2 edits | reply to Rob
Re: I still don't see how this is illegal But there are laws pertaining to gun serial numbers. That isn't even what is happening in this case. Plus if the majority of his customers are outside the U.S. what is the FBI's case? One instance of helping one guy in the U.S. steal service? That of course only works if they can prove he coached him do it and didn't just provide a FAQ.
It's the cable companies fault for basing it's security on something that is not secure. It has happened where a whole batch of motherboards from one company has all had the same MAC address and MAC addresses are not some sacred thing that is illegal to play around with. Cable companies should be putting hardware filters on the line to prevent unauthorized devices on the network. |
|
|
|
| right
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? |
|
2 edits | If all you have to do is change a mac address to gain access to their network, then yes it is their fault. They are basically relying on the honesty of customers as a security method. Then when their security model fails, they waste the police's time to have them investigate and prosecute someone. They are wasting tax payer dollars because to them it's cheaper to have the police keep unauthorized people out than it is to secure their network.
Relying only on a MAC address is the same thing as having no security. They should implement some kind of legitimate security before bothering the police about authorized users. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by insomniac84:If all you have to do is change a mac address to gain access to their network, then yes it is their fault. They are basically relying on the honesty of customers as a security method. Then when their security model fails, they waste the police's time to have them investigate and prosecute someone. They are wasting tax payer dollars because to them it's cheaper to have the police keep unauthorized people out than it is to secure their network. Relying only on a MAC address is the same thing as having no security. They should implement some kind of legitimate security before bothering the police about authorized users. This is all irrelevant. It still doesn't change the fact that what he is doing is illegal. |
|
| It is not irrelevant. It very relevant. They are relying on the police to keep them safe in the absence of any real security. The police aren't their personal security task force whose purpose is to allow them to ignore basic security. This is the same thing as leaving your doors wide open at night and then calling the police every morning because something is missing. After the first time, the police would probably tell you to close your doors and if you ignore them, by the third time you call they would stop coming out. But since the police don't understand technology, they label cases like this "hacker" cases and pretend as if the person doing it is some kind of computer genius impossible to stop. The police are not an unlimited resource, if someone doesn't want to implement even the most minimum amount of security to weed out 99.99% of crime against them, the police should not even try to help them. |
|
