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.
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.
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.
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
.
Good job living under a rock. ARP replay attacks have been able to break into just about any WEP network with any traffic for quite a while now. All you need is a single ARP packet and you win.
"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.
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.
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
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
...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
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