From: Serg B. (sergicles@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 04 2007 - 02:20:47 EDT
Perhaps I am missing the point here, but... An individual should
simply not utilise a network that does not belong to them unless they
have been allowed to do so.
I tend to equate it to something like walking down the street and
checking if each house/apartment has an open door. If I find an open
door I will walk into the house and start using homeowners things
without their permission.
Of course the network owner could (and should) implement some sort of
safety guards. However the person attempting to connect to the network
must understand that this network does not belong to them and
therefore they must make sure that they are allowed to use it or not.
Serg
On 04/06/07, stonewall <stonewall@cavtel.net> wrote:
> Would it be hard for manufacturers to implement in the AP's
> software a logon banner when you try to "connect" your XP
> box to the AP (of course not)? "This wireless network and
> Internet access are the property of Blah Blah's coffee shop,
> and are for the use of our on-premises customers only. Any
> other use is unauthorized and is subject to legal sanction"
> (or some other suitable legal mumbo-jumbo). I thought there
> was a consensus of sorts that such notification was more or
> less considered "good practice", passed the "reasonable man"
> test, and was a de facto standard.
>
> Recall, it wasn't that long ago that XP was configured BY
> DEFAULT to connect automatically to the strongest wireless
> signal it could find. That being said, it is no more stupid
> to run an open access point than it is to connect to someone
> else's without authorization. The trouble is, the only ones
> who know this are folks in this business. The general
> public has no clue. Arresting someone for this is
> horsecrap.
>
> stonewall
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: listbounce@securityfocus.com [mailto:listbounce@securityfocus.com] On
> Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God)
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:21 PM
> To: pen-test@securityfocus.com
> Subject: Re: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access
>
> Or just have the SSID start with "PUBLIC" or "PRIVATE" or use the same
> nomenclature for the router name. Or dictate that broadcast SSID's are
> public, and hidden SSID's are private.
>
> If it is going to be "law" then it needs to be simple enough for people to
> understand. Ideally, the wifi router manufactures would build in a tag for
> "private" or "public" and build the selection into the setup wizard. Hell,
> that option could even drive market share.
>
> t
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kenneth Klinzman" <kklinzman@tektegrity.com>
> To: <pen-test@securityfocus.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:17 AM
> Subject: RE: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access
>
>
> Very nice find!
>
> My office co-horts and I were having the same kind of discussion. It
> seems like all it would take is a banner in the coffie shop saying
> internet to customers only would be all it takes to make the argument
> valid that they are informed. However, it is not like wireless stops at
> the walls of the coffee shop like cabled connections would. So to know
> it was for customers only would take the offender to have entered the
> shop and seen the sign. Maybe some kind of portal page should be
> required detailing the terms of use for wireless that users receive when
> they first log in to the wireless. Either way the legality of using a
> internet connection that does not belong to you and you know nothing
> about is very grey area... Those of us who are mostly law abiding would
> just assume it was wrong to do.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: listbounce@securityfocus.com [mailto:listbounce@securityfocus.com]
> On Behalf Of Jeffory Atkinson
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:19 AM
> To: ebk_lists@hotmail.com; pen-test@securityfocus.com
> Subject: RE: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access
>
> Nice find,
> Really make you think. Using free wireless is illegal but not if there
> is a message saying public then it is not. Maybe I am not seeing the
> whole picture but I believe the burden of notification is on the
> owner/access point. This is the case in most states. Using the articles
> example of a radar detector, if you travel in to the state of Virginia
> you will clearly see the burden of notification in black and white on
> sign stating they are illegal.
>
> I am curious to here other thoughts.
>
> JMA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: listbounce@securityfocus.com [mailto:listbounce@securityfocus.com]
> On Behalf Of ebk_lists@hotmail.com
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 12:43 PM
> To: pen-test@securityfocus.com
> Subject: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access
>
> Given all of the discussion regarding wifi access and the legalities
> surrounding it, I found this interesting:
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276720,00.html
>
> While I find the ruling in this circumstance a bit extreme, I think that
> it is good that we are now getting some case law to back up what has
> been up to this point mere speculation on what *may* happen in a court.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
>
> Are you using SPI, Watchfire or WhiteHat?
> Consider getting clear vision with Cenzic See HOW Now with our 20/20
> program!
>
> http://www.cenzic.com/c/2020
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
>
> Are you using SPI, Watchfire or WhiteHat?
> Consider getting clear vision with Cenzic See HOW Now with our 20/20
> program!
>
> http://www.cenzic.com/c/2020
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
>
> Are you using SPI, Watchfire or WhiteHat?
> Consider getting clear vision with Cenzic
> See HOW Now with our 20/20 program!
>
> http://www.cenzic.com/c/2020
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
>
> Are you using SPI, Watchfire or WhiteHat?
> Consider getting clear vision with Cenzic
> See HOW Now with our 20/20 program!
>
> http://www.cenzic.com/c/2020
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
>
> Are you using SPI, Watchfire or WhiteHat?
> Consider getting clear vision with Cenzic
> See HOW Now with our 20/20 program!
>
> http://www.cenzic.com/c/2020
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
-- Serg ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This List Sponsored by: Cenzic Are you using SPI, Watchfire or WhiteHat? Consider getting clear vision with Cenzic See HOW Now with our 20/20 program! http://www.cenzic.com/c/2020 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Apr 12 2008 - 10:57:51 EDT