 
kdepasquale
join:2004-03-13
Livermore, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| "fixing it?" From the article:
Fixing it can be as easy as clicking on "settings" and making a few adjustments, but each system is a little different. To Stay Safe, you need to change the default SSID, disable the SSID broadcast and change the Default Password.
Unfortunately the news is not giving the public accurate information. Most wardrivers are smart enough to get past the disabled ssid broadcast. While disabling ssid broadcast is a deterrent, it's certainly not a fix. WPA/WPA2 or at a MINIMUM WEP is the way to go, | |
|
 | |
| melps
join:2002-01-05
Paramus, NJ
 ·Verizon FIOS
edit:
May 12th, @07:45PM
| Wardriving vs Free Area Wide Wi-Fi Is there a difference in terms of personal PC security?
Someone connects to your network via wardriving
vs.
both u and the "wardriver" are on the same free area-wide wi-fi network.
You still have to protect yourself no matter how both got on
to the same network. | |
|
| 
digiblur
Got Sipura?
Premium
join:2002-06-03
Louisiana
| Re: "fixing it?" I noticed that too. They don't even say about any encryption. Kismet would pick up there signal in a heart beat.
Data Doctors need to go back and read the manual.... LOL!!!
--
FWD#64466(6PM-11PM GMT-5)
»[Sipura] Make your Sipura Speak! - GetSipura Guide
And now for the PAP2-NA and unlocked PAP2's. | |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | The real question... "Are all war drivers thieves?" - No
"Are all war drivers utter losers?" - Yes
Adam | |
|
| 
Rickez
Goinginsane
join:2000-09-02
Three Rivers, MA | Re: The real question... I'm a loser baby, so why don't you kill me?!?!?!?!?! | |
|
| | |
| Belial5221
join:2000-08-10
Lafayette, LA | Actually,it is stealing.They are using the service you paid for,without your permission.It's like me using your creditcard without your permission. | |
|
| | gefflong
join:2003-02-18
Aledo, IL
| Re: The real question... reply to Belial5221
Actually it's not stealing. It requires no "hacking" capabilites to get onto someone's wireless network if there is no protection. Hell, every windows xp laptop with a wireless card will help you "steal" (as you put it) any wireless network it finds. It pops right up and asks you if you want to join.
It becomes "stealing" when the connection is protected and you start trying to break in. | |
|
| | | Belial5221
join:2000-08-10
Lafayette, LA
| Re: The real question... War driving is usually(not always) used as a term to find open networks for future use,and then when used(without permission),is illegal.If someone is going around to find open networks,and letting them how to fix it,then it could be a good thing,as long as they don't use/misuse the network/connection.
gefflong,say your house door was open.Is it legal for me to go in,and do whatever I want,since I don't have to bypass any security?According to what you say,it's legal.The better thing for me to do,if I saw an open door,would be tell you,or leave a note explaining how to fix the problem.
to koolman2:"wardriving != connecting to networks"
If that's true,how do you find it open,without connecting?
I hope you mean 'wardriving != using networks'
I'm sure war driving started off as something with illegal intentions(probably covering tracks),but everyone twists it(for a clearer conscious),so there's multiple definitions,that mean different things.Kinda like "cleave",it means to split apart,and can mean put together.That's probably why there's a problem defining the legality of it. | |
|
| | | | 
koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK
 ·GCI.net
 ·Clearwire Wireless
edit:
May 14th, @03:57AM
| Re: The real question... War driving is basically going around and sending out a signal requesting a response from any and all access points that can hear you. You are thus not connecting, but merely requesting a single transmission of data. To connect to the network, you must first get this information, then change to the same channel, address the access point by name, and request to connect.
Every 802.11a/b/g client card is constantly sending out the request, which, by the way, is called a beacon packet. Therefore, we would all be breaking the law without even knowing it, right?
And no, I meant that war driving != connecting to networks, as it is not.
--
ERROR: CRC failed. Your signature has been lost to Cyberspace. | |
|
| | | | gefflong
join:2003-02-18
Aledo, IL
edit:
May 14th, @11:43PM
| It's not the same thing Belial, but nice try.
Even if my front door is open, it's still my property and it would be trespassing.
Your "comparision" breaks down when the radio waves travel into public territory or territory privately owned by someone else. If I am sitting on my own private property and somebody's wireless network is being broadcast all over the place, then that's their own fault.
Not unlike public airwaves, where anyone with a TV and rabbit ears can receive local channels. Pay TV encrypts those signals and thus, it becomes illegal when people try to decrpyt those signals and watch without paying.
Take satellite TV for intance... It is broadcast to everyone and anyone can pick up the signal. That's not illegal. It, however, IS illegal to decrypt that signal and watch it without paying. If they didn't have their signal encrypted, would it be illegal for us to watch it? I don't think so... I didn't ask them to broadcast it to me. and If they don't want me to watch for free, then encrypt it. Simple as that.
You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Let's keep it apples to apples. | |
|
| | | | |
koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK
·GCI.net
·Clearwire Wireless
| Re: The real question... In that case, though, you would be passively using the signal - the same goes for WiFi. The problem arises when you attempt to send a signal back to the network to gain access; that's where it becomes illegal.
--
ERROR: CRC failed. Your signature has been lost to Cyberspace. | |
|
| | | | | | gefflong
join:2003-02-18
Aledo, IL
| Re: The real question... I disagree, but this argument could go on forever.
In the end...
If you don't want me to use your internet connection from either a publicly accessible place or from my own private property, then secure your signal.
End of story. | |
|
| | | | | | | 
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
Levittown, PA
| Re: The real question... Forever...
If homeowner had front door open, and I could see and hear his TV, why not sit on the curb and watch the show? Is it illegal? no. If owner left door open, then owner is liable for what i see. But if I trespass, then I am breaking law.
If owner is broadcasting signal outside their property, is it legal to receive signal, but illegal to use it?
My nephew once bragged he was using Xbox live w/o paying for internet connection. I asked how and he said he got a wifi adaptor and put it in his window. He was getting 5 bars from someone in the neighborhood, totally unsecured 'Linksys' SSID.
I made him aware that it was illegal to tap off anothers inability to secure. Then it turned into a debate. Then he got a cablemodem and I showed him how to secure their lan/wifi (thanks to DSLreports/BBR)  | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Belial5221
join:2000-08-10
Lafayette, LA
| Re: The real question... I see what you're saying.I think it's all the misuse of words that is the problem.I thought you had to actually try connecting to see if it's secure.My friends use wireless,but it don't tell you if it's secure or not,unless you try to connect,then it asks for passwords.Maybe it's a setting,or something?
But what still gets me is,why would someone want to know if there's a open network,unless they plan on using it at some point?And if someone is sitting in front of your house,then they aren't just scanning,they are probably using,or trying to use it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK
·GCI.net
·Clearwire Wireless
| Re: The real question... When you go to connect to your network, your computer first has to send a packet out to see the network. In the process, any other networks close by respond as well, and you end up seeing a list of available networks, secure or not. The software also lists what kind of security is enabled, as this information is sent out along with all of the other information.
That's how you would know that there are other networks around.
--
ERROR: CRC failed. Your signature has been lost to Cyberspace. | |
|
|
koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK | wardriving != connecting to networks
(note: != is read as "not equal to")
--
ERROR: CRC failed. Your signature has been lost to Cyberspace. | |
|
Techman21
join:2005-04-14
Richmond, VA
edit:
May 12th, @06:15PM
| And the media's... perceptions are once again incorrect. This is what happens when ignorant people unfamiliar with a particular field try to explain something to the uneducated.
War driving IS NOT hacking. War driving is merely the practice of pin pointing access points and noting where they are.
And the term hacker has been beaten more than a dead cat. The term hacker: »www.webopedia.com/TERM/H/hacker.html does not mean malicious. It is given a bad rap by ignorant/uneducated reporters. Perhaps they should learn about computers before reporting on them.
lol. I wonder if their "experts" simply read the manual that came with the router/ap. RTFM!! Jebus. How many times does this have to be said. Ignorance isn't an excuse. Go ahead...commit a crime out of ignorance and see how the judicial system treats you. (note:don't actively do this, my point was you could commit a crime unknowingly and still be charged and tried.)
And by their own report they 'illegally' entered into a network. And by default you aren't able to glean all that info on a person. You'd have to actively search for it, which is NOT what war-drivers do.
News agencies need to get a clue. | |
|
| |
| 
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß | yeah sure buddy, keep telling yourself people only war drive to pinpoint locations....jesus. | |
|
| | |
| | geden
join:2004-04-23
Elwood, IN | I run a private wisp, and yes I use netstumbler to find open channels to minimize interference. I don't need no stinkin' hack to pilfer someone else's bandwidth, I use it as a tool to keep my customers happy. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß | War driving... What is the purpose but to pirate at a minimum a signal...is that theft...yes.
EOT | |
|
directv2006
@rogers.com | stealing signal? LOL, stealing an encrypted signal would be illigal.
using an unencrypted signal is simply sharing!
(probably still not allowed by your ISP, but that is a whole other topic) | |
|
gefflong
join:2003-02-18
Aledo, IL
| small problem From the Article:
"We could sit outside in the car, hook up to your network and search for child porn or things like that. When that happens, the FBI tags you. And when they come, there's no way to prove it wasn't you." No way?
-------end of article-------------------
I'm not a laywer, but wouldn't there be a little problem called lack of EVIDENCE? If there was no illegal material in the home or on the computers when they searched, how could the homeowner be charged? | |
|
| 
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
| Re: small problem If the FBI was able to gain access to the log on a particular kiddie porn site, they could theoretically trace the IP address back to its point of origin: which would be the person's internet connection that was used to access the kiddie porn. Similar to the way the RIAA traces down "pirates," and we all know how accurate they are with that. | |
|
| | gefflong
join:2003-02-18
Aledo, IL | Re: small problem Ok. So let's say they do that and track it back to someone's IP address. That still doesn't fix the "evidence" problem when they do a search of home and computers and find nothing. | |
|
| | 
SilenceGold
Premium
join:2003-07-31
Sherwood, AR | If the FBI found the bullet, they have to find the murder weapon unless there are other better evidence that can be used. | |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | No way? No way to prove it wasn't me? Uhm... try proving it WAS me! | |
|
| 
tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow
Premium
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
| Re: No way? said by Chuckles  :No way to prove it wasn't me? Uhm... try proving it WAS me! Would you really want to go through all that trouble? The Feds would take all your computers away and your name will appear in newspapers. You'll still need a lawyer; who needs all that grief? | |
|
| |
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN
·Comcast
| Re: No way? What trouble? What they're looking for wouldn't be on my computer. ...this is all in theory though because I don't use a wireless router...
Or I could say not only do I leave my wireless access unsecure I leave my front door unlocked too!
--
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever. | |
|
Tek465m
@frontiernet.net
| Uneducated Media trolling again "We could sit outside in the car, hook up to your network and search for child porn or things like that. When that happens, the FBI tags you. And when they come, there's no way to prove it wasn't you."
I have a similar problem.
We have illegals crossing our border. Many times they are passing through ranches and private property to get across. I would like to see Law Enforcement arrest the property owners for allowing them to come into our country.
The logic dictates if you don't secure your property you should be held liable.
Why is this so difficult? Companies release technology, en masse, that most people don't understand, and we act surprised that the few that do understand it, exploit the holes in the system. Just pick *any* technology. (Doesn't even have to be this century!)
It's always going to be a game of cat and mouse!! | |
|
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | Re: Uneducated Media trolling again Fire was totally exploited. | |
|
| cluth
join:2004-01-06
Anchorage, AK
·GCI.net
| The logic dictates if you don't secure your property you should be held liable. Be careful, because in today's America, you ARE liable if you don't secure your property.
We live along a creek, and none of the houses in our neighborhood has any fences. The neighborhood kids play in our back yard and the creek regularly, despite our warnings that they should a) not be on our property and b) can get hurt. If one of them trips and falls, their parents (who aren't the nicest bunch) would sue us for negligence before we even realized the kid was hurt. We know--it's happened to someone else before.
Apparently, I'm liable unless I spend $10k on a fence. Ridiculous, but it's reality.
We put up some no trespassing signs not because we want to be mean to the kids but because we want to protect ourselves if anything happens. Kids will be kids, and really, we don't mind them playing there, but if something happens, we can't afford any lawsuits. | |
|
| |
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | Re: Uneducated Media trolling again BS! Do you have a wood chipper you leave on 24/7 in your yard? I don't think you *have* to have a fence.
--
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever. | |
|
| | |
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
| Re: Uneducated Media trolling again It's not BS. In fact, I was just in court the other week for a civil matter and I witnessed a case where a property owner was being sued because somebody's three year old daughter (who obviously wasn't being paid attention to) stumbled onto this person's property and went off a dock into a lake that was ADJACENT to the person's property. Their argument? There was no fence preventing access to the dock. | |
|
| | | | cluth
join:2004-01-06
Anchorage, AK
·GCI.net
edit:
May 13th, @04:58PM
| Re: Uneducated Media trolling again Yesterday's Baby Blues comic was a perfect match for this subject. Can't find an easy way to link to it (scripts and such), so I'll attach it (probably violating copyright or something...)
In case mods have to delete the comic over King Features complaints, go here and change it to May 12. | |
|
Phylop
Premium
join:2002-11-17
Reston, VA
·Comcast
| Spin.... This is just more spin to make people who aren't in the "know" scared, just like the Fox News channel. War-Driving is mostly a hobby of mapping wireless access points, it's not about stealing bandwidth and personal data.
There are simple ways to protect yourself from War-Driving and other wireless intrusions:
1. If you have extremely confidential information, you shouldn't have wifi.
2. If you must use wifi, use encryption, such as WEP, or something more effective such as WPA/WPA2. Also considering using MAC address filtering.
3. If you aren't computer/network savvy, consider having a savvy friend that you trust help you setup your wifi. In my opinion I would not trust the technicians/service people from ISPs, I've had experiences with neighbors where they left their networks completely insecure.
Do this, and you shouldn't have to be "afraid" anymore. | |
|
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace | Re: Spin.... WEP is completely ineffective as it can be decrypted in about five minutes flat with a decent signal. WPA should be used AT A MINIMUM. | |
|
Derfel
join:2004-06-06
Winnipeg, MB
·MTS
| Wifi... From the top floor of my building, I get 12 Wifi signals, and then my own. I'm the only one secure or password (WPA) protected.
I have a script running on my box that monitors traffic on my router. If anyone tries getting on my router that isn't authorized, I scan the horizon for people with laptops and such. Only once have I had to grab my hockey stick and go for a little stroll to a mini-van parked on the street... ended up being 2 guys trying to be heroes hacking the only passworded AP in the area. | |
|
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
edit:
May 13th, @01:57PM
| Re: Wifi... quote:
Only once have I had to grab my hockey stick and go for a little stroll to a mini-van parked on the street
So wardriving isn't okay but assault is? Nice logic. And before saying "it wasn't assault," please lookup the actual legal definition of assault. It may not have been BATTERY if you didn't actually use the hockey stick on them, but it certainly could be viewed as the THREAT of using force which is assault. | |
|
gafink
join:2006-02-11
Dover, DE | MAC Address only You could also use your mac address on your network and everything else is blocked | |
|
| rwisenrich2
join:2005-04-14
Conyers, GA
| Re: MAC Address only think some
I'm a war-driver and watch out i'm coming in my minivan down a street near you to steal your wifi and you know sit outside in front of your house for hours, so i can get crap speeds and use bittorrent and DC++ to steal stuff with your line. I will also be installing all kinds of sypware so i can steal your info. Your not safe anymore turn off your routers and cpus. Hide in your basements and cellers. It's WAR and your wifi is the battle ground. :mad
IT'S JUST A F------ GAME PEOPLE COME ON USE YOUR MIND AND THINK SOME!!!! | |
|
|
koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK | Ineffective. MAC addresses can be pulled right out of the air and spoofed faster than WEP can be decrypted (which is pretty damn fast today).
--
ERROR: CRC failed. Your signature has been lost to Cyberspace. | |
|
rwisenrich2
join:2005-04-14
Conyers, GA
| think some I'm a war-driver and watch out i'm coming in my minivan down a street near you to steal your wifi and you know sit outside in front of your house for hours, so i can get crap speeds and use bittorrent and DC++ to steal stuff with your line. I will also be installing all kinds of sypware so i can steal your info. Your not safe anymore turn off your routers and cpus. Hide in your basements and cellers. It's WAR and your wifi is the battle ground. :mad
IT'S JUST A F------ GAME PEOPLE COME ON USE YOUR MIND AND THINK SOME!!!! | |
|
| 
JoeyDee
Premium
join:2004-07-23
Las Vegas, NV | Re: think some Actually, it's really some sorry ass outside salesman like me trying to send an email to the home office to enter an order.
If someone reading this owns one of the NAP's I used, thanks!
Joe | |
|
DaMaGeINC
The Lan Man
Premium
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC
clubs: | Raido. I guess listening to the Raido is considered stealing aswell. Since I dont pay for it, and I use it. Humm. Leave it open, Learn the hard way. Simple as that. | |
|
Belial5221
join:2000-08-10
Lafayette, LA
| An idea... How about wifi device makers secure the products.They could use random generators for passwords,and have the cards with all the setup info in the box.That way everyone gets a different code,and nobody is left unsecured.Then if someone really wanted to share,they'd have to actually read and learn how to use it properly.
Although,you'd probably have many people complaining it don't work right out of the box.So they'd have to go back to selling unsecured devices.Then we'd see the issue come up all over again. | |
|
t
@216.100.x.x
| it wasn't me, it was the neighbors! There's an doctor office next to a Starbucks near me that had that problem. people would sit in the Starbucks and use the open ap next door instead of Starbucks' pay ap. after the doctor's office got busted by the feds for just that reason, all they did was force them to replace the equipment and secure the network. they hired a company that does nothing but install secure wireless ap's to do that, but that company is crap. all they did was install a different consumer level wireless router and left it open and with all defaults. | |
|
|
|
|
That Evil War-Driving Menace
