Defcon "Warballoon" Finds 1/3 of Wireless Networks Unsecured

avatar4d writes "Networkworld is reporting about a warballooning operation (similar to wardriving) that was disallowed by the management at the Riviera Hotel in Las Vegas, but was covertly launched anyway. The team found approximately 370 networks, and about a third of those were unsecured. In addition to that, the project managed to show how trusting the local law enforcement agencies really were: 'Near the end of the operation, a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police cruiser drove by the parking lot to see what was going on. Hill and his team waved. The police officers waved back and drove off.'"

Comments

So let's get this straight

[yourpusher]

If the police flip out over something we do, they're overreacting idiots that don't understand technology.

But if the police don't flip out over something we do, they're underreacting idiots who aren't keeping us safe.

Mmkay.

Re:So let's get this straight

[jd]

You make a good point, however I guess I would ask why any rational society would expect just those two modes of operation. Neither seems that useful. Wouldn't it be more logical to expect either the police to come over and say hi, or to take a note of the registration and car details (not necessarily visibly)? A standard social engineering technique used time immemorial has been to look as though you should be somewhere. Only an idiot looks suspicious, and it's not the idiots who should concern the police the most.

In the first case, it's basic community policing 101. You don't prevent crime by looking intimidating, you prevent crime by being aware of what's happening and understanding why. The second option also works on the premise of being aware, but looks for standard social engineering practices and patterns, rather than cause-and-effect.

In neither case is flipping out a productive or useful method. It doesn't help you recognize where or when problems are likely to occur, and only helps you catch the more dysfunctional criminals who are likely causing the least of the social headaches. However, it is by far the most common method used, because it's easy. Catching competent criminals is much harder, much more expensive, and gives a police department a worse score on offenses dealt with.

The Police just waved?

[Meshach]

What else would the Police do with that situation? Is what the people were doing illegal?

Re:The Police just waved?

[JustinOpinion]

Agreed. The statement in the summary "...the project managed to show how trusting the local law enforcement agencies really were..." infuriates me. Police are not supposed to be harassing people left and right, trying to uncover illegal or just unsanctioned activities. The police were friendly, waved, and didn't bother to investigate something that by all rights did not look overtly illegal. They acted appropriately.

I would much prefer that law enforcement err on the side of trust and friendliness. This probably means that some fraction of illegal actions will go undetected and unpunished (note that only a small fraction of those illegal actions are truly dangerous and unethical)... but that is the 'price' of freedom.

Again, I applaud the police for not flipping out when they see people engaging in activities that they don't exactly understand (but for which there is no evidence of illegal action).

Re:Only 1/3?

[chunk08]

I live in a very small farming town. I can pick up 3 networks from my house, there are 5 in town. Mine is the only secure one (WPA2). Try to explain it to anyone else and they'll say "Why shouldn't my neighbors get on my network?"

And what did you want the police to do?

[the_skywise]

In addition to that, the project managed to show how trusting the local law enforcement agencies really were: 'Near the end of the operation, a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police cruiser drove by the parking lot to see what was going on. Hill and his team waved. The police officers waved back and drove off.'"

Oh now they're too trusting?!

What do you want?!

Should they have played hardball and interrogated them, maybe arrested them and confiscated their equipment until they could ascertain they were safe so you could have a post about "out of control" law enforcement again?

Perhaps they should've called out the bomb squads ala the Mooninites bomb scare?

I, for one, vastly prefer this response.

Re:Networks on The Strip

[ghoti]

Exactly. 1/3 is actually a pretty good number, and shows that the casinos are taking security seriously. Plus, I wonder how many networks they didn't even see because they weren't broadcasting their SSIDs. This whole thing seems to be much more about doing something cool and making a lot of noise than any kind of serious analysis.

Not 'Unsecured'. It's 'Open System'

[TechyImmigrant]

802.11 APs that people refer to as being 'unsecured' are in fact broadcasting a beacon declaring them to be 'Open System'. It is right there in the spec, section 8.2.2.2 .

'Open System' means exactly that. Come on it. We're open.

This is a good thing. I don't secure my wireless LAN. I secure my computers. If people want to borrow a bit of my bandwidth, go right ahead. My neighbor does it all the time when he can't get his crappy cable internet to work.

This should be encouraged. Call them 'Open' and call it a good thing.

Tempest in a Teapot

[mschuyler]

You say that like it's a bad thing. Most WiFi networks are of such low power to render them effectively useless beyond a few feet of the origin of the signal. In my neighborhood with houses on half-acre to acre lots I can detect half a dozen networks. A couple are 'insecure,' but the signal is one bar in strength. Besides, I'm detecting them with my own network, so why do I want to 'steal' their bandwidth? Mine is faster. There aren't many people who want to cruise the neighborhood looking for unsecured signals so they can use their laptop in the privacy of their own automobile to surf the net. How uncomfortable is that? I surf with my feet propped up, a beer on the table, and the dog curled up at my feet.

Then there are those networks that are intentionally unsecured. The local library has a router intentionally pointed at the parking lot (Gasp!) In the downtown area every hotel is within range of an unsecured network. They even have a placard that tells you how to connect--free!

Sure, there are probably guys into taking advantage of you if your network is unsecured. Perhaps the issue is more prevalent in an apartment house or a dorm than single family residences, but I think this is more of a theoretical issue than a practical one. You can hypothesize your way to wild conclusions, but in the end, is this REALLY a serious problem?

Re:i hate you all

[MrNaz]

More to the point about finding unsuspecting piggybackers, I don't see how it should be expected that the law should get involved to quickly unless a serious crime has been committed. I find this particularly alarming:

In addition to that, the project managed to show how trusting the local law enforcement agencies really were: 'Near the end of the operation, a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police cruiser drove by the parking lot to see what was going on. Hill and his team waved. The police officers waved back and drove off.'

So they'd prefer if the police stopped and strip search everyone doing something they considered suspicious? What kind of hackers are they if they think authority needs to always get up close and personal with anyone doing anything remotely out of the ordinary.

It's a good thing that the police had a look, could see that a crime wasn't being committed, and decided to continue looking for something worthy of their time, not a bad thing as the absurd summary seems to suggest.