otherwise "uninteresting" residential lans are useful to someone up to no good, if I want to hack, send spam, or a virus I can have it traced to some poor luser with a WAP rather than me.

      5) Free mobile access. In many areas the desity of unsecured WAPs hooked up to some form of internet connection is high enough to allow mobile internet access over most of the area.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
  33. Re:In the US by Keighvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it the same to detect a system as to use it? If this were the case, anyone using a port-scanner, traffic sniffer, or even PING could be called a criminal. He didn't make use of the networks, just pointed out that they existed.

    He also disclaimed his posting of the map, in that the locations marked are those of the plane as it detected the access points, not any indication of where the point itself exists. This is hardly an assist to others in breaking the law.

    --
    Any spoon would be too big.
  34. Ownership? by pixitha · · Score: 0

    When you own the land that your house or office sits on, the stuff on that land is yours. With owning the land, you also own the land "beneath" you and the air space above your house. How long will it take for someone to take this up in a court saying its illegel to steal the network "above" your property? just my $.02

    --
    "an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind"
    1. Re:Ownership? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no, you don't own a column from space to the center of the earth. Do airlines only fly over land that they have permission to fly over? No.

      Stay in school.

    2. Re:Ownership? by pixitha · · Score: 0

      actaully the government takes above i think 5000 ft, (maybe a different height) because they dont you think you need anymore than that for personal use. and yes, airlines only over land they are allowed to, and they only fly down to certain heights that they are allowed to. to answer your question

      --
      "an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind"
  35. Re:In the US by emitseum · · Score: 1

    Yeah but if you published a map of these stores, and in any way hinted which ones were less secure? PLease.

  36. Great work - but overstated security problems by noahbagels · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First - I think these guys did an excellent job - and made a nice contribution by publishing their article w/pictures hosted etc...

    My issue - is that the security problems are IMHO vastly overstated. I've worked at two companies with WAPs - and those were outside of our corporate/internal firewall.

    If someone wanted to work over the WAPs, they would use them like a home DSL line, and simply VPN in. No security problem there.

    As for private home users, and even some small businesses (as both my parents run offices with non-secured WAPs) - the security risk is only as great as the value of their data, divided by the cost to get to it. If any of you want to (i) find, and (ii) hack my father's office's legacy Dos-based auto/office management software, than by all means - we've been in need of a windows compatable update!!! (hehe).

    But seriously - what use would you have for your neighbor's email or home document/resume, etc... and would you really go thru the trouble of hacking a next-door Pentium running WinXP? I think it's far more likely to be the sploits' of a script/trojan than an individual.

    All good companies will have seperate VLANs (or equivalent) running different things - i.e. the WAP should be firewall'd like the rest of the net etc...

    Not to mention - anyone can be hacked over the internet, even with firewalls, but to use WAPs, you have to be within the range - typically 1/4km. Do you have the time/car/laptop/battery life to drive to your 'enemy' or soccer-mom's house and hack the encryptions? (yes I can spell - watch some more southpark).

    BR
    nuff said.

    1. Re:Great work - but overstated security problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is not the individuals using them at home.

      The problem is the number of companies that are using them with some of YOUR personal private financial/health data. And they are spewing it out to the world.

      Linksys mentions the security aspect of the spreadspectrum technology used for 802.11b. Problem is, there isn't any. None.

      WEP is 'ok' but breakable, and VPN, or SSL, etc will correct for that, but many people and companies are working with this stuff totally in the clear.

    2. Re:Great work - but overstated security problems by zx-6e · · Score: 1

      One advantage of unsecured wireless networks is the easy way to inject malicious code or to hack and have it traced to someone else's network. Want to introduce a new nasty virus, hop on down to your neighbor's wireless network and eventually the feds will be knocking on their door instead of yours... I don't think the "average" home user realizes this particular risk. Why bother with their lame bank accounts when you can launch a DDOS safely?

    3. Re:Great work - but overstated security problems by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think there's two problems with unsecured wireless networks. The first is access to data. In business settings often the WAP isn't firewalled off and secured, so it provides an access point into the business's LAN that doesn't require physical access to their wiring. The risks there are obvious. In the home environment lack of a firewall's a given, but there's more risk than would be apparent. If someone searched your computer and you used Quicken, how many account numbers could they find? This is frightening when you consider that banks, when processing electronic checks, don't actually validate much. If an electronic check comes in with a valid account number, they pay it and leave it up to the account holder to screech if it's not kosher.

      The second is access to bandwidth. Even if someone can't or doesn't get access to your computers, they can probably use your network connection to reach the rest of the Internet. What they do will then be traceable back to your network, with no obvious indication that the attached machine wasn't legitimate and one of yours. The result of that is that you could be held responsible for that P2P server hosting pirated content, or that huge chunk of child pornography that got downloaded to something attached to your network. You can try to prove it wasn't one of your machines, but that's going to be a tough job and isn't guaranteed to succeed.

    4. Re:Great work - but overstated security problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about using an unsecured wireless network for malicious activity, like DDoS or similar attacks? That seems like a security concern to me.

  37. That's pretty cool. by Typingsux · · Score: 1

    Did the pilot mark the areas with skywriting?

    --
    The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
  38. Re:In the US by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
    You honestly don't belive that just because something might be used for an illegal purpose that it should be illegal, do you?

    Lots of inanimate objects are considered by many in the US to be evil moral agents. For instance: guns.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  39. Malicious computing via _your_ cable modem by Neuracnu+Coyote · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's the big deal?

    Well, if I had a new klez worm varient to unleash, what better way to introduce it to the world than jumping on some poor sap's low security WAN?

    Crack attempts, spam, kiddie porn, whatever. Any internet activity that people avoid for fear of being traced down can be easily, safely pulled off by leeching off of some poor sap's WAN.

    I'm glad to see geeks making a fuss about a glaring security hole like this. The more fuss, the more press, the more dummies with LinkSys wireless routers start securing their connections.

    --
    --
    1. Re:Malicious computing via _your_ cable modem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      leeching off of some poor sap's WAN

      You mean WLAN.

  40. Warflying form space... by Nonillion · · Score: 0

    How about doing something like this from low earth orbit? But I have a funny feeling that the band would be so crowded you might be lucky to get anything usefull...

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
  41. Legalities by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

    Nothing illegal about this or wardriving. However, if you take it to step 2, which is wep cracking or attempting to join the network, then you are in the same boat as walking into an office and plugging in and nosing around. Netstumbler Forums has more info on this, but as you will read most of the people there do this strictly for the fun of it and do not promote accessing other people's networks.

  42. A better way to open garage doors by djtack · · Score: 1

    We learned that when houses were put up for sale, most of the realtors set the dip switches in the garage door openers to a few easy combinations: on,off,on,off,on,etc...

    When I was a kid we had a better way... we removed the dip switch in the transmitter, and replaced it with a binary counter (available at Radio Shack). Then we would drive the counter with an oscillator, and like magic it could run through all the combinations in a few seconds.

  43. Ah, fun with garage door openers. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

    Something similar occured when I was a little kid, a few months after we got our garage door opener.

    Our neighbor, seeing ours and talking to my dad about it, decided to go out and buy/install one.

    As to my dad: To his credit, he modified the resistors. (No DIPs, you had to clip resistors here) But he only clipped one.

    Neighbor did the same thing when he installed his - He clipped just one.

    Well, we hit that 1 in 7 chance of picking the same resistor. All of a sudden, our neighbor's garage door opened on him. So he walked to the garage, and hit his button.

    Ours went up, his closed. My dad walks out. Eventually, they're both standing there and figure out what happened.

    Both of em' clipped a second resistor and made sure not to clip the same one this time. :)

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  44. BZZT - Wrong! Try again. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

    What this means is that you can use a radio that you have an FCC license for, or an unlicensed radio that is allowed in aircraft. (Example: Amateur radio gear and 802.11 equipment.)

    You STILL can't use your cellular phone, because the FCC does not allow cell phones to be used more than a certain (very low) altitude AGL, because the phone suddenly gets LOS to multiple towers, which will cause interference with those towers. (At best case, each tower will see your signal and consider you a user and work around you - Still, that means that instead of using up 1 users' worth of capacity on one tower (the way the system capacities are designed), you will use up 1 users' worth of capacity on numerous towers.

    Note in the article how much improvement there was in range when he was 1500 feet up - This is EXACTLY why cell phones are illegal in the air. Not because they interfere with flight systems, but because they interfere with cell phones on the ground.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  45. Re:Warflying "American" Style by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 1

    You extremely overstate your qualifications. A mos of 33q10 is a very low level commo mos. Chances are, if you are indeed a 33q, you are a private to spec4 in the army - and damn sure are not qualified to make these statements. NSA trained my ass.

    I can't help but feel I have been trolled....

    --
    ymmv
  46. Re:In the US by karnal · · Score: 2

    From what I read, though, they did not specify which ones were insecure. They only specified that most were set to their default SSID (of which, if you're reading slashdot, you have a higher than average chance of realizing that "certain SSID" = "certain manufacturer default SSID"). Even so, doesn't mean that the specific access point doesn't have WEP or MAC restrictions turned on (again, per the article.)

    --
    Karnal
  47. Realtor 802.11b? by leighklotz · · Score: 1

    Funny you mention Realtors setting garage door combos on houses for sale -- in my neighborhood a house went for sale, and I went on the tour on Sunday afternoon. I saw a Linksys 802.11b box in the window, plugged in to a DSL connection and turned on. I tried accesing it from my house and it was open.
    There was basically no furniture in the house, so I assumed the occupants had just left it on while they moved out, but your post makes me wonder:

    Is there some secret society of Realtors who turn off WEP encryption on 802.11 boxes in unoccupied houses for sale, just like they do with garage door openers, so the realtors can all use their laptops when they are at the house?

  48. Re:Gone now but . . . WarCarunlocking by gavinjolly · · Score: 1

    As I understand it one of the first generation of car alarms could be adjusted bu turning a small dial (after removing the cover). Apparently walking down the road with your finger on the button and turning the dial with a small screwdriver was quite efficient

    --
    God loves you - whether you like it or not

    --

    The weathers here - Wish you were beautiful

  49. Re:In the US by ACNeal · · Score: 0

    Proved

    Combine this law, with the liberal dollar amounts figured by the one state school where the guy got sued for SETI or whatever he put on the computers, and you are a federal felon.

    Especially with the inclusion of paragraph b, the attempt to break anything in a is also illegal. Doing it, or attempting it are indistinguishable.

    I appreciate all the concern about my readin abilities, but I did read the main article linked, and it didn't delve into the finer technical aspects. I will also point out that the windows machine he was using isn't limited to IP traffic, so not having the IP stack installed is irrelevant to whether he intruded on the network.

    You might be perfectly comfortable stating that WarStomper, or whatever the name of the program was didn't try to otherwise communicate with the network, but I haven't looked at the source.

    If it did simply listen to public airwaves, then I stand corrected.

  50. Under the Class B ceiling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the biggest urban areas, the airspace is Class B around the main airport (shaped like an upsidedown 3 or 4 tiered wedding cake) and to fly VFR without being in contact with ATC you have to stay as low as 1000-1500' AGL at the areas adjacent to where the Class B airspace goes down to the surface. This is generally where the most interesting-to-a-warflyer stuff is on the ground.

  51. Uhg,To all yas. by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    Ok, you're right. My bad for taking the slashdot blurb at face value. I should know better than to rely on it for an accurate assesment of the linked story.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:Uhg,To all yas. by geogeek6_7 · · Score: 2

      The assesment was pretty accurate: Hundreds of WAPs, cool stats. Also, confusing it with the Austrailians didn't mean it was a copy cat of the Austrailians. As ever, read the story. The blurb is so you know what you are clicking on. ~geogeek

    2. Re:Uhg,To all yas. by markw365 · · Score: 1

      I was checking irc logs and all I saw was an "Oh crap" someone did the warflying. From Tracy on the 18th. We have been talking about doing this forever and have San Diego pretty much mapped out. :)

  52. IP what? by ACNeal · · Score: 0

    I can be on a MS network without an IP stack enabled. I can communicate with my ethernet card, and I assume a WiFi card without an IP stack.

    I don't get your point, and no it isn't in the main (first) article linked.

    And if there was network communication (which I am more than willing to admit there wasn't now), it would most certainly be illegal.

  53. Re:Warflying "American" Style-oldest source found? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did some searching. The earliest copy I can find of this message is August 17, 2002 a.k.a. www.FriendsOfLiberty.com, submitted by the user account "Anonymous" there.

  54. Re:In the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmmm.. I've seen alot of script kiddies get in shit for port-scanning, you might want to rethink your argument.

  55. WEP not enabled So WHAT? by cliffjumper222 · · Score: 1

    I've got an access point at home - no WEP - so what? The hassle of setting it up and the fact that the rate goes down is too much of a bother. And I don't care if someone uses my internet link, and if they try to hack my linux box - good luck!
    At work we use VPN's so WEP is enabled purely to prevent unrestricted access to the internet via our T1.
    If folks are running a work AP without using VPN's and not using WEP then they are vunrable but other than that - give me a break. Besides, isn't the whole idea of this hobo war-chalking thing to get free wifi access to the net?

    Cliff

    1. Re:WEP not enabled So WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this hassle you speak of? Its as simple as selecting the level of encryption on Linksys WAP11s

  56. Hey, that's me! by John+Jorsett · · Score: 2

    There's one little diamond there in a residential area that's almost certainly my WAP. I think I may have even noticed the plane go by, as we don't get that many low-flying civil aircraft in this area due to its proximity to the military and commercial air traffic. How interesting. 'Scuze me while I go pull the power cord out of the Linksys.

  57. Now just with keyless systems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Five years ago, with our rental car, at Disneyworld. I got the door
    opened and then noticed that the sweater in the back seat wasn't ours.
    We took a closer look and realized this was somebody else's car. We
    looked around some more and found our car. It was the same model
    and color.

    One last detail, this car didn't have a RF key to open the door, I had
    used a regular key to open the door.

    I guess this particular automaker allows a key combination to be used
    for more than one car.

    -cmh

  58. Warbuzzing? by stereoroid · · Score: 2

    That could be an alternative name to "warflying". I can see where "warstorming" comes from (think "barnstorming").

    However, why are we using full-size planes for this? A serious model plane could do the job as well, if done right. Tightly strap in an IPaq and a small GPS, padded, with an external antenna on the Orinoco card. Add MiniStumbler, some gas, and go.

    Even better, with some custom software on the IPaq, and assuming you stay in range of your AP, there may be a chance of real-time telemetry. Add a camera card and spy on your neighbours... no, now I'm just getting silly!

    --
    (this is not a .sig)
  59. a bitch to control but.. by jx100 · · Score: 1

    WarKayaking