Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

Can you comment on this
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/07/ [...] index.html

I think it relies on the owner to make the connection exclusive to
themselves if they do not want to share access. If they leave it accessible,
it is free to others to use like - finders, 'users'.

Attacking the host is a different issue.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

It is too bad there is not some kind of disclaimer for anyone that sets up a
wireless router explaining how to protect their access.

Otherwise, if you left the door to your house unlocked one night, should
that be taken as an indication you feel it is alright for someone to come in
and steal your property?

Clark

"Kentish" <Kentish@bluffers.com> wrote in message
newsU8Ae.9109$js.8828@fe10.lga...
> Can you comment on this
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/07/ [...] index.html
>
> I think it relies on the owner to make the connection exclusive to
> themselves if they do not want to share access. If they leave it
> accessible, it is free to others to use like - finders, 'users'.
>
> Attacking the host is a different issue.
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

Hi

I think that the discussions about these issues are really "Coy".

I doubt that there are people who realyl think that it is Legal and OK to
intrude on other people connection.

However since it is Not easy to catch the Intruder, and the majority of
people do not even know that they are intruded upon, many people do it and
then use "silly nonsense" excuses justifying their antisocial behavior.

Jack (MVP-Networking).



"Clark" <who@whoknows.com> wrote in message
news:axaAe.24$Bo3.8@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> It is too bad there is not some kind of disclaimer for anyone that sets up
a
> wireless router explaining how to protect their access.
>
> Otherwise, if you left the door to your house unlocked one night, should
> that be taken as an indication you feel it is alright for someone to come
in
> and steal your property?
>
> Clark
>
> "Kentish" <Kentish@bluffers.com> wrote in message
> newsU8Ae.9109$js.8828@fe10.lga...
> > Can you comment on this
> > http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/07/ [...] index.html
> >
> > I think it relies on the owner to make the connection exclusive to
> > themselves if they do not want to share access. If they leave it
> > accessible, it is free to others to use like - finders, 'users'.
> >
> > Attacking the host is a different issue.
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

One thing that I am not sure of (and I'm sure others have
the same question) -- if it is not obvious, how do I tell the
difference between a "free public" access point and one
that has just been left open without any protection. Not
as a silly excuse, often it is clear, but if I am in a city and
many of them have free public access points, how do you
know which they are and which is a private ?? Obviously,
if they have it marked in some way in the SSID or something,
that is clear (either PRIVATE_SSID or FREE_SSID etc).
Often you can find out by searching the internet for information
on free sites for a given city, however, it may take many
searches since each one seems to turn up different info.
I have changed the SSID on mine, and have encryption turned
on, so it should be obvious it is not a "free" one, but others
are often not so obvious (if I see one that says "linksys" I
suspect it is not free, but just a private one no one has learned
to set up).

mikey

"Jack" <jack@msnews.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eN1qIoXhFHA.2072@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi
>
> I think that the discussions about these issues are really "Coy".
>
> I doubt that there are people who realyl think that it is Legal and OK to
> intrude on other people connection.
>
> However since it is Not easy to catch the Intruder, and the majority of
> people do not even know that they are intruded upon, many people do it and
> then use "silly nonsense" excuses justifying their antisocial behavior.
>
> Jack (MVP-Networking).
>
>
>
> "Clark" <who@whoknows.com> wrote in message
> news:axaAe.24$Bo3.8@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> > It is too bad there is not some kind of disclaimer for anyone that sets
up
> a
> > wireless router explaining how to protect their access.
> >
> > Otherwise, if you left the door to your house unlocked one night, should
> > that be taken as an indication you feel it is alright for someone to
come
> in
> > and steal your property?
> >
> > Clark
> >
> > "Kentish" <Kentish@bluffers.com> wrote in message
> > newsU8Ae.9109$js.8828@fe10.lga...
> > > Can you comment on this
> > > http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/07/ [...] index.html
> > >
> > > I think it relies on the owner to make the connection exclusive to
> > > themselves if they do not want to share access. If they leave it
> > > accessible, it is free to others to use like - finders, 'users'.
> > >
> > > Attacking the host is a different issue.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

Deliberate flagrant violators should be prosecuted at least for something,
however the law doesn't take into account how utterly oblivous the general
computer using population is to way wireless internet works. to prove it go
to an appartment complex and look at how many unsecured wireless networks
there are. People care about security the just dont know how to do anything
about it. You can be connected to a wireless network with zero to minimal
user intervention. It just seems arbitrary, like the file sharing cases.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

One way to stop WIFI theft is to use our free blocking software. See
http://www.myWIFIzone.com

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

Mr. Jones, my ISP has a monopoly in my town which during the school year is
occupied by 30000+ college students apartments are dense. The cable internet
provider in my area charges for extra bandwidth over a set limit, so if
there are lazy worthless trash just piggy backing on a connection the owner
of the connection is forced to pay the additional charges [loss or
inconvenience]. Did you even read the article that this thread was started
about? I'm sure that when you get a job and pay for your own internet that
you wouldn't want someone to steal it just because they were capable of
doing so. Spoken like someone who thinks that the world owes them something.
Reply to the thread, don't send me an email so all users may benefit. Stop
wasting MY bandwidth.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/07/ [...] index.html






----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

From: Ian Jones [mailto:ianrj@zoom.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 17:42
To: Friendly
Subject: Re: Illegal WAP Connection




----- Original Message -----
From: "Friendly"
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: Illegal WAP Connection


> Deliberate flagrant violators should be prosecuted at least for something,

Pathetic - something, but you do not know what.

Is it illegal to receive a radio signal? Just to piggy back on someone's
bandwidth doesn't seem much of a crime to me. Especially if they are stupid
enough to invite you in with an unsecured connection.

Surely, for a prosecution to be successful, someone has to have endured some
sort of loss or inconvenience?



has notified the sender that this message has been received.




"Friendly" <derekthestud@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uJNW7cjhFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Deliberate flagrant violators should be prosecuted at least for something,
> however the law doesn't take into account how utterly oblivous the general
> computer using population is to way wireless internet works. to prove it
go
> to an appartment complex and look at how many unsecured wireless networks
> there are. People care about security the just dont know how to do
anything
> about it. You can be connected to a wireless network with zero to minimal
> user intervention. It just seems arbitrary, like the file sharing cases.
>
>


begin 666 vDh.gif
M1TE&.#EA9 `0`.9_`%5554Q,3(6%A;&QL=+2TN&XN/;V]F!@8/'Q\?KZ^EU=
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M:K!%18.#@\J!@1 0$'EY>< )P< )B8F+M@8-34U,S,S(^/C_KS\UM;6]FEI>S3
MT\N$A'=W=]>AH<9Z>JLY.>WM[?W]_?S\_._O[^[N[NSL[,R&AG]_?^W4U.O0
MT-NJJN'AX;]HSY^=S<W/?M[T-,^%A?+AX=VPL ```/___R'Y! $``'\`
M+ ````!D`! ```?_@'^"@X0DA(>(B8J+C(V.CXY1)V5G*9:7F&=SD(IL:HP2
M!HAL;FJFIF\2A*&-;'4E'VN%(W-S(X8H:2N[O+V[>C,HA#T5B6T[AU,*R\B$
M"0YB/F('$&^#)1<4%!?9%#&$<4B+"1HX-WXW..)_9'V&0BY"?T&0=#-R@P,U
MB0--A!T`\"2PT*"8H!8-JG1HP<'"E29'!,%H`@2'GRQ I$ 8Q( "C@2).#3Q
M<T$'%3%9_/A00R//'PPN./TILDF&,$%@LI1 I&,!@D%5(@QR`T/0A@`:$"V1
M(G30#Y6()OCQTXR0@1I^C/P49$*!GRDJ!!4X@>%1D#$G\%DI,\A#$B.'_TH<
MT&%AD(^BB"!\2V2AZA\"?@`<6@/DQ@U_AR!D1;3A"!LX@XJ@H6%H$10[*&+^
ML0+Y#P,%/0!L%21@`I,<@\S />2FB0E(@ 43XN%'0 P_=0<AV+9A$8U#=&ST
M2>1"!1$HA#@+(G#@CYD0@R2(WI%D4!L=.I00VN^Q#/FY\^'&C^Z .?J@P
MVB*+D(@9+/ -RB"#!2(K3P0]4-^AN: !'OQEWB /)-2#(%RL-D@"'+S08!OM
M_148(7C<(%L#-^PD2 A^3' (#UPX(*(=\A!21A<TK( &!@6 P$(9-F1P"'Z"
M& $=&P!HJ ,/?TC'P2$)(%$#,DP(<,@'/C2@)/\.! SRW2!:^-&!(!;XL=<?
M#W1XR %33=7%'8.$L45G(IS @@THR"-"%RDDE]\?!VCWAP8;E0``&X(H,"4B
M)=2 0 7^#;*&`:$<Q>-R$PJB!@4WQ)!$$C'<D,5K?RCA1W7#1&!!`'[8H)D(
M3M!Q2(F#W$&#"NW1B( 86WT`P!H0K/-'' XHX@,/##11AR((!-""DXG^@01)
MW'"S0&U&X4"!&XE(<0$+,9&Q!7*/I(!%%)OM\<<2@?Y1Q0X*_*C?-Q9\<0@`
M7@CK0X2$F&$DL+(EH*P)!M1K0 L+4-"&?H&)0@@3M<D011@J\"%3`6/\D49^
M(5Q!2 07Q$$(`8)94(.F-8+DH$-[21P@KB!N).$#2/ *4D%ZB&C@!Q>#4.$'
M$%/ \((%5;S,``LGR'0(%#.4E<0#A+ AQ9Z"]/J:`S4P$8('`'S\!QA-Q#&!
M`TDT045OA%@!\)8(47(6]D0<%H3*0DZ50`_!I%%U: 0,3;<,<M]]MNR_ F
M`:,)\@/6@PRQ[U]@V.@O(1],8(0`(7R0" (/U+7!`$TA8D$(?W/E0!4Z"$!T
#( `[
`
end

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

"myWIFIzone" <support@myWIFIzone.com> wrote in message
news:1121116258.961696.246110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> One way to stop WIFI theft is to use our free blocking software. See
> http://www.myWIFIzone.com
>

Just tried this to see what improvement there might be over simply using
WEP and allowing only predefined MAC addresses.
At first blush one would think that the addition of matching IP's to MAC
addresses would be beneficial but unless I'm reading the FAQ and looking at
the whitelist entry fields incorrectly, it appears to be best suited to
static IP's while requiring DHCP instead?

Since DHCP IP's will be randomly shuffled or bumped as a result of a user
cycling power on their machine (or such as happens during power
interruptions caused by storms etc) the dynamic IP's will be in a constant
state of flux in regard to the static MAC addresses. So you have to keep
watching and re-authorizing the nodes as this occurs. Or are the authorized
IP's and MAC's treated seperately even though the program makes one enter
them into the whitelist in matching pairs?

Anyone else look at this? What am I missing?

Joe

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

Actually, your IP doesn't change all that much in a DHCP environment.
Your PC will usually request the same IP it had previously when it
power cycles. myWIFIzone users typically just click the "add to
whitelist" link when they get an alert from a trusted machine rather
than manually add the IP/MAC pair. Intruders can (and do) try many IP's
to gain access after that.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

I havent downloaded this, but surely its just safer using your wireless
router MAC address blocking than a software download?

Why dont people hide their SSID if their bothered about people using their
bandwidth while their passing. It's like leaving a guitar out on your path.
it's going to get played.

Is it illegal to watching TV through someones window without consent? their
paying the TV license. I think people should close their curtains if their
bothered.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

"myWIFIzone" <support@myWIFIzone.com> wrote in message
news:1121369353.068546.5260@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Actually, your IP doesn't change all that much in a DHCP environment.
> Your PC will usually request the same IP it had previously when it
> power cycles. myWIFIzone users typically just click the "add to
> whitelist" link when they get an alert from a trusted machine rather
> than manually add the IP/MAC pair. Intruders can (and do) try many IP's
> to gain access after that.
>

I don't know about "your" situation but in ours the IP's change often enough
due to the typical out of sequence power cycling of normal usage patterns to
validate the concern I raised. Another concern relates to multiuser
machines. MyWIFIzone doesn't function unless a user is actively logged into
the computer. I guess that's ok if you dedicate a server to the task or let
every user run it and handle their own whitelists. But in the last case
you'd be allowing a bunch of independent whitelists or in the case it is
somehow shared, a bunch of different people who can add or remove allowed
addresses to/from the list, which would be inherently insecure. Also, in the
case of multiple users running myWIFIzone on the same network, exactly how
is each user to know who is or is not a "trusted user" when they got an
alert so they could then click "add to whitelist" or simply leave them
blocked?

Mind you, I'm not saying its a bad idea just pointing out room for
improvement since you volunteered it to the group as a solution.

joe

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

As far as Verizon dsl and cablevision broadband service, cable has a flat
monthly rate so you dont have to worry even you download 24/7. Verizon dsl
monthly charges vary on the speed you subscribed with.

So basically, I pay for a flat monthly rate and surfs only like 2-3 hours
per day. I shared my wlan so passers by can access. I do not leave my pc
open, for practicality and safety reason. Unless there is a router resident
virus that I am not aware of.


"Friendly" <derekthestud@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eyBBmb6hFHA.708@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Mr. Jones, my ISP has a monopoly in my town which during the school year
> is
> occupied by 30000+ college students apartments are dense. The cable
> internet
> provider in my area charges for extra bandwidth over a set limit, so if
> there are lazy worthless trash just piggy backing on a connection the
> owner
> of the connection is forced to pay the additional charges [loss or
> inconvenience]. Did you even read the article that this thread was started
> about? I'm sure that when you get a job and pay for your own internet that
> you wouldn't want someone to steal it just because they were capable of
> doing so. Spoken like someone who thinks that the world owes them
> something.
> Reply to the thread, don't send me an email so all users may benefit. Stop
> wasting MY bandwidth.
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/07/ [...] index.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> From: Ian Jones [mailto:ianrj@zoom.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 17:42
> To: Friendly
> Subject: Re: Illegal WAP Connection
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Friendly"
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 5:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Illegal WAP Connection
>
>
>> Deliberate flagrant violators should be prosecuted at least for
>> something,
>
> Pathetic - something, but you do not know what.
>
> Is it illegal to receive a radio signal? Just to piggy back on someone's
> bandwidth doesn't seem much of a crime to me. Especially if they are
> stupid
> enough to invite you in with an unsecured connection.
>
> Surely, for a prosecution to be successful, someone has to have endured
> some
> sort of loss or inconvenience?
>
>
>
> has notified the sender that this message has been received.
>
>
>
>
> "Friendly" <derekthestud@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uJNW7cjhFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Deliberate flagrant violators should be prosecuted at least for
>> something,
>> however the law doesn't take into account how utterly oblivous the
>> general
>> computer using population is to way wireless internet works. to prove it
> go
>> to an appartment complex and look at how many unsecured wireless networks
>> there are. People care about security the just dont know how to do
> anything
>> about it. You can be connected to a wireless network with zero to minimal
>> user intervention. It just seems arbitrary, like the file sharing cases.
>>
>>
>
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

Graham Birtchnell wrote:
> I havent downloaded this, but surely its just safer using your wireless
> router MAC address blocking than a software download?
>
> Why dont people hide their SSID if their bothered about people using their
> bandwidth while their passing. It's like leaving a guitar out on your path.
> it's going to get played.
>
> Is it illegal to watching TV through someones window without consent? their
> paying the TV license. I think people should close their curtains if their
> bothered.

Good points - but the reality is most people leave their WIFI networks
wide open just like it came out of the box. myWIFIzone is just another
security tool but it gives you better visibility in real-time intrusion
detection than wading through router logs after the fact. Ideally, you
would have a hidden SSID, WPA and MAC filtering all configured, but my
grandmother still leaves her front door unlocked.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

Thanks for the input. You can set up myWIFIzone for MAC only
authentication if you really see your IP's change a lot. We suggest
trying MAC/IP pairs to start with. As far as multiple instances of
myWIFIzone running at the same time, it does present some interesting
scenarios as the software does not have to run on the gateway. We
recommend only one PC on the network runs myWIFIzone. Presumably the
network's owner knows the MACs of his trusted machines.