Howard2k

I think the issue is not whether we do 110 in a 100 zone, it's whether we recognize that it's wrong.

I do 110 (or more) in a 100 zone. I know it's wrong. I don't feel the need to pretend that it's right to make myself feel better and I wouldn't even consider trying to argue that it IS right with someone. The laws are pretty clear on that point.

__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.

aximbigfan

there is this car that is always driving though my subdivition. it has all of these anntennas on the top..... my freinds family found out what they were doing. they were hacking peoples wifi. my freind got hacked. he is wep protected. just shows you how VERY safe we are.... thing is that it turned out that they were hacked by teenagers.....


chris

jmckie

My WEP-protected access point can be hacked? I know anything can be hacked, but realistically, how easy or difficult is it? Is this true or urban legend? How concerned should I be? Are there any other security measures I can take?

Howard2k

WEP can be hacked in around 5 minutes. Or less.

It's good enough as a deterrent though. In reality, if someone REALLY wants to know what's on your computer badly enough they can break in an steal it when you're not home. WEP will deter those just looking for an open connection and they'll (hopefully) pick up an open connection somewhere else (ie not yours).

WPA-PSK with a >17 character passphrase is MUCH more secure.

__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.

crash613

Originally Posted by jmckie

My WEP-protected access point can be hacked? I know anything can be hacked, but realistically, how easy or difficult is it? Is this true or urban legend? How concerned should I be? Are there any other security measures I can take?

yeah, actually there are several layers of protection built in to most wi-fi routers out there. the first and most used is, of course, WEP.

Beyond that you can, and should change your SSID and stop broadcasting. Further you could enable MAC filtering. What that does is only allow the devices that you enter the MAC ID for, into your network.

And it goes without saying, but i'll say it anyway, you should change the password to your router software, so you don't find yourself locked out of your own system.

Personally i use WEP and changed SSID and that is all. Every level of protection costs you in speed. Not a big hit, but it is there.

__________________
Palm M100 --> Palm M125 --> Toshiba E335 -->
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Axim X30 High
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
--> :approve: Axim X50v :approve:

All your base are belong to us

Quote from Psionandy as heard in a thread: "It may be spelt TCPMP but i'll always pronouce it Betaplayer."

Don't forget to check out my Tutorial on Ripping your favorite DVD To PPC
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

jmckie

Quote:

WPA-PSK with a >17 character passphrase is MUCH more secure

Thanks for the tip. I'll change when I next get a chance. Are there any system logs I can examine to tell if someone has gotten in?

Now let's say I was hacked through my AP (a Dlink router). What kind of things can the hacker do to me? So they can surf the web at my expense. Can they do something nasty, like copy my Quicken file? Can they plant a Trojan on my hard drive? Can they copy my Outlook mailbox?

Howard2k

Originally Posted by jmckie

Thanks for the tip. I'll change when I next get a chance. Are there any system logs I can examine to tell if someone has gotten in?

Depends on the router, but most likely not. If it's not logging legitimate traffic then you might notice a few fail attempts but once they succeeded it would be legitimate traffic right? So it would not be logged.

Originally Posted by jmckie

Now let's say I was hacked through my AP (a Dlink router). What kind of things can the hacker do to me? So they can surf the web at my expense. Can they do something nasty, like copy my Quicken file? Can they plant a Trojan on my hard drive? Can they copy my Outlook mailbox?

All of the above, potentially.

__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.

Howard2k

MAC Filtering and SSID Broadcast disable are both easier to overcome than MAC Filtering too. So while I would feel fairly comfortable running a home network with WEP, MAC Filtering and SSID Broadcast disabled, I would use WPA-PSK if it was available.

Look at the people in this discussion, most of them just want to scam free Internet access at someone else's expense. They're not looking for credit card details etc. I think that's a fair representation of most of the drive-by surfers. But not all.

__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.

jmckie

Quote:

All of the above, potentially.

I haven't been playing close attention, but I really haven't heard much about this on mainstream media. You'd think this is the sort of scare-mongering news item that the networks love to talk about.

Have there been any reports of victims (private citizens) in the news? How often does it actually happen or is it more of a theoretical possibility (like a PocketPC virus)?

dude55

Originally Posted by Howard2k

I think the issue is not whether we do 110 in a 100 zone, it's whether we recognize that it's wrong. I do 110 (or more) in a 100 zone. I know it's wrong. I don't feel the need to pretend that it's right to make myself feel better and I wouldn't even consider trying to argue that it IS right with someone. The laws are pretty clear on that point.

I find it interesting that one can admit to breaking the law and wants others to obey another law. Is there a differance in laws? Some it is ok to break and some it is not? Why you can even be a law breaker yourself and condem others for breaking a different law, one that you might feel is more important?
He who is without sin cast the first stone........

Howard2k

Originally Posted by dude55

I find it interesting that one can admit to breaking the law and wants others to obey another law. Is there a differance in laws? Some it is ok to break and some it is not? Why you can even be a law breaker yourself and condem others for breaking a different law, one that you might feel is more important? He who is without sin cast the first stone........

So if one breaks one law they can break all?

I cannot possibly condemn anyone for it (stealing bandwidth). Just like I couldn't condemn anyone for speeding. They are both wrong though. I'm willing to admit that.

I take responsibility for speeding and don't feel the need to convince myself or others that somehow because I do it, it's ok.

Howard2k

Originally Posted by jmckie

I haven't been playing close attention, but I really haven't heard much about this on mainstream media. You'd think this is the sort of scare-mongering news item that the networks love to talk about. Have there been any reports of victims (private citizens) in the news? How often does it actually happen or is it more of a theoretical possibility (like a PocketPC virus)?

In reality it's difficult for the average person to detect someone breaking into their WLAN and even harder to prove. It's VERY possible but probably unlikely.

dude55

Quote:
As to whether it is actually illegal, here's one interpretation of current US federal law (in addition, many US states have legislated for this fairly recently: see below):

--------------------------------------------------
The current revision of Title 18 18 U.S.C. 1030 says that you must intentionally access a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, cause damage of $5000 or more in a 1-year period for this to be a crime.

So, let's say we just want to do some Internet surfing via a wide-open, unencrypted AP of unknown origin (probably a neighbor), from the luxury of the living room...

-Is it intentional? YES.
-Is it a "computer" I'm accessing? According to USC 18 - YES. An AP is a computer by definition.
-Is it a protected computer? According to the definition in USC 18 - Not inherently. But in this case we'll be getting on the Internet, so YES.
-Is the access authorized? No.
-Am I causing a loss of $5000 or more? Easily - See below.

"Loss" can include things like time spent responding to the incident, damage assessment, etc. So, "loss" can add up pretty quickly with these intangibles. However, it doesn't count unless the loss was incurred as a result of a crime.

So, to sum up - Chilling in your living room and surfing via your neighbors AP (as harmless as it seems) is a federal crime. Also, some states like Alaska now have laws that specifically prohibit doing this as well (Theft of Service).
----------------------------------------------------

Is there a lawyer in the house? I looked over the code and certainly got something totally different out of it. I guess that is why there are so many lawyers around. Here is one location for you all to read your self.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html

I know of no federal or state law describing what was quoted above. Can you give example? Is this federal code dealing with hacking, stealing of data, virus's? The main thing is intent. Did one enter the computer/sysem with the intent of doing harm in some matter? That would probably be the question as to if a law was broken or not. Like shouting fire in a crowed movie house is against the law because of the intent of the action (causing panic) even though one has freedom of speech here in the US.

jmckie

Quote:

So, to sum up - Chilling in your living room and surfing via your neighbors AP (as harmless as it seems) is a federal crime. Also, some states like Alaska now have laws that specifically prohibit doing this as well (Theft of Service).

Let's stipulate that this were true. So what? The chances of a person being prosecuted for benign surfing is next to nil, like winning the lottery.

This whole issue is so overblown. By several orders of magnitude, it is more harmful, unethical, and immoral to drive around without a seatbelt.

Hacking is a totally different story.

Ferrari348GTS

Wow, i really like that this thread has gotten so much attention. I have never heard of the print program before. My father's company among other things offers computer services so this will prove to be very interesting.
Thanks, everyone.
PS.MOD EDIT.