Slashdot Mirror
USA Has More Open Wi-Fi Hotspots Than EU
Mark.JUK writes "Some 40% of wireless (Wi-Fi) Internet access hotspots in the USA are unlocked and do not require a security password, which compares with 25% in Europe; according to WeFi based statistics. Across the world, approximately 30% of recorded Wi-Fi access points are unlocked, while some 70% are locked. Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously, then. It should be perfectly possible to 'share' Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time."
Yeah, number one, baby!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Good! The Internet was founded on free and open access.
For the first year or two I was using a (very limited) free dial-up shell. Otherwise I would have never been able to get online. I live my access point open, I've had hundreds of users over the last few months.
One of the guys I work with used to be a "penetration tester" (paid/hired hacker ;) ) and still has an interest in the area. He showed us a map of his route to work after he drove in with an Eee with wifi and GPS attached. With a bit of representation help, Google maps and a bit of colour coding then there was a surprising amount of people using WEP. Technically that's secured, but realistically it is as good as open for anyone with about 2 minutes and the right app (saw it demoed on the same Eee).
I wonder if this accounts for networks locked down to MAC addresses. I've never encountered an "open" wifi that was truly open (in UK), despite a lot of them appearing to be open, I just wonder how thoroughly they checked.
There could have been a "sorta locked" third option.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
WEP?
because, at least in Germany, you are then liable for everything that is transfered over that hotspot. If someone downloads CP or warez you are fucked.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Or does the USA just have a higher percentage?
But those two minutes for physical access a) require physical trespass, b) require you to be in a much riskier situation where you can get physically caught/trapped, c) tend to require more than 2 minutes because you've got things like locks on doors and d) require you to know where the router actually is.
By comparison, breaking WEP and hopping on a wireless network is simple, and how many people actually keep an eye on their router for rogue MAC numbers? Also, you do realise that MACs can be spoofed, so in the right situation you could potentially just usurp a machine or use the MAC of a real but currently disconnected one, right?
More people who may hop on your network and negatively impact your performance would likely cause you to learn to secure things. We have a much lower average population density, so you are more likely to be able to remain ignorant (or just not care) and leave your AP open. If I have 4 people who can see my AP, they are much less likely to wreak havok on my quality of service than if I have 50. I would like to see stats on open AP% vs population density. Of course, the article may have this info. I didn't rtfa.
The US also has more McDonalds, too. How is this even interesting?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Did they account for MAC filtering and(rather more importantly) all the captive portal setups out there?
Obviously, if the SSID is the name of a consumer networking vendor and the hotspot is unencrypted, somebody just isn't bothering. However, particularly in commercial areas, there are large numbers of APs that are "open" in the sense that they aren't using WEP, WPA, or WPA2; but are good for absolutely nothing except dumping you at an HTTP/HTTPS login screen the first time you open a browser. A naive network scan, one that doesn't involve connecting to every open network, and attempting a variety of network activity to the outside world, isn't going to tell you the difference.
It would also be interesting, though hard to figure out, what the motives are behind the remaining open hotspots. What percentage are simple cluelessness, what percentage are somebody having to support a legacy device with broken wireless capabilities, and what percentage are altruistic.
For all intensive purposes [sic], only percentage matters.
Scientists distinguish "intensive" properties of a population, which hold regardless of the size of the population, from "extensive" properties, which are proportional to the size of the population. For example, in physics, density is intensive while mass is extensive. Or in chemistry, concentration is intensive while molar amount is extensive. Intensive properties, such as percentage of open APs, are more important for some surveys than extensive properties, such as raw number of open APs. Otherwise, such as if you try to compare the United States to Ireland, you just get a nearly meaningless result more or less equivalent to "market 1 has a higher population than market 2".
I have 2 customers that have 100% open Wifi access points that are secure. Why? you have to be trespassing even with a dish and bi-quad antenna to connect to them. and if you are trespassing, the dogs are eating your butt. Plus we used RF control devices (copper screen) to eliminate signal from going to the direction that would even possibly allow access from outside the estate. (2100 feet is the closest point and still filled with trees, shrubbery that all suck up wifi like sponges)
My home has an Open accesspoint, you have to be inside the house or on the roof to get access. I have aluminum siding and aluminum screens that are grounded. Even my WiSpy pro cant detect the signals from inside the house when I am 5 feet from the front door.
control your RF and you will be more secure.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Someone told me that unless you are sure that you can secure your Wifi you are best off leaving it open. If someone downloads illegal content because you haven't secured it proplerly (used WEP or a compromised key) a court will here "secure wifi" and you will probably be screwed. If you say it was completely open then it will be very hard for a court to show "beyond reasonable doubt" that it was you.
Mark.JUK said "Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously then." Is there something inherently wrong with an AP that is connected right to a DSL (or other) internet connection to provide free access in, say, a coffee shop, library, city park, airport, or other common areas? McDonalds, Barnes & Noble, and many airports (thanks Google!) are offering "free WiFi" - by definition these can't be "closed"...
There are "wide open" residential gateways, but that number is dwindling (at least in my experience).
I work in a school district and we offer WiFi in all rooms in every building, but we have two "SSID"s - one secured (with access to our internal network, for administrators and district-supplied laptops) and one public (with only filtered access to the public internet, no internal resources available).
Ken
Not if there are no open ports due to 802.1x.
i whould find that very dangerous ... i know wep / wpa2 are not bullet proof , but it does keep the average joe from doing funky stuff using my public ip address. i do not want to be blamed for something that others might do ... and wep/wpa2 helps
Have they actually try to connect to the world using the "open" access points or just discovered unencrypted networks?
Because the latter really are abundant, but many of them require special cookies, login to proxy, VPN, correct MAC address, or just disconnect you as soon as you connect, basing on some premise you would be hard pressed to divine.
Sure I -see- about 25% of open networks when I start up Kismet while riding through the town. But only about 5-10% of networks are genuinely open - just connect and surf. The rest just uses alternate protection methods.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Dumb people have open hotspots. Smart people have closed hotspots. Very smart people have open, secure hotspots. Since I'm egotistical and put myself in the final category, let me explain:
My WAP is wide open to anyone who wants to connect to browse the web, check their email, etc. It's an OpenWRT firewall that allows regular, NATted access to the Internet but nothing more than SSH and OpenVPN (with SSL certs) to the LAN. I live on a quiet cul-de-sac, so the only people connecting to it would be my neighbors (whom I like and trust not to download kiddie porn), visitors, or people sitting in my driveway when I'm not home (whom said neighbors would probably take pictures of - yeah, I'm serious).
So what' s the downside here? I'm doing something nice for neighbors and visitors without any security exposure. Now, maybe I'm a unique supergenius and every other WAP operator in the country is stupidly naive, but I don't think that's the case.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
This difference might be caused by different default settings. In France for example, all the WiFi routers provided by the ISP I've seen so far have WPA pre-activated.
Remember, mostly locked is a little bit unlocked.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
I have two wi-fi networks; an open connection and a private one. I live in a small village and don't mind if some hill walker uses the open one to get his mail. Someday I may arrange things to limit the bandwidth on this but haven't had any abuse of it. It is getting harder to find private open connections; a year or two ago I could wander up any street in major city and find 3-4 open connections in minutes. I believe that most wireless routers nowadays are supplied closed by default and people don't change it....
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
But those two minutes for physical access a) require physical trespass
As does Wi-Fi if your building is adequately shielded. Some buildings act almost like a Faraday cage, whether the legit occupants like it or not.
how many people actually keep an eye on their router for rogue MAC numbers?
How many people actually keep an eye on spare network ports hidden behind desks and the like for rogue Ethernet adapters?
Also, you do realise that MACs can be spoofed
Yes. It's as easy as unplugging a Cat-5 cable.
You make a good point, but you're ignoring that the criminality is equivalent.
Every encryption could be broken eventually, so the question is about barriers. How hard do you want to make it?
In this case, you're only making it to where a crime must be committed to gain access, and in a lot of scenarios this is 'secure enough'.
Wired equivalent if you want to connect up and use their uplink. Not when it's about snooping on the data.
Airodump running on a laptop in your backpack as you drink cola and read a book on a bench by the road outside is much less detectable than a stray wire plugged into your switch by a stranger who sneaked into your flat. The network card doesn't even have to announce its presence.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Some wireless hotspots do not use a WPA2 (or WEP, or whatever) password, but they do require a password to get past the access point's router and onto the Internet. Does this survey classify those access points as secured or not secured?
Last time I saw a residential property with Faraday cage equivalent shielding... well, I never have. Even aluminum siding doesn't seem to keep me from seeing WiFi from the curb in most cases.
Let's just put it this way: tapping into someone's wifi from the curb doesn't require exposing yourself to an ass full of buckshot.
In the US you have unlimited bandwidth, choked to a certain speed, in the UK you pay for a certain amount of data transfer, and from what I understand can be charged for overages or cut off.
So there you go, I have no financial incentive to close my wireless access point. It is firewalled from my real network (I.E. my wired network containing all of my desktops, fileservers, and media boxes), is completely open... the SSID is FREEINTERNET.
of course I live in a small neighborhood in the boonies, it would probably not be so easy to siphon bandwidth from me if I lived in apartments or a city.
At one point in time I have a DNS camped EULA page that required you to agree to not engage in illegal activity on my connection before my DNS would work right (like hotels have) but my wife made me turn it off cause every time her netbook went in sleep mode she would have to re-click it.
USA has a lower population density, so for many USAians, physical distance from any perceived threat may be sufficiently greater than the signal.
It's definitely that, and absolutely not that Americans don't read the manual or that Europeans think their neighbours are all crooks. Definitely.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
"Across the world, approximately 30% of recorded Wi-Fi access points are unlocked, while some 70% are locked. Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously..."
F U, I've been intentionally open since 2002 or so. (Basically, since I got it.) It's like, if you leave your lights on and windows open, someone can sit outside your house and read a book with the light you're giving off--OH NOES!
First of all, it doesn't cost anything to share a bit of WiFi. If someone happens to be driving by and needs it, they can park and use it. If a neighbor loses their connectivity for a day and wants to use mine, FINE, GO AHEAD--I won't even notice or care. Nor will my ISP.
Secondly: security? What security? I doubt there is a band of leet hackers hiding behind my fence trying to get financial data off my wife's laptop (hint: it's usually closed) or trying to pull my credit card number or bank login name as it whizzes by among gigs of other data. (Hint: you'll also have to crack HTTPS.)
You're worried about credit card fraud? Worry more about the 19-year-old you give your card to at a restaurant who disappears with it for a couple minutes. My family and I have had credit card info stolen and abused several times in the last decade and not once was the Internet involved, let alone hackers sitting outside our house at night doing MITM attacks. I'm more worried about an ACTUAL break-in (which I've also experienced) than a cyber one.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
With http://www.aircrack-ng.org/ you can have many more available WiFi hotspots.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
I moved to France last year and was pleasantly surprised at the ISPs attitudes towards sharing wifi.
My provider, Free.fr, by default enables guest access on my router. However, it's not completely open.
In order to access the connect, you must enter your account details (login and password), and then you are given access to a limited connection.
Should you not want to share your connection with other people, you can easily disable this feature; but doing so also disables your account from being able to access roaming wifi.
I really love that the community sharing feature is enabled by default.
As long as I'm willing to share my connection with other subscribers, then I get access to their bandwidth when I'm away from home. And, as one of the larger providers in the area, this means I have access from just about anywhere I go.
In the US you have unlimited bandwidth, choked to a certain speed, in the UK you pay for a certain amount of data transfer, and from what I understand can be charged for overages or cut off.
This isn't generally true. I'm in the UK and I have unlimited data. Many Americans have a download cap (just read the /. discussions on any OnLive story).
Many Europeans live in a much more urban setting then we do in the US. I live in a suburb and therefore I don't bother securing my wireless. If someone wants to use my bandwidth they'll have to be on my property to do it, because I don't get much range out of my house. Why should I bother securing it? It's much more conveniant to leave it open, especially when friends stop over or I'm working on someone's PC. All of my banking etc is run over SSL so it's encrypted endpoint to endpoint anyway. If I lived in a urban setting I would probably have to secure it though since many folks could leach if they wanted to.
A while back, during my mundane but arguably misspent youth, I set up a "special" open AP.
Bog standard Linksys box, SSID "Linksys", no security(other than a decent password on the http admin panel). The WAN side of the router was connected to the internet; but went through a hub that was shared by a box silently running tcpdump and listening...
I never caught anything all that exciting, and eventually got bored and shut it down; but it wasn't a difficult exercise, nor are thoughtless and ever so vaguely malicious youngsters all that uncommon. Ever since, though, I always experience a twinge of doubt when I see an open AP.
In our company, our network security means that even if you did get into the building and plug directly into the wired network, you still cannot see any of the networked PCs or network drives. You only get internet access. This makes it very convenient for visitors who come into the building for the day and need outside access.
Wireless works the same way. It's secure, but even if someone did break into it (we broadcast outside the building so you can go sit outside and work with a laptop if you wanted) they still can't access any data.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
I take security very seriously but have purposely left my wi-fi accessible to whoever would want to use it. Instead of password protecting the wireless link, I made sure that the access point was secure and isolated from the rest of my network. Want some free wi-fi? Come and use mine for free!
If it's about snooping on the data, protocols tunneled over TLS or SSH are sufficient. As I understand it, data link security is about allowing others to use your connection to distribute child pornography or blatantly infringing copies of entire non-free works.
Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously then. It should be perfectly possible to "share" Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time.
I take security very seriously, so my machines are properly secured for direct access to the Internet, and my important machines are behind their own firewall.
I must be missing something about WPA or WPA2 -- how can you make your network show up without the little lock icon when a stranger passes by, so they know they can log in?
Why would I want to encrypt the channel, anyway? As soon as the comm hits the Internet it hops nodes I don't control. If I want it secure, I had better be using an encrypted channel at a higher layer. Admittedly, I could transfer sensitive files in the clear on my own network, but why? I use SCP for everything, which is easy (easier, IMO, than GUI) and it is a good habit to get into.
Which all is to say: I think the "WPA/WPA2 == security" thing is a bad meme. Good security starts above the network layer, and generally can end there. Meanwhile, securing all our Wi-Fi nodes kinda sucks in terms of making the network universally pervasive.
Free the APs, secure the machines and processes.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
"...It should be perfectly possible to "share" Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time."
While it is perfectly "possible" to share WPA-secured Wi-Fi, it's not feasible, or the path requiring "minimal effort", which in many aspects of consumer electronics today, seems to be the mantra.
Also, maybe I'm alone in my thinking here, but generally if I see somewhere advertising a "hotspot", I tend to get a bit pissed when it's not easily (i.e. you connect and it just works) accessible. Isn't that the whole point of offering a "hotspot" to begin with? I don't read these statistics of unsecure "hotspots" as bad as most do I guess. I just see it as many more places offering free Wi-Fi.
If a hungry tiger is chasing you and another person, you don't need to outrun the tiger. Likewise, if your neighbors' APs lack encryption, you don't need to go all the way up to WPA2+802.11X because crackers will just crack someone else.
you're only making it to where a crime must be committed to gain access
Which is incidentally little different from MPAA studios' approach of DMCA-backed DRM.
Am I the only person who questions whether or not WeFi actually has data for all Wireless Access Points? I'm not sure where they get their data from, but if nobody in my area has scanned with their software do they show up in their system? Does their system take in account non broadcasting ap's? What about ad-hoc? Where I work I see laptops all the time set to broadcast as an ad-hoc connection... often named 'Free Public Wifi' or 'Free Internet Access' or 'HPsetup'. In the office I work in there is a coffee shop on the first floor and I literally see 15+ laptops generate alerts for being open AP's.
> That also applies here in the US as well...
No it doesn't. Criminal culpibility requires intent and liability for copyright infringement requires active participation.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
And Europe is UK...since when?
One that hath name thou can not otter
Nice to see everybody taking security so seriously then
Why must you assume it's a "security" thing? Isn't it possible that some of us *want* to share our Internet access? This is the same attitude that people only use P2P for piracy. It's only mostly true.
I must rant ...
I'm rather sick of hearing 'OMG NOT ENCRYPTED' or 'OMG USES WEP INSTEAD OF WPA' when talking about WiFi.
If you're talking about it while using a wifi hotspot, then you're just a fucking moron without even the slightest clue.
No one gives a fuck about your data. They aren't sitting at an airport trying to gather sensitive information. You know why? BECAUSE ANYONE WHO HAS SENSITIVE INFORMATION IS USING ENCRYPTION FOR ALL THEIR CONNECTIONS NOT JUST WIFI. It doesn't freaking matter if the wifi is sent in the clear, their actual session to their file server, mail server or web server is going to be encrypted via SSL or over a VPN.
Any half way competent admin treats wifi as an external network, regardless of encryption used on it, even their own internal wifi networks.
So fucking WHAT if your Starbucks wifi is clear text? You're upset because you're sending it over the air without encryption, but you're fine with the fact that it travels all over the Internet with no encryption? You're afraid someone at the airport may snoop you via wifi, but you don't care if they snoop you via the lan the wifi connects to? You somehow think that because it requires a password, that all the other people that have the password somehow can't see what your sending?
If its public, you're retarded for encrypting it or worrying about the encryption. Everything you're going to do that needs security has a different, BETTER way of handling security and encryption than ANYTHING wifi has to offer.
You don't need to 'share' wifi and use 'wpa or wpa2' at the same time, just fucking make it clear text and stop acting like its 'super secure' when its not. If anyone can buy in or someone easily get your wifi key than your encryption is 100% pointless. Wifi passwords are only useful as a limited effectiveness way of preventing people from using your bandwidth, thats it, nothing more.
Anyone who thinks they are 'secure' because of wifi encryption is just ignorant. Theres no reason for a hotspot to be encrypted, its there to be shared.
And for fucking reference, a hotspot is a place that allows random people to connect. Your WAP at home isn't a freaking hotspot, its just a wireless router. You don't have a hotspot in your home, Starbucks has one, McDonalds has one, the Airport has one. You have a WAP.
So you know why there are a lot of unencrypted hotspots? BECAUSE ITS RETARDED TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY, the only reason it gets done other ways is shear ignorance and paranoia because of other twits on the Internet that scream OMG ENCRYPTION ENCRYPTION ENCRYPTION!@$!@%$!@%.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
It is very simple really. ISPs in the densely populated EU quickly figured out that if they don't restrict internet
access to the paying customers, many other users from the nearby apartments/townhouses will free-ride.
So, they simply sell the model and the wireless router as one package, with a passcode that is setup by the ISP
and printed on the back of the router.
It is not that European users or ISPs are more aware of security. It is because ISPs want to make sure people
do not free-ride on their services, and that the users do not have to set up themselves the security of their wireless router.
I'm in the UK and have "unlimited data". Which means I can download as much as I want as long as I don't try and get it too quickly in which case my connection speed and response times drop dramatically.
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
The problem with "free and open access", at least here in the USA, is you can be accused of being responsible if someone downloads something unsavory (in the legal sense) over your connection. Even if you win in court, the costs (time, money, reputation, loss of computing equipment, loss of ability to use the Internet, etc) of defending such an accusation are enormous; that's why I no longer leave a connection open for the public. "Free and open" is no longer something I associate with US law. We're far down the road of repression and censorship, sad to say.
Worse, the situation is continually degrading, and the consequences of something that is minor now could become considerably worse in the future. Congress and the states have shown absolutely no reluctance to enact and enforce ex post facto laws, which are (among other things) laws that make consequences worse after the fact.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Last time I saw a residential property with Faraday cage equivalent shielding... well, I never have. Even aluminum siding doesn't seem to keep me from seeing WiFi from the curb in most cases.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126221116097210861.html
Apparently it used to be pretty common to put chicken wire in plaster walls. So some older buildings work effectively as faraday cages.
...the MOST unlocked hotspots? SWEET.
The fact that most of them connected to the web at something around 48kbps, not so sweet.
We have the largest tin-can-and-string network IN THE WORLD, BITCHES.
-Styopa
Also, some cars are bulletproof. However it's quite unusual and not the default.
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
User from Denmark ( EU) here.
I admire the amout of (deliberately) open wifi hotspots in USA. A couple of friends traveled around the States last year and found free wifi services everywhere - except Las Vegas.
This seem to be an interesting phenomenon. At first it might seem reasonable: wherever you are expected to pay for services you are also expected to pay for Internet access.
However, this leads to some curious cases. I have experienced hotels in Denmark, England and Spain that charge for internet access. But on the other hand it is not uncommon for hostels (that are cheaper and where one would expect a lesser degree of service) to have free wifi.
The economic background is interesting. The cost of putting up a hotspot is pretty low, especially at simple hostels that probably already have internet access and wifi for the employees. But the expenses of putting up a payment solution and handling support is high.
This leads to an interesting paradox: It is the payment solution that might not be feasible at "cheap" places such as hostels; not the Internet connection by itself. The result is that since it is not worthwhile putting up a payment solution the Internet access is simply free!
In some places this leads to even more interesting results:
The suburban railway service in Copenhagen has free wifi on the the trains. These trips are usually short, hence the payment process might itself take too long to be convenient.
However the inter-city trains where travel times are usually about 1½-4 hours there is a wifi payment solution. At first it might make sense but as it is charged per minute any delays underway would lead to a larger travel time and therefore a higher total cost.
Free Internet access could partially make up for a bad travel experience with delays (one would be able to still work online, pass time by casual surf, chat and so on or update successive travel arrangements). Instead passengers are simply punished further economically when the travel is delayed underway.
- Peter Brodersen; professional nerd
It was difficult finding public restrooms in Spain, much less free ketchup packets at fast-food restaurants. So it makes sense that free WiFi is more available here as well.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Technically [Wired Equivalent Privacy is] secured, but realistically it is as good as open for anyone with about 2 minutes and the right app (saw it demoed on the same Eee).
It also takes 2 minutes to sneak into the premises and find an open 100BASE-TX port. Sure, you could notice the burglar, but you could also notice the unfamiliar MAC number on your AP. That's why it's called wired-equivalent privacy. The point of weak security measures like WEP is to force an e-burglar to prove his intent to sneak onto your network, at which point you call the police and/or get your lawyer.
It also takes zero seconds to passively log all wireless communication. There's no physical presence to catch and no unknown MAC address in your AP. Even with WEP, it's trivial to decrypt the data after passively collecting a few days of traffic (substantially less time for busy networks).
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
It should be perfectly possible to "share" Wi-Fi while using WPA or WPA2 security measures at the same time."
I and many of my friends have two access points - a secured one with MAC filtering that provides access to the LAN and data, and an open one for the internet. At least where most of us are at, houses are far enough apart and far enough away from the street that this does not pose any real risk, and adds a lot of convenience. Everything has a cost. More security is not always a good thing.
You are not quite right. First, since you open your network to the others, it stops being a private network anymore. Second, since an ISP can (and has to) provide the customer data to the police if a judge issued a warrant, but in your open network you'll never know who is the user so the police has to assume that it is you who breaks the law.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
As far as i'm concerned, it's not a technical issue or even a matter of security. It's a legal issue.
If someone uses my internet connection and uses it to [insert random illegal action here], i'l be the one that is responsible for that. At least, that's how the current situation here in holland looks like, and i bet it accounts for some other countries as well. Untill that legal issue is solved, by some trial court or whatever, it's seems highly unadvisable to share your internet connection with strangers, unless of course you want to keep your router's log files for years, in case you have to prove your innocence.
I'd love to share the connection for bypassers or neighbours, but i won't. Cause it's a stupid thing to do, right now, unless you dont mind all kind of charges against you. Has nothing to do with technical limitations, just a bunch of lawmakers who claim whatever public IP address transmits is tracked down to my personal address and my person...
A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
I just plug a linksysy router into the power but no network to act as honeypot to keep people away from my network.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
OK you got me on the private network. I meant as in Personal Network, as it in belongs to me, and is not publicly owned. The equipment is owned privately, and exists in my private home.
Secondly... SO? if a judge gets a warrant for the ISP, they can for me also. If that is the way of things, perhaps they should actually make a LAW that details the information you need to keep on people that use your network... Simply saying you are liable for anything on it is BS.
The police don't have to assume anything.
As far as I am aware no telecommunications LAW exists that says that I have to do anything, nor one that says that I am responsible for everything. If there is an actual law out there I would be interested to read it. Please post. Particularly if it is Canadian. I may be mistaken and I just am not aware of it...
It is all just EULA's, policy, assumptions, etc... none of which should pertain to that I should get charged with something someone else did on my network.
(EULA may be a legally binding contract depending on the content. However like any contract it doesn't cover illegal activities. Like I can make a contract with you to kill you, sorry that is still murder, contracts are not law, nor to they supersede it. I once had a lawyer tell me that you can put all the disclaimers you like, however it doesn't trump law, though it may help in interpretation, such as intent. So for example I can say, we will keep none of your information private. All that means is that the user has no expectation of privacy, which may help to make the argument to be able to release it, however we may still be obligated to keep the information private due to the legal interpretation.)
That's great. But I can hack your wep from the cafe across the street. I don't need to defeat your physical security like I do your open port.
And that assumes your switch doesn't have port security enabled, in which case your foreign mac won't get a link anyway.
Must be referring to this.
For 99.9% of the population it is not only non-trivial, it is in fact impossible because they lack not only the tools to do it, but also the knowledge that it can be done.
Obviously we can do this, but if you really understand security you know about security landscapes. You know that keeping 99.9% of potential users/abusers is better than nothing, by about 99.9%. So no, it is not reasonable to say that MAC filtering is roughly the equivalent of no security at all.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Can you please explain to me how you do that? I've been considering it, but I am too lazy to google, and, since you're here...
By comparison, breaking WEP and hopping on a wireless network is simple, and how many people actually keep an eye on their router for rogue MAC numbers?
A lot of us do. Arpwatch makes it easy.
But most people don't.
Also, you do realise that MACs can be spoofed, so in the right situation you could potentially just usurp a machine or use the MAC of a real but currently disconnected one, right?
Many of us lock MAC addresses to the switch ports. You could also use 802.1x for even better security.
See prior comment. "A lot" in this case equals a small minority. Education is not what Best Buy sells alongside routers.
n this case, you're only making it to where a crime must be committed to gain access, and in a lot of scenarios this is 'secure enough'.
Secure enough for what? This isn't about getting them thrown in jail - it's about ensuring that your data is safe. Whether or not it's a crime is irrelevant once they spend two minutes and gain access to your network.
I have been told Tomato doesn't support multiple SSIDs, which is required to do this. I am doing it with DD-WRT on my WRT54GL router. One SSID is WPA2 AES and the other for visitors and neighbors to share is open.
Interesting that Tomato routes much faster than HyperWRT. I have 15/2 service which is supposed to boost to 30/2 temporarily. I've never seen above 10. I've wondered if my router is slowing the show down. But I am also running a lot of services like QoS.
MAC spoofing is more like leaving the key underneath your doormat. The problem isn't the 99% who don't know how to do it. The problem is if you are unlucky enough to have the one-hundredth of 1% of people who are both knowledgeable and malicious, or haven't been socialized and don't understand how wrong it is like the geeky son of your neighbor.
If he can sneak onto your network, he can steal data you may be inadvertently sharing on your computers, or install viruses for fun or profit, or use it to order illegal items like satellite decoding equipment with stolen credit cards. You need to make it as hard as practical for these people to get in. The only way to do that is with WPA2 and AES (or at least the highest encryption your hardware supports). Anything else is false security.
Secure enough for what? This isn't about getting them thrown in jail - it's about ensuring that your data is safe. Whether or not it's a crime is irrelevant once they spend two minutes and gain access to your network.
That is an unreachable goal. The only WAP that is completely secure is the one that is not connected to power.
Depending on the scenario, which I did explicitly state above, it is entirely possible that the data is of such little value that additional effort is wasted. The minimum effort, however, would protect you from any casual contact and would leave you only exposed to a genuine aggressor. Again, depending on the tools and time they employ against you, your measures may or may not be enough. Adjust your effort according to your needs.
I do not advise the following as a good defense method. But if you are truly innocent, they can subpoena your computers. If there is no evidence of infringing files, and no evidence you tried to delete or remove evidence of infringing files, they will have to settle for nothing, just like they did in the case you cited.
IANAL, but I bet there was a decent case to get compensatory damages in that case if the defendant had wanted to pursue it.
I have exactly what you speak of using a WRT-54G and DD-WRT. Additionally more newly released routers are doing this as well in their stock firmware.
The article title is wrong, the USA does not have (necessarily) more Wi-Fi hotspots, it just has a better percentage. If I founded my own country in my house and opened my wi-fi router so anyone could connet I would get a 100% open Wi-Fi hotspot percentage, but I would still have fare less hotspots than the USA.
Couldn't find any numbers in TFA as to the real number of Wi-Fi hotspots either in Europe or the USA
"I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
Yeah, and all you'll be out is the hassle of losing every computer you own for a year or so, tens of thousands of $ in lawyer's fees and lost time at work from having to defend yourself in court, many sleepless nights, etc. What a victory!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
As I once before has mentioned, I was surprised to see open/free WiFi in every resturant,cafe etc. when I visited Chicago. I was able to phone home using Skype on my iPhone and save a lot of money(3$ pr minute).
Locally I can never find a open/free hotspot.
Also I found it amusing that the country that has such a terror scare, has so many businesses offering free WiFi without any registration. We have some stupid anti-terror laws that requires eveyone that offers WiFi to register every user and log what they are doing.
If there is no possible way you (or anyone with access to your computers) loaded an infringing file on your computer, then I suggest not mounting a defense, writing off those computers, and buying new. The RIAA would have to find something before they could take it in front of a judge and you'd be out any real money or time defending yourself.
In file sharing circumstances, people need lawyers immediately when they are either guilty, don't know what evidence might be on their computers, or feel there is a real threat of being framed. I believe the RIAA/MPAA is unethical, but I don't think they are devious to the point of trying to plant evidence. And if the chain of evidence isn't secure enough, when it goes before a judge, your lawyer (which you need by then) will tear it apart.
This is definitely a downer, but it is not such a risk that I'm willing to not act as a good citizen and allow my neighbors to occasionally borrow my internet. If I did, it'd be like I was allowing the RIAA/MPAA to be a "domestic terrorist." Personally though I have 3 computers in my house, together they are worth less than $1,000 and I keep a copy of all my files offsite. So that is all I'd be out. Given someone eles's circumstances this may be a good or bad deal for them.
(France: Champagne region & the Montparnasse arrondissement of Paris. Spain: Mallorca and Barcelona. Of all these, Barcelona was the easiest to find open spots, but they were still a small % of the hotspots my scanner saw.)
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
A lot of providers have a cheap option, which is limited to something like 8Mbps and 40GB/month, for about $10/month and a more expensive unlimited 24Mbps for around $20/month. The former is more for the 'silver surfer' that will just occasionally check email from the grandkids.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
And that assumes your switch doesn't have port security enabled, in which case your foreign mac won't get a link anyway.
Home router appliances that support MAC whitelists for wired LAN are likely to support MAC whitelists for wireless LAN as well.
If you can provide information of the users of your network (like their name and address or at least their phone number) you are treated as an ISP. If you cannot, the blame is on you.
EULA is not valid in Germany if it is not part of the original contract at the moment of making the deal. And even then the EULA is not valid if it is too one sided or unusual.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
true, but on a wireless link you can crack the encryption and sniff the traffic to find an appropriate mac. You'd need nothing more than software and the wireless adapter to do it.
On a wired link you would need to have an appropriate link before you can begin to sniff traffic
I don't know I still disagree with the first part. That may be how it works in principle, but I am saying it should not, and it isn't right (not right as in factual, but right as in fair).
As to the last part, I believe contract law works the same way here. If it is an unreasonable contract it will not hold up in law, and most EULA's I have read are complete garbage. Like buy opening this package and reading this EULA I agree to give my first born son to the Sony Corporation for servitude for no less than 21 years, etc...
NO WHERE. Why? Beause the telco's in Australia want to keep us paying the most (more than nearly everyone else in the free world) and they want to keep control of the hardware.
YankDownUnder Veni, Vidi, volo in domum redire
I am american you insensitive clod. The world is: Los Angeles, New York, England, China, and "other"
I used ChilliSpot on the OpenWRT distro running on a LinkSys WRT54g , but I wrote my own CGI and web page for it, so it basically always authenticated if you hit "ok". Here is a decent howto although it is outdated, The downloads were moved to here
If I can spend 10 minutes setting up my wireless network, and have the choice between WPA2 and WEP... I'm going to be choosing WPA2. Because making it criminal to log onto my network isn't what I'm after -- taking reasonable steps to protect my data is.
But is it the data on your network that is important, or the fact that anyone can hook on to your network and potentially start using it for anything they want? Most home networks (talking about the public as a whole, rather than /.) will have lots of music and games that are valuable in their own right (viruses writers are purposefully targeting game logins to steal them), but not the normal concept of "valuable". Not having the police break your door down because of what someone is doing on your network, or not having someone within your network having an easier job of infecting your machines than they would from outside the router/NAT also has its value.