Who is stealing my wi-fi?
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: John B. Matthews on 2 Mar 2005 12:56 In article <38m8vlF5nlepsU2(a)individual.net>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis(a)yahoo.com> wrote: [helpful analysis elided] > So I also have similar minimal protections on my WIFI network. But > what I wonder is why care so much? It is true that someone who wanted > to could eventually break into my network. It is also true that once > they did that, they would have little to do more interesting than surf > the web. So should we really care that much? A provocative question. Because downstream bandwidth is large, surfing is hardly a problem. I may not even notice massive downloads or heavy p2p traffic. The problem arises when I get a subpoena for illicit activity appearing to come from me. It's tantamount to identity theft. You can't keep out a determined intruder, but you can slow down the casual crook! -- John jmatthews at wright dot edu www dot wright dot edu/~john.matthews/
From: Gnarlodious on 2 Mar 2005 13:04 Entity Chris McDonald spoke thus: >> But when people accuse their neighbors of "stealing" their free and publicly >> available radio signals it makes me realize just how much the FCC has turned >> the spectrum into a commodity to be owned. > You're joking, right? No, I'm not "joking". Here in the USA this is a topic for serious concern. > I doubt that the OP was worried about the radio spectrum being used, > via his unprotected equipment, but that the OP is paying good money to > an ISP which is accessed via that equipment. Your observation is correct, but the OP's assumption is wrong. The electromagnetic belongs to "The Commons" NOT THE FCC! (at least here in the USA) Anyone can legally access any radio waves and it is up to the respective operators to secure that signal if need be. Intentionally bypassing that security CAN be a crime though. > It's a very common expression to say that the "wifi is being stolen". Sounds like a more appropriate expression would be "access is being stolen", which would at least imply arguability. In any case, computer people have their own language and seem to think of wireless as an extension of wires, but it's not. This distinction goes back to way before computers and it's not changing any time soon. But the whole issue makes for an interesting discussion. > Dr Chris McDonald E: chris(a)csse.uwa.edu.au > Computer Science & Software Engineering W: > http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~chris > The University of Western Australia, M002 T: +618 6488 2533 > Crawley, Western Australia, 6009 F: +618 6488 1089 OK, those are some credentials... :=) -- Gnarlie http://Gnarlodious.com/Cogent/
From: Marc Heusser on 2 Mar 2005 13:49 In article <0001HW.BE4B4FCE000DE942F03865B0(a)news1.news.adelphia.net>, Charles Dyer <charlesd(a)newsguy.com> wrote: .... > Next up, it has a 'Wireless Security' control section on the built-in HTML > control site at that gateway address. I turned on 128-bit security and made > sure that all the machines on my wireless net had the proper (extremely long > and annoying) hex key input into their systems. .... > 3 the WEP key is yet another non-trivial assemblage of alpha and non-alpha > characters. WEP is weak, tools to break it in hours to 2 weeks (depending on traffic) are publicly available (128bit does not help either). If you can, switch to WPA. HTH Marc
From: Steve Hix on 2 Mar 2005 15:08 In article <4225894c$1_1(a)baen1673807.greenlnk.net>, "SRMoll" <stephen.no.spam.please.moll(a)amsjv.no.spam.please.com> wrote: > "Gnarlodious" <gnarlodious(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:BE4A9DCB.4896%gnarlodious(a)yahoo.com... > > For starters, I would say RTFM. > > <Snipped out content> > > > > I am running Little Snitch and it doesn't tell me anything about > > > unauthorized access or any security issues, but I DO have a neighbor > > > who is a computer hacker... > > More power to him. I suggest unplugging that Netgear... > > > > Let's hope your "hacker" neighbour hasn't set his own paswords on *your* > router! Time to reset the router hardware...
From: Geoffrey F. Green on 2 Mar 2005 15:53
In article <marc.heusser-03ADB0.19495402032005(a)idnews.unizh.ch>, Marc Heusser <marc.heusser(a)CHEERSheusser.comMERCIALSPAMMERS.invalid> wrote: > In article <0001HW.BE4B4FCE000DE942F03865B0(a)news1.news.adelphia.net>, > Charles Dyer <charlesd(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > ... > > Next up, it has a 'Wireless Security' control section on the built-in HTML > > control site at that gateway address. I turned on 128-bit security and made > > sure that all the machines on my wireless net had the proper (extremely > > long > > and annoying) hex key input into their systems. > ... > > 3 the WEP key is yet another non-trivial assemblage of alpha and non-alpha > > characters. > > WEP is weak, tools to break it in hours to 2 weeks (depending on > traffic) are publicly available (128bit does not help either). > If you can, switch to WPA. Although if the issue is just unauthorized folks glomming onto his network, it's much better than nothing. Particularly in a multiple-unit building like where I live; there are several open wireless networks broadcasting SSIDs, so anyone who wants to join a network would access one of the others before trying to crack my WEP encryption. - geoff |