Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Say Wi-Fi Virus Outbreak Possible

alphadogg writes with a link to a NetworkWorld article about a troubling security scenario. Indiana University IT researchers are now saying that a WiFi attack intended to piggyback across unsecured access points could do serious damage in a city like Chicago or New York. By essentially brute-forcing the passwords on insecure routers, a worm-like firmware agent could be introduced to an estimated 20,000 networks in New York City alone. "Although the researchers did not develop any attack code that would be used to carry out this infection, they believe it would be possible to write code that guessed default passwords by first entering the default administrative passwords that shipped with the router, and then by trying a list of one million commonly used passwords, one after the other. They believe that 36% of passwords can be guessed using this technique."

165 comments

  1. They'll never get me! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ha! They'll never guess my router admin password, which is '5l@$hd0t.!st.ps0t!'

    1. Re:They'll never get me! by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      I see your new USB 'big F5' button working out well since the one on your keyboard died?

      Back on topic I wonder what this new breed of virus will be called, if indeed it worked.. Weasles? WAIDs? Winfluenza? Actally Winfluenza could work on so many levels :)

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:They'll never get me! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      WiThrax? WiVi? I hear Sony is actually pushing for Wiinfluenza for some reason.

    3. Re:They'll never get me! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Wah? 'cause my name contains 'greywolf', you think I'm a furry? Get some imagination.

    4. Re:They'll never get me! by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Back on topic I wonder what this new breed of virus will be called, if indeed it worked.. Weasles? WAIDs? Winfluenza?

      It's called "linksys" and it's everywhere alreaedy!

    5. Re:They'll never get me! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Ha! They'll never guess my router admin password, which is '5l@$hd0t.!st.ps0t!'

      Ah, the classics never die, do they? My wifi password is... oh wait I don't have wifi

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    6. Re:They'll never get me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say we call it Skynet

  2. Only 36%? by Odin_Tiger · · Score: 1, Insightful

    36% seems like a severe lowball estimate, to me. I wouldn't be at all surprised if 1/3 of WAP's still have the manufacturer's default admin login.

    --
    Unpleasantries.
    1. Re:Only 36%? by j.sanchez1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      36% seems like a severe lowball estimate, to me. I wouldn't be at all surprised if 1/3 of WAP's still have the manufacturer's default admin login.

      1/3 is 33 1/3%. How is that severly off of the 36% estimate?

      --
      Speedy thing goes in; speedy thing comes out.
    2. Re:Only 36%? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think grandparent is saying that he thinks that more than an additional 3% could be guessed from the list of a million commonly-used passwords. He could be right.

    3. Re:Only 36%? by smithberry · · Score: 1

      1/3 is 33 1/3%. How is that severly off of the 36% estimate? because as well as trying the default password, they are suggesting trying a million common passwords, so that would mean the million passwords only gained 3% penetration, which hardly seems worth the bother.
    4. Re:Only 36%? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "1/3 is 33 1/3%. How is that severly off of the 36% estimate?"

      I think he means that if 33% alone are default passwords, with another huge chunk (maybe 10% - 15%?) being among the common million.

      On a more shocking note: Have you noticed that 40% of Slashdot posts made during the work week are done on Mondays and Fridays? :)

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:Only 36%? by mhall119 · · Score: 1

      The article cites 36% as default + dictionary. GP says a full 33.3% are probably default alone, with the implication that a dictionary attack would get more than 2.7% more, so therefore a combined 36% is "lowball".

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    6. Re:Only 36%? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      >>On a more shocking note: Have you noticed that 40% of Slashdot posts made during the work week are done on Mondays and Fridays? :)

      90% of the posts I make are during work. i visit three to four times a day. Of course I rarely respond in the same day. when i check my email account in the morning I read the responses to what I said and reply back. That way i don't get into stupid flame wars, or I can shut up when i put my foot on the keyboard.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    7. Re:Only 36%? by zbend · · Score: 1

      Would be true but new models usually don't come with a default password, you have to set one, and people like to buy new things.

    8. Re:Only 36%? by Denial93 · · Score: 1

      It probably factors in wire connection only admin interfaces, MAC filters, obscure firmwares or some other hindrances. Even routers where the user never bothered to set a password now sometimes have wireless administration disabled. Should have RTFA, but the video is slashdotted.

    9. Re:Only 36%? by computational+super · · Score: 1
      That way i don't get into stupid flame wars

      I take that as a challenge, peraDUMB! Let's see you resist a flame war with ME!

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    10. Re:Only 36%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually thought that 36% was a high estimate only because I seem to recall that management access on WAP's is generally not allowed through the wireless interface unless you specifically enable it. People who are going in and enabling it probably also set a better password. Maybe it is only the last couple of WAP's I've put in, but I know they had access to the management of the access point via wireless off (and still do - I sure as hell am not turning it on even though I have what I think is a secure password on it).

    11. Re:Only 36%? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      "36% seems like a severe lowball estimate, to me. I wouldn't be at all surprised if 1/3 of WAP's still have the manufacturer's default admin login."

      1/3 is 33 1/3%. How is that severly off of the 36% estimate?

      I think he's saying that if 1/3 of all routers have the default password, "brute forcing" those happens in O(1) time, and that if you were brute forcing the remaining 2/3 of all routers, you'd probably find more than 36% are vulnerable.

      I mean, if 1/3 are using four or five distinct passwords, those are essentially freebies.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    12. Re:Only 36%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peragrin, this is your boss.

      You're fired!

    13. Re:Only 36%? by angus_rg · · Score: 1

      They probably aren't too far off, depending how long ago the data was accumulated. Wireless is just getting out of the early adopter phase.

      I know when I was living in my sardine packed townhouse community 2 years ago, only 2 houses were in range, neither of which had a strong enough connection for me to cancel my internet services, much to the dismay of my wallet. I also know someone who does war driving analysis for his job(why didn't I get that job), and he says it is just getting over 40%.

      As more computer illiterate morons pick them up at Best Buy, expect the numbers to rise.

      We are the early adopters. Considering the good security articles/comments I read here incomparison to security exclusive sites that are always behind, I'd say we average a more "secure" crowd.

      I laugh every time I talk with a security professional and they look at me funny when I say a lot of good stuff comes across here. I laugh even more when I talk to them and find they are a cookie cutter CISSP who has no idea what simple security concepts like shell code, off by one errors, or me handing someone a $20 bill to loose their access card are. They are the ones who hear those terms and think, "Who cares, I'm patched". The average slashdot geek will look them up if they don't know them.

      Birds of feather, flock(fileno(together), LOCK_EX);

  3. why brute force? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

    Why brute force your way through when simply typing "admin" works far more often than it should?

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:why brute force? by argiedot · · Score: 1

      Once something went wrong with my wireless router, I'd bought one for the first time a few weeks back, and I'd broken the settings. So I went up to it and hit the reset key at the back but forgot to set the password again. Then one day I came upon one of those list of passwords and I said, "Ha ha, imagine what idiots would leave the default passwords on." So I scrolled right to the bottom and there's my router (it's slightly more than a wireless modem), and there's the password and it suddenly hits me. It was on digg, that list.

  4. troubling security scenario? by Facetious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Holy crap! Maybe we should deal with existing security problems before we start with the imaginary ones.

    --
    Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
    1. Re:troubling security scenario? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Well we were fighting the "existing security problems" of the Russians when the Gulf War kicked off. Perhaps had we been working on "imaginary" problems like Iraq and Saddam Hussein in 1990, we wouldn't be in this 18-year cycle of off-and-on War with Iraq?

    2. Re:troubling security scenario? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1


      Oh no! Imaginary problems are best dealt with by imaginary solutions, You hold a Press Conference and weave imagery to the media. Then they write it up. imagining they have it right. Face it, they lack the imagination on their own. Imagine that...

      - I craftily set my D-Link SSID to "Linksys"

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    3. Re:troubling security scenario? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      You know that's likely more secure than you would think.
      The vast majority of the "hackers" out there likely simply try the default admin password (and assuming that the Dlink is different) would give up and move on.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    4. Re:troubling security scenario? by Facetious · · Score: 1

      Ah, but was the war machine built to combat the Russians not used in Iraq? The fact is that some eggheads at some university were positing what might be and it made it to /. A few moments of thought show the pragmatic problems with the scenario:

      - A 'cracked' router would have to be able to run arbitrary code; this requires firmware to be flashed.
      - The compromised router must then be able to act as a client AND be within range of another AP to spread Winfluenza OR
      - A vulnerable host (Windows) would have to be within range of another AP
      - The compromised router or host would then have to use the dictionary attack. How much storage is on a router again?
      - Such an attack would undoubtedly break the usefulness of the router causing the end user to unplug/replug, repeat, return to Best Buy

      You see what I am driving at. And by driving, I mean in a hummer across the Arabian desert (man, I love the closure of analogy re-use).

      --
      Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
    5. Re:troubling security scenario? by nosfucious · · Score: 1

      Doesn't need a lot of storage.

      Just enough intelligence to fetch a few words at a time from a central site, or all the words from a web page the user visited.

      Fetch -- try -- refetch. Only a few k of memory, if that.

      If it's stealthy enough, keeping a low profile, programmed well enough, it might have a very long time to attempt to brute force other routers.

      How many different firmware images does it need access to? Probably not that many. 10 leading brands, 10 ~ 20 main models each? Once the type of the victim is detected and cracked, fetch an infected firmware from either a central site or a broadcasting infected router. Bingo, no local storage necessary.

      Damn, this is sounding nasty.

      A hardware switch that must be set to 'on' to flash a device suddenly sounds a good idea.

      --
      Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
    6. Re:troubling security scenario? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Ah, but was the war machine built to combat the Russians not used in Iraq?
      Yes, and that's why we are still there 17 years later. The military is always one battle behind. By the time we get a hold on the Middle East, the next flare-up will kick in, and we'll be totally unprepared for it as well, because we focused entirely on the Middle East, and didn't consider other potential threats.

      But your tech points are right on, and I love the analogy re-use as well ;-)

    7. Re:troubling security scenario? by billcopc · · Score: 1

      That comment is so backward, I can't decide whether you did it on purpose or not. It's not that the Iraq war was imaginary, au contraire, it was dutifully imagined by government itself.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    8. Re:troubling security scenario? by stewbacca · · Score: 1
      Perhaps I didn't explain too clearly. When I joined the military in 1993 (two years after the first Iraq war) they were struggling to recruit and train Arabic linguists. I went through Arabic training, but nearly 2/3rds of the people I served with were in school for Russian. Even two years AFTER we realized we had an extreme shortage of Arab linguists, the government was still dragging their feet, plodding along with the Cold-War mentality, that was obviously inconsistent with the new threat. My point being that if we focus solely on the current threat (i.e. the Cold War in 1989), we'll be totally unprepared for future threats (Iraq invading Kuwait in August of 1990).

      Of course, I don't totally disagree with your editorialization that the latest Iraq war has been imagined by government itself, but you'd at least concede that the entire Iraq fiasco has been mostly due to the fact we didn't take care of it back in 1991?

      Ooops...Way off topic now.

    9. Re:troubling security scenario? by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

      ...or maybe we should just secure our routers and not deal with this "problem" at all.

    10. Re:troubling security scenario? by Facetious · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Now if we could convince everyone to stop using Windows...

      --
      Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
    11. Re:troubling security scenario? by lazarusdishwasher · · Score: 1

      Would they try the default Linksys password because the essid said Linksys or would they try the default Dlink password because the login page says Dlink?

    12. Re:troubling security scenario? by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Seeing as I was all of 10 years old when the whole Saddam thing went public, I didn't really understand nor care. It's a wee bit different up here in Canada, we assume people are naturally peaceful - everyone bites their teeth sometimes, but we don't run around with guns. The fact that many former immigrant families are well into their 3rd and 4th generations here might have something to do with it. Most of the city kids here have grown up in a multicultural environment. Russian, Vietnamese, Iraqi - same shit, different food :) It makes it much harder to understand why one group wants to kill the other, when over here we manage to get along no worse than the average uber-white family.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  5. 1 million passwords? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many routers have enough firmware memory to hold a dictionary like that?

    1. Re:1 million passwords? by crow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They don't need to hold the dictionary. Anything that doesn't fit can be downloaded on demand. Most access points have access to the Internet, and residential access points are almost always outside of any firewall (they're usually the firewall themselves).

    2. Re:1 million passwords? by fbjon · · Score: 1
      In fact, it could be a distributed list, with each access point relaying bits and pieces to others, that way you can't shut it down by taking down a server hosting the dictionary. The worm itself could even be distributed. Hell, why not self-modifying while we're at it.

      OMG, Skynet!

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    3. Re:1 million passwords? by Nero+Nimbus · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. For the password guessing, the first three password combos could be the following: admin/blank admin/admin blank/admin Just Google "default passwords" sometime, and start picking sites. The majority of default passwords for consumer-grade networking gear can be cracked by using any of the above three combinations. Throw in a method for cracking WEP, and you've got everything you need.

    4. Re:1 million passwords? by Nero+Nimbus · · Score: 1

      Ah, I forgot to use linebreaks and the preview button. /. really needs an edit feature.

  6. Varying router models and revisions by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many router models and hardware revisions would the worm need to support to make this effective? It would take a great deal of resources to produce custom firmware for that many devices and hardware revisions, especially considering that people have been trying to produce custom firmware for specific devices for a long time without any success at all.

    On another note, configuring the router for administrative access only via ethernet would completely stop the problem.

    Dan East

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Varying router models and revisions by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      On another note, configuring the router for administrative access only via ethernet would completely stop the problem.
      Making any changes to the out-of-box condition would severely curtail the problem. Unfortunately, far too many are just that - out-of-box and plugged in.
      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Varying router models and revisions by kebes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How many router models and hardware revisions would the worm need to support to make this effective? Since wireless routers are (usually) connected to the Internet, the worm could "phone home" to some central repository in order to get the code it needs to attack different models. What I mean is that the virus wouldn't need to carry code for all makes/models. Instead, an infected access point would scan nearby access points (or computers) for open or crackable connections, and then access a central store for the exact methodology/code/virus needed to spread to those new access points. This also means that the virus author could add new makes/models to the "central store" (which would probably be running in a botnet or compromised webserver somewhere) thereby augmenting the virus as it spreads, making it more virulent with time.

      Of course you're right that this does indeed require the virus author to design code for a wide variety of routers and access points.

      On another note, configuring the router for administrative access only via ethernet would completely stop the problem. That should really be the default. Routers are typically less secure from the wireless end than from the wired end (hacking someone's router from the internet is harder than just accessing it wirelessly, since many people don't even secure the wireless end with a password). So it may be viable to create a "bot-mesh" of wireless access points, which gives you all kinds of dangerous abilities (e.g. you can convincingly spoof websites for anyone on the affected LAN as part of a phishing attack).
    3. Re:Varying router models and revisions by j.sanchez1 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, far too many are just that - out-of-box and plugged in.

      I wonder if it is too much to expect that when the routers are first set up, the default password should expire on the first log-in and should require a different password. Are there any routers out there that do this? How come this isn't default behavior?

      --
      Speedy thing goes in; speedy thing comes out.
    4. Re:Varying router models and revisions by schnikies79 · · Score: 1

      How many people do you think buy a router, plug it in, then never login to it?

      I'm betting most of these default name/password routers around have never been logged into even once by the owner.

      --
      Gone!
    5. Re:Varying router models and revisions by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Yup. Too many people don't even know that their router has an administrative interface.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    6. Re:Varying router models and revisions by Idiot+with+a+gun · · Score: 1

      That means it would leave traces back to a central server, or botnet, that security officials could attack and possibly trace to the author. Granted, there are measures the writer could use, but it would still be risky for him/her to have something so traceable.

    7. Re:Varying router models and revisions by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 1

      Would covering the router ports with a note that indicates a required login to set it up be out of the question here? A little paper insert as part of the quick setup notes would go a long way to getting users to setup some basic configuration. A setup wizard at the minimum should require users to select a new password and allow them to walk through an informative configuration sequence.

    8. Re:Varying router models and revisions by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      And this is why I did not buy my wireless router from at&t. The models you can buy form them are pretty common and a survey of my neighborhood reveals that a number of them are out there, and they have the default network id identifying them as att wireless routers. Roughly 1/10 of the routers I found.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    9. Re:Varying router models and revisions by David_W · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would covering the router ports with a note that indicates a required login to set it up be out of the question here?

      They are getting there. A Linksys I recently picked up had a label over the ports reminding you to RUN CD FIRST. I'm assuming their CD will do things like change passwords and turn on encryption (wouldn't know since I prefer to do that manually).

    10. Re:Varying router models and revisions by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I can see it now for current Linksys routers....

      WEP virus wants to infect your router... can you please hold down reset for 6 seconds and start a TFTP server so the virus can infect your router??

      I call wishful doom. Getting DD-WRT on most of these things is a PITA enough, a Virus that will silently install it's self on everything?? yeah right. there has not been a router made that did not require special tasks to flash the firmware to something else other than a blessed version from the maker for over 3 years now.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:Varying router models and revisions by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      A physical note would be stupid. It'd get torn off and tossed and forgotten about.

      They should just do what the wireless servers at a lot of hotels do: redirect all http requests to an internal page server. Only instead of going to a billing page, if no password is set, the first page is the setup page.

      ASIDE: Come to think of it, why is only the wireless bit encrypted? Shouldn't the wired links also be encrypted? It's not like that's compute expensive anymore.

      Of course, then they'd have to remember set the password on their laptops...

      Maybe some kind of "pairing," like in bluetooth, would be a better answer.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    12. Re:Varying router models and revisions by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      ASIDE: Come to think of it, why is only the wireless bit encrypted? Shouldn't the wired links also be encrypted? It's not like that's compute expensive anymore.

      Why would you want to do that? What possible use would it be? I can SEE exactly what is wired into my router.

      How about encrypting the link between your keyboard and PC? Your monitor? ... Looks like you've just invented Palladium.

    13. Re:Varying router models and revisions by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 1

      The physical note would just be there to inform them that they need to go through a setup process though. The process that hotels use could easily be a redirect to the setup wizard. The note simply informs the consumer that they will go through that process.

    14. Re:Varying router models and revisions by jackpot777 · · Score: 1

      Too many people don't even know that their router has an administrative interface.

      Funny, if it weren't so painfully true. At a recent booze-up, one of the group comes up to me (resident technical person) and asks how they set up their new wireless modem-router at home. I asked them if they had accessed it like a web-page, with the usual 192.168.blah.blah address.

      "That's what they [whoever THEY are] told me to do on the phone, but it won't connect still."

      "Did you try connecting the computer to the thing using a cable first, because maybe it doesn't know it should be sending out signals yet, so it isn't?"

      "Would that make a difference?"

      So yes. Most people with computers don't know about private network IP addresses, or don't RTFM that came with the equipment (even if TFM just says "insert the CD and follow the instructions"), so there's a pretty good chance they won't go into the drop-down options and select to encrypt their signals. Because, their mental process will be: it took long enough to get the thing working without the signal being scrambled like the Enigma Code so imagine how impossible connectivity will be if 'someone messes with the settings'.

      I'm trying to think of a witty analogy, but all I can come up with is if all bank cards were delivered with a default 1-2-3-4 PIN (and why would you change something as easy to remember as 1-2-3-4?).

      --
      Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
    15. Re:Varying router models and revisions by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you're smoking, but I have a Linksys router next to me that I purchased two weeks ago. Flashed it to Tomato using the "update firmware" tab on the admin interface and nothing more - no holding down reset, no TFTP, just upload and go.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    16. Re:Varying router models and revisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRT54GL dont count. incredibly few buy that model.

      call us when you get a Best Buy flavor to do that. I used to only use buffalo as they were a crapload better than the linksys crap but they pissed off the FCC so you cant buy them anymore.

    17. Re:Varying router models and revisions by mlts · · Score: 1

      I learned the hard way that the Linksys CD is worthless. Every time I've installed a Linksys router (either for myself or for friends), the CD ends up erroring on the install saying "whups, that's not doable". This occurs even on simple setups where the Linksys router is the firewall, and the wireless access point (its default config). I've found that the only real way to configure the router is to plug a machine into it with a netmask that can address 192.168.1.1, browse the web page at 192.168.1.1, use the usual username "admin", password "password", and manually configure the sucker to what you want.

      Call me insane, but I wish for an access point that had a control panel on it so one can punch either an initial IP address/netmask/gateway (or use dhcp), then set a PIN for the inital login. Then, once that is set, you then can browse the router's web page via SSL for the rest of the setup, and change the initial PIN into a more secure passphrase. What security advantage this would offer, is the fact that there would be -no- default password (as if the device is hard reset, before the device gets on the network, it will need a PIN manually set. A user can always use a "default" pin of "1234" or "0000", but that is the user setting lax security, not the device with lame defaults.)

    18. Re:Varying router models and revisions by Zadaz · · Score: 1

      In San Francisco you need to be in a pretty deep dark Faraday cage to not pick up at least 1 "2WIREXXX". These are what AT&T has been handing out as DSL modems for the past few years.

      Out of they box they are WEP based and have their serial number as a password. (So if you don't feel like sniffing it you can easily brute force it).

      There is no manual provided with it and no indication of how to change the password or run in WPA. (Fair enough. For most people that would just confuse them but it took some Googling for me to even find out a web admin interface even existed.)

      I'm looking at 7 of them right now from my living room. I haven't looked but I would guess any device that is this widely distributed has an active hacking community around it...

    19. Re:Varying router models and revisions by MyrddinBach · · Score: 1

      Initial conditions for all wirless routers should be:

      1. Must be WIRED in to bring up the config page
      2. Remote administration turned OFF
      3. Default password set to some random sequence of numbers printed in the documentation or the routers serial number
      4. Immediately upon first log in you are required to change the password

      Ive always like cayman (aka netopia) routers because on their wired (as in no wireless) dsl routers they actually meet the first 3 conditions above, although from what Ive read they are just as bad with security on their wireless products as everyone else.

      But then again Ive never had any need to set up my own wireless connection..

    20. Re:Varying router models and revisions by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Haha - did the exact same thing when I got my brother the WRT54G or whatever the "standard" Linksys 802.11G router is.

      There's a big "secure easy setup" button and stuff, but I have no idea what it's for.

      I ripped off the sticker, tossed the CD and paperwork, and did everything manually.

    21. Re:Varying router models and revisions by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      How about encrypting the link between your keyboard and PC? Your monitor? ... Looks like you've just invented Palladium.


      I meant encryption that you, as the user, have control over. Keyboard and monitor encryption are actually not bad ideas. They prevent a certain kind of invasion of privacy that is unlikely, but the cost of implementing them would also be low, so the cost is in line with the risk. As long as YOU can decide if you want it, and you can still use a the full capabilities of a monitor that doesn't support it.
      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    22. Re:Varying router models and revisions by adolf · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily.

      Since nearly every router can be presumed to have a wide-open (and likely quite fast) pipe to the Internet, there are plenty of ways to get around the need to have a central server. Some others are rather unknown, or even a bit old, but those reasons by themselves don't make them inapplicable to the role.

      Storage for all of this can be a problem, but that's an easy one to solve: The small size that such a worm must be combined with the relatively large amount of bandwidth available on each infected host means that only a very small percentage of them need to be able to store a quantity of files for the rest of the network to consume. As luck will have it, a substantial portion of these routers will be connected by fast Ethernet to Windows share, which these days means that there's a good chance of having multiple gigabytes of storage available without anyone ever noticing, let alone anything being logged.

      (And, of course, the routers will be able to share and relay different versions of the worm amongst themselves locally over WiFi -- just try tracking that.)

      It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the rest of the dots, so I won't bother.

      An ambitious programmer of the caliber needed to devise such a beast to begin with wouldn't see much of an impediment with these vast resources. With careful and diverse seeding of the first round of infection, such a worm would be very hard to stop, let alone trace back to its originator.

    23. Re:Varying router models and revisions by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...A setup wizard at the minimum should require users to select a new password and allow them to walk through an informative configuration sequence.....

      A little switch labelled program/run would work to prevent modifications of any settings when in the "run" position. Anyone who wanted/needed to change any settings would need physical access to the router. When switch is in "program", the router doesn't connect to the Internet. Companies could fix this for little extra cost.

      --
      All theory is gray
    24. Re:Varying router models and revisions by hughk · · Score: 1

      On another note, configuring the router for administrative access only via ethernet would completely stop the problem.
      There is a German company, AVM shipping routers mostly in Europe that does the right thing. The router is shipped with a random WPA key and admin password which is distributed on a label stuck on the box. Not only that, they are also now choosing the optimal channel based on least interference. With such a device it is usable out-of-the-box for almost anyone sensible enough to use a computer.
      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    25. Re:Varying router models and revisions by Cramer · · Score: 1

      That CD doesn't do anything useful. It's a free-standing ethernet device. It doesn't require drivers or proprietary setup programs. Point a browser at it and go.

      Some older netgear and 3com hardware wouldn't work until you completed their lame "setup". It intercepted all web traffic and blocked everything else. And wireless wasn't enabled until you intentionally turned it on. Today's Linksys crap is designed for complete brainless idiots -- no shit, some of them cannot even figure out how to plug it up (power maybe, ethernet no.)

    26. Re:Varying router models and revisions by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Most modern wireless routers have barely enough flash and RAM to do what they're supposed to do. Replacing that firmware with custom firmware that a) continues to function as the router, and b) can scan and attack other routers is simply not going to fit in 2M flash/8M RAM. Plus, there are a lot of different hardware platforms around. Most of them are not Linux based, so the code and details of their operation aren't so easily replicated.

      Sure, it's an interesting THEORY , but until they show a working model, it's simply not a threat. It's an academic exercise.

      Oh, and the article says even WEP won't protect you. This is also very much in error. Show me even ONE cheap little home wireless router with the CPU power to attack WEP. Sure almost any modern computer can recover a WEP key in just a few minutes, however they have two things few wireless routers have... very fast cpus, and a loads of memory (RAM, hard drive, etc) in which to hold the thousands (or millions) of packets necessary for the process. You'd be far more successful driving around the city with a laptop running airsnort.

  7. Simple Solution by dotpavan · · Score: 2, Funny
    They believe that 36 percent of passwords can be guessed using this technique.

    Solution: Use any of the 64 percent of the pwds

  8. Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is retarded, someones trolling for hits here. Even if a worm could guess guess wep/wpa keys in oder to "piggyback" to another unsecure AP it would still have to either:

    A) exploit a computer inside the network to have it scan for more APs.

    B) somehow crack the firmware on every brand of router it hits and have it do it.

    If you have a remote exploit for XP (which is what you would need), why would you bother writing some stupid wi-fi hopping worm.

    1. Re:Retarded by fmobus · · Score: 1

      Wrong!

      You only need one computer to begin the process.

      1. This computer would scan for open routers, associating to each open router it finds.
      2. Then, it would try to access the administrative interface (usually done over http).
      3. If there is one, try the admin interface's default password.
      4. If it works (most of the times), attempt to overwrite the firmware
      5. If it works, the new firmware would propagate the worm, serving as the "computer" on step 1

      It can be done. To avoid it, you should change your admin interface password and use WEP/WPA (prefereably WPA)

    2. Re:Retarded by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      If it works (most of the times), attempt to overwrite the firmware And here you hit his point A. The worm would have be incredibly complex to run on a wide variety of architectures and operating systems, and INCLUDE all those operating systems in the firmware image it uploads to the router...
    3. Re:Retarded by Simulant · · Score: 1

      Yeah it could be done in theory but it's highly impractical/improbable.
      Let's not get our panties in a bunch.

      According to the "5 best hacks of 2007" article of a few days ago, it's getting hard to find an open AP these days and
      even if you find one, most manufacturers are now shipping APs with admin access disabled on the WAN interface by default.

      Then again, the same article said that running a packet sniffer on a open AP and grabbing cookies ("sidejacking") was one of the top 5 hacks. If our security professionals only figured this out in 2007, we've already been pwned.

    4. Re:Retarded by fmobus · · Score: 1

      Well, you could have it download the firmware image from the Internet (IRC or p2p) according to the device you are attacking. The worm itself would be just a little "hack" in the firmware image. And you don't have to bother with all brands and models: start with the most popular ones (Linksys' W54GL, and the like). Some of those already have open source versions of their firmware, meaning you don't really have to reverse-engineer everything.

      My point is: it is not impossible. Wifi router will meet all the requisites in most cases: rewritable firmware, open-sourced os/firmware, unsecured APs, default password in administrative interfaces, a quite capable processing unit and an wifi antenna. Diversity may slow things a little but, although I lack data, I believe that the domestic and soho wifi router market (the best target - least security-minded) is dominated by few models.

      If this hasn't been done yet (at least not that we knew), maybe the would-be-attackers haven't found a suitable, big, with lots of routers within range of each other. It could be already happening in a "silent" mode somewhere. It only becomes detectable if you use the full capacity of processor power and wifi output of the router, hindering the legitimate connections.

    5. Re:Retarded by rindeee · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Add to your "should do" list; "Disable admin access over wireless and WAN making it only available from directly connected Ethernet LAN".

    6. Re:Retarded by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Impractical ? In the 2-3 minutes I've spent reading this article and comments, I probably could have done this to my own router. It's actually pretty easy for any techie to pull off, considering how many modern routers run some sort of embedded Linux system. The firmware isn't some exotic Fortran behemoth like in the good old days, the 21st century is all about commodity hardware and software, cheep cheep!

      Anyone with some basic knowledge in developing scrapers/spiders could figure it out in half a day, all it takes is a shell script running on the router.

      Be afraid!

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    7. Re:Retarded by KilleenWizard · · Score: 1

      Modern attacks are getting multi-faceted; witness Storm. Attacking a router would be only one step in a complex attack.

      After a computer or router gets access to another router, there are two options available, and one or both can be implemented:

      1. Download an appropriate image from a server to put on the attacked router.

      2. Adjust the router settings to give DMZ access to the computers in the WLAN. If the router does not report IPs or names of computers within the WLAN, then a scan could be done, one computer at a time, changing the DMZ from one IP to the next. May be slow, but who's waiting?

      If it cannot flash the firmware, then option 2 is still available.

      Once it has inside access to the WLAN, it can sniff the WLAN for passwords, etc., which would let it infect one of the computers. This would basically be halfway an inside job. It probably doesn't really matter if a router is infected or a computer is infected; either can do the dirty work desired by botnets.

      Once a hard-wired computer is infected, it can then re-flash the router. The best protection against this would be to have a hardware switch, or, as someone else suggested (which is better, since it still allows remote management), use a number on the bottom of the device as a password.

      If a model of router is discovered that the worm does not recognize, it can send the data (webpage or telnet screen) back to headquarters for someone to look at and research and find out how to manipulate. Thus, the worm would be able to attack more models of router as time goes by. A firmware flash is unlikely for most routers, but as long as the computers inside the WLAN can be infected, it doesn't really matter. However, if a router AND computer are infected, then if the user fixes one, the other can reinfect. Ditto for infecting multiple computers inside a WLAN.

  9. Say Wi-Fi Virus Outbreak Possible by plarsen · · Score: 0

    I can also say that a Wi-Fi Virus Outbreak is Possible. I am not a researchers, I better reconsider a career in the research buisness, it sounds suitable to me.

  10. Not that likely... by crymeph0 · · Score: 1

    Even though a lot of people are idiots and leave the password at the default, there are still at least 3 or 4 different types of hardware (think Belkin, D-Link, NetGear, etc., and all the different models they each have available) that are in common use. This means that to be fully effective, a virus would need to contain several different firmware images of itself, and would have to store it all in the limited space available in the flash memory of the infected unit.

    Of course, you could choose to infect one or two types of common consumer wireless router, but I think that would greatly limit the probability of a full-bore chain reaction spreading across the greater metropolitan area.

    --
    It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
    1. Re:Not that likely... by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      IANA Virus Writer, but if my program had access to the Internet as well as another AP, I'd just download the required image for the next infection on the fly?

    2. Re:Not that likely... by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Don't remember what the OEM firmware does, but with the DD-WRT firmware on my WRT54GL, you're not permitted to enable remote router access with the default password in effect.

      rj

  11. Really? by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not so familiar with Belkin, Netgear and all no-name wireless routers out there, but the newer (last year or two) Linksys WRT54G routers don't allow administrative access over the WLAN by default. You simply get an access denied page when attempting to access it. I'm kind of surprised that linksys doesn't just deny wireless connections to the administrator pages.

    Unfortunately, that means that I can no longer log in to those routers with default passwords and open up ports for myself when I'm on some stranger's network and it requires me to plug in when I need to make changes on my own networks.

    Of course, you should disable access to the administrator pages over the WLAN (or restrict it to a maintenance port if your router has one), change your administrator password (and username, if possible) and make sure you've got strong encryption with a strong password/key.

    When I was living in manhattan (2004-2005), there were over 20 visible wireless access points from my apartment. Running kismet and walking from the front to the back of my apartment with my powerbook, I could pick up closer to 30 networks and about 3/4 of them were password protected; mostly with WEP. Nowadays, living in brooklyn, I can pick up around 15 wireless networks and all but 2 are password protected and most are using WPA or WPA2.

    --



    ...spike
    Ewwwwww, coconut...
    1. Re:Really? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      WPA is the security choice as it is harder to crack but not impossible.

      The trick is all you have to do is lock the front door. That prevents most random theives. though if your sharing music via P2P unlock your router. that way you can blame others.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Really? by schnikies79 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if that is true, if remote management is not enabled, it doesn't matter if you have the password.

      I know it was that way on my linksys.

      --
      Gone!
    3. Re:Really? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      The problem with WPA is that certain manufacturers of certain non-computer wifi-devices decided not to support anything other than WEP...

      Damn stupid if you ask me.

    4. Re:Really? by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, that means that I can no longer log in to those routers with default passwords and open up ports for myself when I'm on some stranger's network

      Unfortunately? You were taking advantage of a security flaw that has now been fixed.

    5. Re:Really? by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 1

      The problem with WPA is that certain manufacturers of certain non-computer wifi-devices decided not to support anything other than WEP


      Yeah, like my Nintendo DS. Although my Wii gets onto our network without issue.

      And I'm not sure if this is still the case, but I've had significant issues getting XP machines to log into WPA2 protected wireless networks. There was supposedly a separate update which fixed that and gave you the ability to connect to such a network, but I was unable to get it installed/working at my roommate's sister's place.

      I have gotten it to work on other machines, though. I'm not sure exactly what I did differently.
      --



      ...spike
      Ewwwwww, coconut...
    6. Re:Really? by Danse · · Score: 1

      The problem with WPA is that certain manufacturers of certain non-computer wifi-devices decided not to support anything other than WEP...

      Damn stupid if you ask me. This is the problem that I have. I needed to get my living room devices connected to my wireless router in my office, but the access points that are available either aren't compatible with my router, or only support WEP when used as a wireless bridge. There's probably a solution, but I'm not a networking genius, so I don't know what it is, and with all the various devices out there, it's hard to tell what will work and what won't without actually trying them in my specific setup. That would get expensive.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    7. Re:Really? by blhack · · Score: 1

      I can pick up around 15 wireless networks and all but 2 are password protected and most are using WPA or WPA2. When i moved into my new apartment and saw a similar scenario I went "SUHWEEEEET!" and busted out the ubiquiti gear, the amps, a giant satelite-dish-sized directional antenna and its tripod, and few soekris boxen.

      Oh, and a little openwrt box that runs my wireless network. If you ever see a network called "secret_awesome" go ahead an join, i leave it open for anybody to use (you're going to get subnetted away from me though).

      Please tell me I'm not the only one who did that...cause that would be really sad.
      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    8. Re:Really? by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 1

      When we first moved into my current apartment and didn't have internet, yet, I needed to get online with my desktop machine (no wireless and no signal in my room) so I set my powerbook up to an available network and set it up to share that internet connection through ethernet, then attached that to my switch and my access point so we could all get online with a good signal.

      I thought about it for a while but decided against simply leeching off the neighbor forever since I like to have some degree of control and information when things aren't working as smoothly as they should.

      This has since become a non-issue since it appears that EVERYONE in neighborhood must be grabbing torrents. I rarely see more than 200K/sec come from anywhere. Usenet used to bless me with 1000K/sec+ speeds, but now I see around 170 at night and around 300 in the mornings.

      --



      ...spike
      Ewwwwww, coconut...
    9. Re:Really? by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      As an owner of, and now a hijacker of, Linksys wireless routers I must say: Wha???

      I've only used the ethernet ports once or twice, and have always been able to administer it over the air. It's the default settings. Also, two of my neighbors have unsecured AP's, both Linksys, and both allow WLAN configuration. One is setup to allow remote configuration by default (the owner has never edited a setting, I doubt he/she has turned this, of all features, on - it's hidden in the advanced setup pages).

      AP's that have never been setup certainly allow you to do so via WLAN. I think disabling this would defeat the purpose of a wireless router. At the same time though, the best measure would be to change the admin password (from U:Admin P:Admin) when you get the damn thing home. It would be a shame if I blocked your MAC address because my torrents are downloading fast enough (I've come close).

    10. Re:Really? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      WPA is only 2002 or so tech. Windows XP only supports it in SP2 and above. Devices older than this probably don't accept it as it wasn't around when they were built. given the consumer industries record anything initially designed before 2004 most likely doesn't have support.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    11. Re:Really? by Cramer · · Score: 1

      That's because Windows XP doesn't support WPA2 without the hotfix. The wireless card's driver and management application(s) might even if Windows does. Just keep the hotfix on a thumb drive, and always be prepared.

    12. Re:Really? by slicenglide · · Score: 1

      They changed the admin password. I set these up all day, the admin is accessible by wifi... just you didn't have the right password. I meta-moderated you correctly, but you are incorrect. WAN config is disabled by default, which is configuring remotely from the internet side to the public facing IP address of the router.

      --
      John Walsh once found me while looking for some other kid. He was not amused.
    13. Re:Really? by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 1

      They changed the admin password. I set these up all day, the admin is accessible by wifi... just you didn't have the right password. I meta-moderated you correctly, but you are incorrect. WAN config is disabled by default, which is configuring remotely from the internet side to the public facing IP address of the router.


      really? I'll have to doublecheck. I'm 99% sure I didn't change whatever the default settings are on the one in my apartment (my roommate's unit) and that one doesn't allow wireless administration. I was fairly sure it was disabled on the other ones that I have/have set up, but those are all running dd-wrt, now, so there's no way of checking.

      thanks for pointing that out. =)
      --



      ...spike
      Ewwwwww, coconut...
  12. Video Presentation of Paper by Afromelonhead · · Score: 2, Informative

    I attended a talk that Steve Meyer (one of the presenters of the paper) gave at Purdue as part of the CERIAS Security Seminar Series. Link to the video is here. It's definitely worth a watch.

    --
    Procrastination sucks.
  13. Wifi router on router action by zsbyd · · Score: 1

    So are they saying once a router is compromised, it utilizes its resources to attack outer Wifi routers in range? "Hey you were my friendly network neighbor, and now you want to control ME?" I say we form a coalition of routers who want to remain under their own control and enforce it with high-strength, nearly non-brute force-able passwords. What a novel idea.

    1. Re:Wifi router on router action by noidentity · · Score: 2, Funny

      Skynet couldn't be far behind...

    2. Re:Wifi router on router action by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      90% of the time it won't find other routers in range of course. Outside colleges, which presumably have a lot of them, most of them are in houses and the wifi signal doesn't travel that well through solid brick walls especially with the weedy antennas that ship by default.

      Even public wifi has an effective range of about 30 feet from the source.. you might be able to pickup starbucks from the mcdonalds next door (as you can around here - mcdonalds didn't bother with wifi presumably for that reason) but how many other APs are likely to be in that range? I'd wager it tends towards zero in most places. Not a very effective virus.

  14. Common Sense Should Prevent This by j.sanchez1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have a Linksys WRT54GL flashed with DD-WRT firmware. I use a MAC filter that only allows computers I SPECIFICALLY tell it to, I have disabled administrative access to the router wirelessly and changed the default login AND password, and I password protect my wireless access on top of all that. It took me about an hour (if I recall correctly) to set the router up, including flashing the DD-WRT firmware on it. But once it is done, I don't have to bother changing any more settings, aside from rotating the admin password and updated the MAC filter as needed.

    Just my take on it.

    --
    Speedy thing goes in; speedy thing comes out.
    1. Re:Common Sense Should Prevent This by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

      As a side point, MAC address filtering is tremendously ineffective.

    2. Re:Common Sense Should Prevent This by j.sanchez1 · · Score: 1

      As a side point, MAC address filtering is tremendously ineffective.

      Why is it ineffective? Is there some way to spoof a MAC Address? If so, how could someone get the MAC address of another computer they do not have physical access to?

      --
      Speedy thing goes in; speedy thing comes out.
    3. Re:Common Sense Should Prevent This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so, how could someone get the MAC address of another computer they do not have physical access to? The same way that the router gets it for the purposes of excluding/including it in the network. Once somebody has broken your encryption, MAC filters become totally useless. It is trivial to obtain valid MAC addresses (provided a valid computer is currently engaged to the network), and it is trivial to spoof them. Haven't you ever seen the routers/wireless-bridges that have a MAC address field that you can fill in yourself?
    4. Re:Common Sense Should Prevent This by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      Why is it ineffective? Is there some way to spoof a MAC Address? Yes, lots of hardware (especially routers) set their MAC Address in software.

      If so, how could someone get the MAC address of another computer they do not have physical access to? MAC Addresses are constantly being broadcast, it'd be trivial to catch one.
    5. Re:Common Sense Should Prevent This by jargon82 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is possible to spoof a mac. Also, Mac addresses tend to be floating around in the air on wireless... alot ;) If you can associate with the access point, you (easily) can catch quite a few active MACs.

    6. Re:Common Sense Should Prevent This by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is some way to spoof a MAC address. In Linux you can do it with a simple ifconfig command. In Windows you have to edit the registry.

      In order to find out the MAC address of another computer across wireless, you just have to snoop on the packets (use wireshark). The MAC address is right there (otherwise how would the router find it out?)

      Now if everything is encrypted with a scheme that isn't broken (WPA not WEP), then snooping becomes impossible. But if you are using WPA already, MAC filtering simply adds an unneccessary layer of (false) security.

    7. Re:Common Sense Should Prevent This by shrikel · · Score: 1
      I have a Linksys WRT54G flashed with DD-WRT firmware. I terminated all the patch cables from it onto a cinder block, unplugged the power adapter, put the whole thing in a grounded lead-coated copper box riveted AND welded shut, encased the whole box in six cubic feet of concrete, and buried it 4 feet under my well-watered garden. Oh, and I have a dog guarding my yard. A REALLY BIG dog with a laser strapped to its head. The whole process took about 1.5 hours. I guess I could have saved 30 minutes and just done what you did, but ... I think mine is more secure.

      Just my take on it. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
    8. Re:Common Sense Should Prevent This by ledow · · Score: 1

      Fantastic, but if you'd use WEP instead of WPA, none of that really matters now, does it? I'd be on your local network and could boucne via ANYTHING there to configure/reflash the router. Once someone's in, that's the end of it.

      And MAC filtering takes exactly zero time to bypass once you know it's in place - some tools constantly read all connected MAC's of all nearby radios and "change" to take over their MAC with a single click. You have to TRANSMIT your MAC for any sort of networking to work, and it's trivial to change a MAC on anything - network card, wireless etc. A MAC is not security (despite the meaning of it's acronym), it's a tiny piece of broadcast information.

      I work for schools in the UK and I have tried and tried to explain this to them - their engineers only EVER use WEP on their access point because "WPA is difficult to set up" (yes, I know, its rubbish!). I even did the Whoppix/Whax thing and showed them their WEP key remotely without any hints in under five minutes but their answer is "nobody would bother to do that".

      And that's where the problems lie - if you have even 10% of AP's using WEP or insecure passwords, then you can use them to bounce a million attacks off to find some more of that 10% and so on and so on. It's a numbers problem - each point is another radio listening on your behalf without anyone knowing.

    9. Re:Common Sense Should Prevent This by j.sanchez1 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I have a dog guarding my yard. A REALLY BIG dog with a laser strapped to its head.

      If only you had a SHARK with a laser strapped to its head. Then your router would truly be secure.

      --
      Speedy thing goes in; speedy thing comes out.
    10. Re:Common Sense Should Prevent This by GiMP · · Score: 1

      While MAC address filtering will not block even a non-determined attacker, it may be enough to block some automated attacks. This is especially true of those originating from limited-size firmwares, eg... worms in other nearby routers.

      All else aside, MAC address filtering does no damage other than increased administrative burden... it makes wireless security no worse, even if its benefits are only marginal.

    11. Re:Common Sense Should Prevent This by paxgaea · · Score: 1

      This is a much better /sarcasm post than the lazy post I was going to make...

      Was gonna say something to the effect of 'and I welded the lock on my chastity belt and gave the key to '

      Mod parent up, please...

      And with respect to the grandparent, all sarcasm aside, I give you credit for the effort, even if doesn't prevent a sufficiently motivated individual from getting all up in yer network and stealin yer dirty pix of yerself. More effort than most would bother with, even if they know they should, hence the potential effectiveness of the theoretical hack.

    12. Re:Common Sense Should Prevent This by paxgaea · · Score: 1

      aha, caught by the laziness of not previewing....

      line was supposed to be:

      Was gonna say something to the effect of 'and I welded the lock on my chastity belt and gave the key to {insert any right wing evangelical nutjob here}'

      got caught by the html code brackets...it just loses the magic of the moment when you have to explain it and clarify

      sheesh

    13. Re:Common Sense Should Prevent This by meatmanek · · Score: 1

      I should hope you're protecting your network with something in addition to MAC filtering. MAC filtering will not prevent intruders from eavesdropping on your network traffic, and it won't prevent anybody who can spoof MAC addresses (trivial) from joining your network.

    14. Re:Common Sense Should Prevent This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was told that MAC filtering is close to useless. It only requires a bit of spoofing to discover a MAC the router accepts, and then you're in. At most, it's another nuissance for the cracker, but not a great one.

    15. Re:Common Sense Should Prevent This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The benefits up MAC address filtering are more than marginal. While its true that you can get someone's MAC address and spoof it. The attacker would have to wait until the device was not using the network. Otherwise networking problems will ensue since two devices have the same MAC address. These networking problems should alert the user that something funny is going on and take appropriate action. Note that a determined intruder can break WPA as well. The question is how much effort do you plan to put in on an attack.

      While MAC address filtering is cost free in performance. Adding WEP or WPA encryption lowers bandwidth and sucks up resources. Adding encryption is never cost free. In my opinion, its best to only use encryption when needed.

    16. Re:Common Sense Should Prevent This by Captain+Segfault · · Score: 1

      Note that a determined intruder can break WPA as well.

      No. A determined intruder can break your password if it is shoddy, but if you have a sufficiently good password that is not feasible.

  15. It's too difficult to use strong passwords by gr8scot · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
    1. Re:It's too difficult to use strong passwords by sproot · · Score: 1
  16. Church of Wifi already did this by CounterZer0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Church of Wifi has a hacked firmware-based worm that runs around and replaces firmware on APs, and then looks for other AP's to attack, and propagates itself.
    The key to this kind of attack, is that it could be potentially undetectable - how do you know if the linksys firmware was replaced or slightly modified or not?
    Another great use, would be to drop TOR endpoints on every single box infected :)

    1. Re:Church of Wifi already did this by gr8scot · · Score: 1

      URL?

      --
      All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
    2. Re:Church of Wifi already did this by noidentity · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same, how to verify that a router has the firmware I think is on it. It seems the only reliable way would be to

      1. Place router in Faraday cage (or disconnect antennas and use a simpler equivalent)
      2. Flash it with new firmware that is all highly compressed/uncompressible data and fills the entire flash chip
      3. Power down unit for several minutes, to clear main memory
      4. Power up and ask this new firmware to send a copy of itself back to you.
      5. If it matches, then it would be extremely difficult for anything to still be hiding there (maybe you'd also have to fill the NVRAM with this technique as well)

      And yes, I'm somewhat paranoid about any WiFi router I get nowadays, because I don't have the ability to do the above and don't fully trust its firmware.

    3. Re:Church of Wifi already did this by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Another great use, would be to drop TOR endpoints on every single box infected :) One would make the world quite better by doing this
      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    4. Re:Church of Wifi already did this by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      Church of Wifi has a hacked firmware-based worm that runs around and replaces firmware on APs, and then looks for other AP's to attack, and propagates itself. The key to this kind of attack, is that it could be potentially undetectable - how do you know if the linksys firmware was replaced or slightly modified or not? Another great use, would be to drop TOR endpoints on every single box infected :)

      Maybe that's why my Linksys router stopped working?

      A couple of weeks ago, my network started acting very strange. My computers couldn't see each other through the LAN, and my wireless network disappeared. I figured out that the router was doing some kind of a soft reset every second; it ended up getting one of my DynDNS domains disabled due to abusively updating my domain. I couldn't reset the router with the physical button, so I replaced it with an Apple router that supports WPA2.

  17. Default passwords are part of the problem by _14k4 · · Score: 1

    Why not make the password something like a printed number on the router itself? I know it's encoded in firmware, especially with the factory reset button, but it's not too hard to say read the ID and print up corresponding stickers. They already do it for the MAC address information.

    1. Re:Default passwords are part of the problem by Tmack · · Score: 1

      Why not make the password something like a printed number on the router itself? I know it's encoded in firmware, especially with the factory reset button, but it's not too hard to say read the ID and print up corresponding stickers. They already do it for the MAC address information.

      That would require either 1. compiling a new firmware for EVERY unit, or 2. storing the password in a separate chip, which increases parts, cost, and everything else. They might be able to bypass the drawbacks of #2 by using the LAN side MAC tho, since that shouldnt be accessible via wifi for most wifi "routers" (tho a simple AP might be.. not as familiar with those), unlike the wifi MAC thats transmitted to all.

      tm

      --
      Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
    2. Re:Default passwords are part of the problem by _14k4 · · Score: 1

      Right. They could use the lanside mac and hell, we've all seen the admin page that already knows the mac address - so we know there is API written for that side.

      On the other hand, adding another PLC to simply return a code isn't a bad idea either. Like those bank websites that hand out a keyfob... there could be a rotating number on the front of the router and the PLC could be programming to recognize the same number (the number on the front is synonymous with the keyfob) and _that_ is the admin password of the hour/day, etc.

  18. Good to know we could be safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a worm-like firmware agent could be introduced to an estimated 20,000 networks in New York City alone.

    Great to know that it might be impossible to introduce a worm-like firmware agent into any networks in New York City.

    It is also possible that one day /. will post stories that have actual content, instead of meaningless noise.

    "X may Y" is semantically equivalent to "X may not Y", and the only kinds of statements that can be negated without changing their meaning are meaningless ones. In contrast, "There is a 0.1% chance that X will Y" is meaningful.

  19. Not that hard by seanadams.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sveasoft has firmware for most of the ARM/Linux based routers, which covers all the common Linksys/Netgear models. All you'd need to do is make a hacked version of each one and put them on a server (or botnet).

    Then all a worm would need to is gain access to the router, and then notify the server that it has been cracked. The server takes it from there... it would connect to the router, identify its model number from the status page, and upload the appropriate firmware.

    With a little ingenuity it would not be hard to do this in a way that is transparent to the user - i.e. most users have a plain vanilla setup and it would be easy enough to snarf the configuration and apply that to the new upgrade too.

  20. This is not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to distract from the interesting nature of the article but people really should do
    some related work background research:
    http://www.usenix.org/events/sec07/tech/akritidis.html

    These guys showed this (and other privacy related attacks) last year at Usenix Security.

  21. Huh? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    a worm-like firmware agent could be introduced to an estimated 20,000 networks in New York City alone.
    "Although the researchers did not develop any attack code


    "Scenario?" With a "worm-like software agent?" Wake me up when (a) such a firmware worm is written or (b) when someone from the security community can be a little more specific as to how such a worm could work. I remain skeptical.

    After all, they've been telling us about Linux and Mac viruses for years, but I have yet to hear of anyone actually getting infected by one.

    in other words, WOLF!!!!!!

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  22. Capital Punishment! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has gone far enough. We need our laws changed so that anyone engineering such a brutal virus should be PUT TO DEATH by Federal authorities!! Just think of the impact these attacks are having on our economy!? And, how scared it must make some people?

  23. Who Cares? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Other than possibly create a few more zombies (and I am sure there are easier ways to do that) who cares?

    Folks with real and/or sensitive data will have a password, and likely even more security.

    Those that don't likely have little to offer any hacker or anybody else. A hacker may desire your cycles for zombified attacks, and the RIAA might like to look at your MP3 list. Maybe someone might go through the trouble of trying to data mine for identity theft, but again there are much easier ways to accomplish this goal.

    If someone wants to brute force my password a million times, be my guest, you will probably find it not worth the time.
    Those that don't change their default passwords, well, ye get what ye deserve. Call it a stupid tax.

  24. Similar work by desultration · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Similar work has already been published at Usenix Security. http://www.usenix.org/events/sec07/tech/akritidis.html
    Full paper is available at one of the authors' website. http://s3g.i2r.a-star.edu.sg/papers/metrowifi-usenixsec07.pdf

  25. Virus Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although the researchers did not develop any attack code that would be used to carry out this infection, they believe it would be possible to write...
    Sooo.... This virus is vaporware?
  26. Exponential backoff? by aegl · · Score: 1

    There is a very simple (and very old) technique to stop someone from trying a million passwords in any reasonable timeframe ... just add a delay every time an incorrect password is entered (resetting the delay to zero if the correct password is entered to prevent this becoming a denial of service). If wireless routers used this, then the worm would only spread to devices whose password was in the first few dozen of the dictionary attack list.

    1. Re:Exponential backoff? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      To what logins do you add the delay? If there's no way to identify the attacker (no IP yet, can't trust MAC), then you have to add the delay on _all_ logins, including the "good" one, making this an easy DoS as the login attempts reach huge time limits.

    2. Re:Exponential backoff? by Floritard · · Score: 1

      Well doesn't that turn into a DOS attack when you can't enter your correct password anymore because someone has bumped the delay counter into the hours/days range?

    3. Re:Exponential backoff? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Yup. That's why you have an admin account only accessible from a serial port on the router, or possibly via USB on modern routers.

      Password lockout on incorrect logins is standard procedure - any reasonably locked down network will do it.

  27. Question... by kc2keo · · Score: 1

    If you disable SSID broadcasting and enable a trusted only MAC list and deny all other MAC addresses are you pretty much secured from brute force scan attacks? The attacker would have the program scanning for SSIDs. The scanner would not see it. I set my networks up so you have to manually add the SSID. I don't have encryption enabled though. I just make sure that when I go to websites like my banking site or email I use the SSL address. I also use long passwords with capitals, lowercase, numbers, and symbols. One of the networks I manage I do the same as I mentioned before plus I disable DHCP on the router and set everything static.

    Should I do anything extra?

    1. Re:Question... by nevurthls · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure if your post is serious as these questions have been answered many times in slashdot. Hiding your ESSID, not using DHCP and using MAC address filtering are insufficient in adding security as they are all part of any exchange between the router and wireless connections. The MAC address of existing machines can be found and copied in seconds. The ESSID and IP address can be found very easily as well. Hacking WEP encryption is also trivial. As a security measure, all these are completely pointless, and do not add anything in terms of security. Hiding your ESSID does decrease your wireless performance. The only security measure that has any real effect in protecting your wireless network from people who really want to get in is using secure encryption. (WPA, etc.)

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    2. Re:Question... by kc2keo · · Score: 1

      aww why did you have to burst my bubble of feeling secured :-P

      Yeah, anyone who really wants to get into my networks can do so. I just added a few things in the way. If I add secure encryption WPA on top of that it'll be much better right?

      I'd prefer to have no wireless broadcasting at all since for the most part I am plugged in to the network.

    3. Re:Question... by nevurthls · · Score: 1

      If I add secure encryption WPA on top of that it'll be much better right? the best security is as you suggest yourself:

      ... no wireless broadcasting at all ... But if you choose to have wireless then the only security measure that actually adds significant security is WPA. If you incorporate that, SSID broadcasting can be back on, dhcp as well, and you can turn off mac filtering as these measures do not add anything security-wise and do create hassles in setting up. (and as I said before can slow down your network.) A resource to back up some of my claims: http://www.tisc-insight.com/newsletters/416.html
      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    4. Re:Question... by kc2keo · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I'll have to rethink my configuration. I Appreciate your constructive criticism.

    5. Re:Question... by mlts · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The trick with wireless security is to segment it into independant layers.

      First, the router providing the wireless AP access should not be the same router firewalling your LAN from the rest of the Internet. This keeps "management" ports that might accidently be open from being Internet accessible. This is hard sometimes. One router I have has two connections to my little LAN, one from one of its machine ports, and one from its "internet" port. This allows it to check for firmware upgrades and whatnot, letting it think its connected to the Net.

      Second, if WEP is all you got [1], put the wireless AP on its own network segment, and have the only way in via a hardened machine with a PPTP/L2TP port and a good username and secure password, secure password being preferably over 30 characters. Then, when (not if) someone does bag the wireless key and hops on the network, they will not obtain much in the way of access. If you can't firewall off your WEP AP, nor are able to replace it, consider making it a daily or weekly item in your schedule to change the WEP key.

      I personally avoid the fluff of not broadcasting the SSID, but I do use MAC address protection because its another lock on the front door, and once set up, it really takes little administrative work.

      [1]: Only use WEP as a *last resort*. Any router made since 2006 (from what I know) *has* to support WPA-PSK and WPA2-PSK (because WPA and WPA2 are part of the 802.11i spec), so if you can, buy a replacement access point from a CompUSA closeout or something similar and use that. Use a decent (12+ chars) for the router's admin account, and have KeePass generate a 63 character WPA/WPA2 key. I personally generate a 63 char key from KeePass, paste it into the router's config. Then, I copy the key's text into a file on a USB flash disk, carry that to all the machines which use the wireless AP, and paste it in their configs. I have my router set to only allow WPA2 and deny WPA, as all my wireless devices understand AES, but other people may need both WPA and WPA2 available.

      Of course, just to be safe, consider changing the WPA/WPA2 key every so often (I've heard monthly to six months.)

    6. Re:Question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like security overkill. 128 bit WEP is un bruteforcable, as it would take more time than the universe's lifetime. Perhaps 48 bit with a des cracker, but not 128 bit WEP.

      PS: I have had 128 bit WEP on my cable modem's firewall for five years, still no breaches.

    7. Re:Question... by Captain+Segfault · · Score: 1

      Sure, 128 bit WEP isn't brute forceable but it's easily broken by the same sorts of attacks that break 40 bit WEP.

      If all parties avoid weak IVs it becomes harder, but enforcing that is harder than just using WPA.

      Right now, WPA-PSK with a nontrivial key should be sufficient; switch to something else if it starts showing weaknesses. Anything else is overkill for anything resembling a typical home setup... but 128 bit WEP is severe underkill!

    8. Re:Question... by kc2keo · · Score: 1
      Today I decided to take the plunge and change my wireless configuration...

      I removed MAC address filtering, enabled SSID broadcasting and enabled wireless security. I ended up using WPA Personal and AES WPA algorithms. I made my Shared Key 63 characters long (which is the max). It contains uppercase+lowercase letters, numbers, and symbols. The router I have here is a Linksys WRT54G V2.0. Not sure if I wanna install that HyperWRT firmware and I did look into it years ago and not that interested. I did a fair share of research on these encryption technologies and theres much to learn and its very interesting. I tried to use WPA2 personal but my WinXP machine did not like it. Also tried to setup freeradius server on my Debian box and use WPA2 Enterprise (Tried WPA Enterprise but gotta try again). I figure the most secure way that will work with this networks devices is to use WPA Enterprise which requires authentication with the key and the RADIUS server (did I say that wrong?). When I boot to Ubuntu after gaming I must see if I can get connected. Not really necessary as I'm wired though but worth a try just to see if it works.

      From most of the sources I read this statement pretty much says it all for WPA/WPA2:

      In either WPA or WPA2, your password is the weakest link.

      And my pass is 63 chars long.

      It was a good experience. Any suggestions? Comments?
    9. Re:Question... by kc2keo · · Score: 1

      Never mind... got a patch which got me support for WPA2 in WinXP. Gotta patch up other machines with WinXP. So now in order to connect you need WPA2 and AES Authentication. Going to test WPA2 Enterprise as I said before. Got to get the freeRADIUS server working right first with the router. Still looking into it. If I get that working is that the best way to go? WPA2 + AES is the best for a home router though I think.

  28. OOPS read this wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hahaha I thought there was an actual ATTACK, not just a warning that our networks are vulnerable... but GEEZ this article is A BAD IDEA, why would you want to give people ideas?? That's all we need!! I bet someone is already engineering an attack as we speak!

  29. Lets Think for a Sec !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not take out the default setup page from the router installation and force user to enter admin password before they could use their routers. Thus takeing out the above security issue from the picture ;)
    Agree that some will just enter dumb passwords, none the less something would be better then "admin" or "default".
    -R12297

  30. Brute forcing WiFi Passwords by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Oh great, so they get access to the machine. Just as if it was plugged into a DSL/cable modem line. AND???

    Cracking the password and getting network access isn't the same as getting past the firewalls, installing yourself on the machine and getting something to run you. Someone is fear mongering, or has failed to think this through.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Brute forcing WiFi Passwords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That someone is the cable/DSL companies that don't want neighbors sharing their internet connection with non-paying people.

  31. Just think of the positive effects by Casandro · · Score: 1

    Just think of the positive effects. If you had software beeing able to spread from access point to access point automatically, you could easily build up a meshed network of routers. Those routers would then build a gigantic network which you can use to communicate without the FBI listening into it. You could simply install that software, reconfigure your router and patch the hole.

    The problem is that for that you'd need a monoculture of routers. It might work with Windows PC at one time in the future, but even there it's hard.

  32. now I'll admit.... by paxgaea · · Score: 1

    I haven't thought this all the way through to it's logical conclusions, but it seems to me that the most benefit to blackhats these days is in getting CPU cycles to cause damage and steal information from more valuable or data rich systems...

    Is there really that much benefit to expending effort to hack the SOHO WAP router, when most of the machines behind it are more likely the problem, since if the user has not re-config'ed their router then likely their machines aren't secured either?

    For just purely evil fun it might be worth the effort to flash corrupted firmware to hundreds of thousands of WAP's out there...leaving a $100 monetary nuisance to many households out there that have to replace them.

  33. It'll activate itself... by Shotgun · · Score: 3, Funny

    What happens with this virus spreads itself around, and then takes over a automated weapons manufacturing plant? I'll tell you what happens. It becomes SELF-AWARE. That's what happens. The next thing you know, we'll have governors showing up naked in deserted places and then beating up biker guys for their clothes. We have to stop this NOW!, before someone gets the bright idea of making a TV series about it.

    Aaaah!!! We're to late. Run for the hills!!

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  34. here is my stats by piltdownman84 · · Score: 1

    From where I am sitting right now I can see 13 wireless networks. Of those six (46%) are unsecured and five (38%) have what I believe to default names (linksys, default, DLinkVWR, DLinkWBR, NETGEAR). That doesn't include hidden points. Its too lazy to Google the default passwords and check if the access points are changed but I'd doubt it.

  35. Garbage Research by bmccartney · · Score: 1

    There is a reason peer review is so popular. This doesn't appear to have made the cut (probably submitted to a conference and then denied). This has been posted on other sites, and generally laughed at -- since it isn't peer reviewed!!! Just because someone has some letters after their name, doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. It is VERY important to ignore stuff like this that hasn't been peer-review - especially when it is done by professors! The whole thing is conjecture anyways, so without peer-review it has NO value. The whole premise of the paper is that all routers are as similar as all PCs. This is ABSOLUTELY not the case. Since all routers tend to use FLASH for storage - you need to write ALL or MOST of the flash at once (since fs images are used). This means to transfer between hosts, you need a complete image to send to the next host. So, since there are very little resources on each device, it can only store it's own infected image. Now if it needs to infect a different type of router, something in the adhoc mesh network needs to be sourcing this image. It's really funny that crap research can be posted as if it has ANY factual value whatsoever... They made assumptions that it was exactly like a biological virus, and SURPRISE, it acted like a biological virus. What might be good research is if someone made a proof-of-concept virus like this, with upgrade images for say the most popular 100 or so models of routers (remember, there are different hardware revisions). That might cover half of the market. So in a really dense network, it might spread a little!

    1. Re:Garbage Research by anagnost75 · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is garbage research -- I was involved in the USENIX Security'07 study someone else mentioned in this thread (http://s3g.i2r.a-star.edu.sg/papers/metrowifi-usenixsec07.pdf). That one was peer-reviewed at a well-respected conference, backed with a proof-of-concept worm (called Wildfire/A -- for both XP and Vista) and reaches somewhat similar conclusions. I think the main difference is that we looked at infections of computers behind APs rather than the APs themselves -- after all, you're more likely to get vulnerabilities there than on the APs. Another difference is that our study was performed in 2006, so the Indiana Univ. paper may involve more up-to-date wifi maps. Of course, more widespread use of WPA mitigates a large part of this and other wifi threats, but as we argue in our study does not completely eliminate them. FWIW, we are releasing a few animations of the simulated worm spread on youtube.. links are posted on http://s3g.i2r.a-star.edu.sg/proj/wildfire/

  36. How I get default passwords by kramulous · · Score: 1

    #!/bin/bash
    # arguement is device brand
    curl -s http://www.phenoelit.de/dpl/dpl.html |
    grep -i $1 | sed "s/]*>/ /g"

    Is a script I use to get default passwords. I used to regularly reset to default because I was constantly playing with the settings of multiple devices.

    --
    .
  37. Virii should create fake routers instead by SethJohnson · · Score: 1



    I don't have any practical experience with this, but theoretically, I think a virus could be created that would infect windows computers and enable internet sharing off the wireless card. It would look at the name of the existing wireless connection and then call the shared connection '+1'. Then when zombied laptops go to coffee shops, etc. they become an additional wireless access point named 'coffee shop2'. Others mistakenly connect to the internet through this spoofed access point and all their outgoing packets are captured and sent to the botnet owner.

    This virii could propogate through the normal infection vectors, but it could also create a 'login' requirment that asks users of the spoofed network connection to install a 'security key' for the connection to work 'securely'. You guessed it, TROJAN.

    Seth

  38. Old news by nbucking · · Score: 1

    Why does media have anything to do with password security? Password security is so layer 6. Unless you mean physically going up and reseting the password. Which even the best Cisco routers and switches are open to. You dont even need to brute force attack the password. I would be more afraid of the encryption being cracked with wifi. Something everybody that uses wifi knows about. Heck when wifi first was available they figured that out.

  39. Idiots by EdIII · · Score: 1

    This is no different than a bunch of tin foiled idiots saying it's possible that sometime this year an evil force will rain down herpes on all of us unless we submit to the new god McButtNutt.

    The only possible good this article did is to get the ignorant (I mean that nicely, not derogatorily) to be motivated to become educated.

    Other posters have put pieces out that show how stupid this idea really is. In order of importance:

    1) It requires actual access to the routers administration interface. This is, for the most part, HTTP and cannot be accomplished by telnet, etc. Sometimes that cannot happen over the WLAN at all. There are devices that ship that way by default. The WLAN is NOT to be confused with the WAN either. You may be able to access it over the internet, but not from a wireless AP client of the AP itself running on the router. I do know there are PLENTY of standalone AP's that allow administrative access from a wireless AP client. Many times I have accessed an AP from the other side of a wireless bridge and modified some of its settings. Standalone APs are RARE. They almost don't even sell them anymore in retail outlets. You have to special order them or get them on the internet. Considering how rarely they are used, and by who they are used, I would say standalone APs are generally configured by more sophisticated people that configure them better.

    2) Assuming, that there was a device that allowed administrative access to it through the WLAN by default, it would still require the password. Sure there are plenty of unprotected routers on default settings. Not a problem. However, just how close are these unprotected nodes to each other? Do they really form a contiguous wireless chain? 36% being brute forced, is not the same as a default password. That percentage is even less according to that statistic. It would take a fair amount of time to brute force a wireless router. If it took you 48 hours to brute force a SINGLE node to use it to extend your reach and brute force other nodes, it would take a unreasonable amount of time to compromise 20,000 networks. I think they would have Wireless-Z 802.11ZZZZAE by that time. I have been at many clients, family, and friends houses and helped them with their routers and/or experienced what wireless APs were in service in RANGE. From my own experience, it is actually below 50% unprotected routers. Meaning, less than 50% of the locations had unprotected routers in the first place. Where I live right now, there are about 15 APs in range and NONE of them are unprotected. That would lead me to believe that a contiguous coverage "bubble" may not actually exist in the FIRST PLACE.

    3) Assuming a wealth of customized attack firmwares available, it would still disrupt service. Statistically, SOMEONE is going to notice. They may not understand what is going on, but they very well could do the ol' power cycle trick. That would most likely brick the device and thereby solve the problem. New router, or RMA'd router with newer firmware that may have stronger security settings by default. Maybe not a strong point, but a valid observation. A single person would probably not connect the dots and conclude a conspiracy, but just something to consider. The need for a large amount of customized attack firmwares is very important though, more on that later.

    4) Assuming that you did indeed compromise a network of 20,000 wireless routers forming one hugely connected contigious bubble of coverage in a city. What NOW? Internet Access? You already had that. They were unprotected. Run a whole P2P network using all of that bandwidth to receive or send more porn? How? You would need compromised machines on each one of those networks since the router itself cannot store any amount of data. Compromise the machines on those networks for some nefarious purpose? Great. A whole other futile project. You can get machines bot netted or otherwise controlled in different methods far easier than that. Maybe I am lacking in vision,