From: Matthew Russotto on 4 Mar 2005 13:48 In article <wayne.morris-F5C86A.15141703032005(a)shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>, Wayne C. Morris <wayne.morris(a)this.is.invalid> wrote: >In article <mrydnVFICqfm3rrfRVn-pQ(a)speakeasy.net>, > russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > >> In article <020320051709062339%cfnzrpu(a)crevtrr.arg>, >> J. Stewart <cfnzrpu(a)crevtrr.arg> wrote: >> > >> >You are responsible for the traffic in both directions via your >> >connection, telling the judge someone "borrowed" it isn't going to help >> >much. >> >> Actually, it very well might. You are not necessarily responsible for >> the traffic going through your connection. However, you're certainly >> going to be the first suspect. > >And proving that you're not responsible could be stressful, time-consuming, >and expensive. True, but you're still not culpable for it. If someone steals your car and uses it as a getaway car in a bank robbery, and runs over a cop during the getway, you're in for a lot of trouble until you can demonstrate that you had nothing to do with it, but you're not responsible for the robbery or the murder. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
From: Matthew Russotto on 4 Mar 2005 14:05 In article <112fvem2o378162(a)corp.supernews.com>, G.T. <getnews1(a)dslextreme.com> wrote: > > >How long do they need to passively sniff my few megabits a day to crack my >WEP key? Much easier than that; there are attacks which actively induce traffic. >How many opportunities are there between my router and the destination site >to sniff my communications? Quite a few, but they're much harder for your average attacker to get at. >How many Windows and IE users have keystroke loggers downloaded to their >systems everyday due to stealth malware? Who cares? The question isn't how insecure they are, it's how secure you are. >Cable networks were WAY less secure than my home wireless network, don't >know if they still are. Not since DOCSIS, which encrypts data over the shared wire using DES in ECB mode and RSA for key exchange. Both of these are believed as secure as their key lengths would indicate. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
From: Mr. Uh Clem on 5 Mar 2005 16:23 Doug Anderson wrote: > Charles Dyer <charlesd(a)newsguy.com> writes: .... >>My Lincsys wireless router at home has the gateway (router) address of >>192.168.0.1, by default. It can be changed to any 192.168.x.x address (if you >>know what you're doing...) and I did change it. It won't do much more than >>slow down an intruder, but hey... > > > Changing the default IP address won't even slow down an intruder. He won't > notice the change until he has intruded anyhow. > IIRC, there was a form of attack against routers which would try to get a luser to click on a link with a carefully crafted URL which would cause a brand of router at the default address (with no password) to drop the firewall. This does protect against that kind of "dumb" inside out attack. My router blinks pretty fast with nothing going on. I think it is a lot of probing the firewall. Applying the least bit of security is probably good enough in my neighborhood because of all the totally open networks I can sense from my property. :-/ -- Clem "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over." - Fudd's first law of opposition
From: Doug Anderson on 5 Mar 2005 19:48
John Stewart <cfnzrpu(a)crevtrr.arg> writes: (snip lots) > Ok, you didn't read it on the internet, it must not be true. Did you > find anything on the auto accident I passed on the freeway yesterday or > can you? I can find lots of stuff about auto accidents. Nothing about the BATF breaking into someone's house because of unprotected wifi. Hey - you said it was a problem, I was just wondering how you know. Don't get your knickers in a twist. Reasonable precautions are reasonable. But only if the precautions are against an actual hazard. |