Slashdot Mirror
Home WiFi Network Security Failings Exposed
An anonymous reader writes "The shocking state of home wireless (Wi-Fi) network security in the UK has been revealed by a life assistance company study. CPP used an 'ethical hacker,' Jason Hart, to test thousands of Wi-Fi networks across six UK cities, including London. He found that many didn't even have a password and roughly half of home UK Wi-Fi networks could be hacked in less than 5 seconds."
If you were in any doubt as to why they were sponsoring a study which discovered something scary about the intertrons.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
My Wi-Fi has no password, and that's a purposeful choice. While evaluating the passwords on WiFi that does have a password is a reasonable analysis, it's not reasonable to call any WiFi without a password as unsecured.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
There is no way to know if the open wifi networks are open intentionally or not. Just ask Bruce Schneier. Saying they're "open to criminals" is biased, maybe "open to visitors" would be more appropriate. How come coffee shops and other businesses with open wifi aren't called out for letting criminals access the network?
You seem to be confusing "unsecured" with "insecure". They do not mean the same thing.
Unsecured WIFI means you have no password..
Just because it's intentionally unsecured doesn't mean it's not unsecured.
My Wi-Fi has no password, and that's a purposeful choice.
Which doesn't mean it's not unsecured. It just means that it's unsecured on purpose.
Supposed you have a bicycle. You chain it to a lamppost. It is now secured.
Supposed you take the same bicycle and decide purposely to not chain it to anything. Just because you decided not to chain it doesn't make it magically secured. It's still unsecured, you just made the decision not to secure it.
Yes. Vote in the November election. Lobby your congresscritters to keep the common carrier defense applicable to the Internet.
Lets face it, yeah, wi-fi routers can be hacked, yeah, a lot of people don't have secure wi-fi, but in all honesty does it matter to most people? Credit card information already should be encrypted with HTTPS so that wouldn't be sniffed, most sites let you use security to log in, etc.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
He found that many didn't even have a password and roughly half of home UK Wi-Fi networks could be hacked in less than 5 seconds."
I'm impressed. I can't connect to my own wireless network in less than 5 seconds.
And yet, the world keeps on turning.
Hopping onto somebody's wifi doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean you can get their personal documents, or banking info, or anything else.
"* We found that nearly a quarter of private wireless networks has no password whatsoever attached, making them immediately accessible to criminals."
So that's not just home networks then, that includes businesses deliberatly running open wifi as a service to visitors, and all sorts of commercial access points that are "open" in that they get you to a login provider for the service, which you then have to log in to? How many these "private wireless networks" are adhoc wireless on one PC connected to nothing in particular?
The first link is just an advert selling snake-oil, the second contains no information to speak of. No link to any "report" at all.
Not in the sense of a W or a K station, but its still broadcasting radio traffic. It still doesn't make you a common carrier due to other restrictions. Most things people think are common carriers aren't and never were. Likewise, "safe harbor" means that if the carrier meets the requirements for compliance with CALEA, that they can't be held liable for not being able to do anymore.
Either way, the end case is the same. Neither of these constructs have anything AT ALL to do with whether or not you're going to get boned if someone jumps on your AP and starts committing crimes.