dslreports logo
 story category
ISP Threatens To Terminate Users With Open Hotspots
Flashing back to the early, highly draconian days of Wi-Fi...

Some of you may not recall the earlier days of broadband, when Wi-Fi was just becoming popular. Many ISPs treated people who left their Wi-Fi access points open like traitors of the highest order, accusing them of bandwidth theft and threatening account termination. Back in 2002, companies like Time Warner Cable used to send legal nastygrams to anybody with an open Wi-Fi router. Excite@Home actually used to spend money on plane rentals, in order to conduct neighborhood fly-overs to scan for open access points.

But those days are long gone, which is why it's surprising to see one UK ISP turning back the clock, their TOS threatening to terminate the accounts of users with open access points:
quote:
"We shall be entitled to terminate the Service immediately if We discover that you have permitted (whether knowingly or not) a third party (or third parties) to access the Service using a wireless connection over Your Communications Line."
It's not clear if the ISP believes they're protecting the world from Wi-Fi bogeymen, or if they were facing some kind of outside pressure from the entertainment industry. Either way, how very 2002 of them.
view:
topics flat nest 

nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium Member
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA

1 recommendation

nixen

Premium Member

Why Not?

Between the return of metered usage in the US and global intellectual property pressures, why not turn back the clock? And, if you've got no real competition in your market, why not do as many anti-consumer things as your market position allows you to get away with.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Why Not?

said by nixen:

Between the return of metered usage in the US and global intellectual property pressures, why not turn back the clock? And, if you've got no real competition in your market, why not do as many anti-consumer things as your market position allows you to get away with.
You did notice that this was in the UK and not the US, right?
SilverSurfer1
join:2007-08-19

1 edit

SilverSurfer1

Member

Re: Why Not?

said by FFH5:

You did notice that this was in the UK and not the US, right?
Get real. Like it's such an unimaginable stretch for the same ban to happen here as well.

nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium Member
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA

nixen to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:
said by nixen:

Between the return of metered usage in the US and global intellectual property pressures, why not turn back the clock? And, if you've got no real competition in your market, why not do as many anti-consumer things as your market position allows you to get away with.
You did notice that this was in the UK and not the US, right?
Yes, I did. I was speaking to industry trends.

DrModem
Trust Your Doctor
Premium Member
join:2006-10-19
USA

DrModem

Premium Member

Ug

Like bypassing router security is a hassle anyway.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Ug

said by DrModem:

Like bypassing router security is a hassle anyway.
It is if you do it right.

SSX4life
Hello World
Premium Member
join:2004-02-13

SSX4life

Premium Member

Junk legislation

I don't know what the laws are in the UK, but this seems like a stretch of authority. It's like the water utility company telling me I need to have a water hose key on my house to prevent "stealing of water from water pirates". Please... this is junk legislation.

In the same manner it's my wireless, I can do well what I please with it as long as I pay a monthly fee. You don't see the local cable channels telling me I have to have a parental lock on channels 60-72 or not watch tv between 6pm and 7am.

Pardon my US law mentality if I'm out of bounds on this one.
sharksfan3
Premium Member
join:2004-02-16
North Hollywood, CA

sharksfan3

Premium Member

Re: Junk legislation

said by SSX4life:

You don't see the local cable channels telling me I have to have a parental lock on channels 60-72 or not watch tv between 6pm and 7am.
Or be told that your blinds must be closed while watching TV to prevent someone from viewing your tube/lcd/plasma through a window from the sidewalk.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to SSX4life

Premium Member

to SSX4life
said by SSX4life:

this is junk legislation.
It isn't legislation, it's an ISP's ToS.
said by SSX4life:

You don't see the local cable channels telling me I have to have a parental lock on channels 60-72 or not watch tv between 6pm and 7am.
No, but you will see your local cable company smacking you in a legal manner for redistributing your pay TV service in an unauthorized manner to your neighbors. Not much difference between unauthorized distribution of pay TV service and willingly sharing your internet access in an unauthorized manner IMO.

SSX4life
Hello World
Premium Member
join:2004-02-13

SSX4life

Premium Member

Re: Junk legislation

said by openbox9:

[Not much difference between unauthorized distribution of pay TV service and willingly sharing your internet access in an unauthorized manner IMO.
The problem with this is that an ISP is just that a Service Provider. Similar in fashion to what you would see from oh say... your electric company or water company or gas company.

You pay to connect to a pipe, that is it. They have no legal say on what you do with your service on your property if it is used with in the legal laws of the state (aka not reselling it / etc). It doesn't mean you can't have type A. of a water heater over type B. of a furnace. Nor can you expect a company to enforce let alone locate users who have an open network.

Guess what... my wireless network is "open" but I have mac address filtering. Wanna come wag the legal no no stick at me too? Please...

Junk TOS / Junk Laws / Junk junk junk.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Junk legislation

said by SSX4life:

The problem with this is that an ISP is just that a Service Provider.
And your cable TV provider is just a service provider, but it is illegal to steal cable service and use it in an unauthorized manner.
said by SSX4life:

Guess what... my wireless network is "open" but I have mac address filtering.
It's not open then IMO.
TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA

TheWiseGuy to SSX4life

MVM

to SSX4life
said by SSX4life:

Pardon my US law mentality if I'm out of bounds on this one.
You might want to brush up on your US laws.

»www4.law.cornell.edu/usc ··· 00-.html

SSX4life
Hello World
Premium Member
join:2004-02-13

SSX4life

Premium Member

Re: Junk legislation

said by TheWiseGuy:
said by SSX4life:

Pardon my US law mentality if I'm out of bounds on this one.
You might want to brush up on your US laws.

»www4.law.cornell.edu/usc ··· 00-.html
What part of an ISP applies here? Cable != internet
TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA

TheWiseGuy

MVM

Re: Junk legislation

Well if you are receiving Internet via a cable company as your ISP, Internet is a communication service, therefore the law would apply.

Whether there is a law that covers communication services via the telephone line, I don't know since I have not checked. Still I think there is more then a little chance that there are laws that apply.

It is called theft of service.

SSX4life
Hello World
Premium Member
join:2004-02-13

3 edits

SSX4life

Premium Member

Re: Junk legislation

said by TheWiseGuy:

Well if you are receiving Internet via a cable company as your ISP, Internet is a communication service, therefore the law would apply.
"Unauthorized reception of cable service". The first thing that comes to mind is cable TV, not phone / internet service. The tone of the law is focused solely on "cable" as it mentioned in my opinion. But then again that is what the defense is for.
said by openbox9:

And your cable TV provider is just a service provider, but it is illegal to steal cable service and use it in an unauthorized manner.
But the law clearly states a 3rd party accessing it with willful intent for "cable" service. No where in the law does it state that any other utility such as phone / water / electric / gas / etc. need to be regulated in a manner such as you mentioned previously.

As I said before, it's like the electric company not liking that your CFL over incandescent light bulbs. They have no right to make you use one or the other if you pay for the service. It's a SERVICE, nothing more and nothing less.
said by openbox9:

It's not open then IMO.
Open implies no encryption according to the article. Techincally "connecting" to a wireless signal at all to determine the state of the signal is a breach in the law by the ISP.... sry to play the devils advocate.
TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA

1 recommendation

TheWiseGuy

MVM

Re: Junk legislation

(a) Unauthorized interception or receipt or assistance in intercepting or receiving service; “assist in intercepting or receiving” defined
(1) No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law.
The law states "ANY COMMUNICATION SERVICE OFFERED OVER A CABLE SYSTEM."

I'm done arguing it is not worth it, you certainly need to increase your understanding of US law if you are going to say things like.
quote:
Pardon my US law mentality
SilverSurfer1
join:2007-08-19

SilverSurfer1

Member

Re: Junk legislation

said by TheWiseGuy:

(a) Unauthorized interception or receipt or assistance in intercepting or receiving service; “assist in intercepting or receiving” defined
(1) No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law.
The law states "ANY COMMUNICATION SERVICE OFFERED OVER A CABLE SYSTEM."

I'm done arguing it is not worth it, you certainly need to increase your understanding of US law if you are going to say things like.
quote:
Pardon my US law mentality
LMAO. Hey Judge Wapner...don't look now, but you're debating the applicability of a law that you have absolutely no understanding of for a hypothetical scenario that has absolutely no relevance in the U.S. as of yet. But don't let that stop you, buddy. When a seat becomes available on the federal district court in your locale, you should tell them you're available for a position on the bench since you're such an expert at interpreting Title 47, §553.
TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA

TheWiseGuy

MVM

Re: Junk legislation

Interesting flame, but all it seems to be, is an attack on me.

Explain the law since you seem to think I don't understand the law, explain why it does not cover a Cable ISPs Internet service.

Otherwise you are just a clown flaming. If you come up with an interesting argument I might even debate it with you. I suspect you will likely post nonsense which I will then ignore or you will simply flame me again.

The law is actually pretty simple and it is designed to prevent theft of service, so please explain to me what I do not understand. Thanks!
SilverSurfer1
join:2007-08-19

SilverSurfer1

Member

Re: Junk legislation

said by TheWiseGuy:

Explain the law since you seem to think I don't understand the law, explain why it does not cover a Cable ISPs Internet service.
First and foremost, it's off topic. This entire thread is about ISPs in the U.K. terminating user accounts for wifi in the U.K.
said by TheWiseGuy:

Otherwise you are just a clown flaming.
Well, that is certainly an interesting flame you've got there, but I don't debate with people whose first line in a debate consists of an ad hominem attack. Nice try, tho. Maybe next time if you can play nice with the other kids in the sandbox.
TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA

TheWiseGuy

MVM

Re: Junk legislation

said by SilverSurfer1:
said by TheWiseGuy:

Explain the law since you seem to think I don't understand the law, explain why it does not cover a Cable ISPs Internet service.
First and foremost, it's off topic. This entire thread is about ISPs in the U.K. terminating user accounts for wifi in the U.K.
True that the topic is about UK but since a poster claimed that he was basing his opinion on US law it becomes relevant.
said by SilverSurfer1:
said by TheWiseGuy:

Otherwise you are just a clown flaming.
Well, that is certainly an interesting flame you've got there, but I don't debate with people whose first line in a debate consists of an ad hominem attack. Nice try, tho. Maybe next time if you can play nice with the other kids in the sandbox.
Sigh, right I started it, your initial post did not deal at all with any facts except that my post was off topic. You used every trick in your initial post in an attempt to belittle me and not discuss any facts about what I said.

I assure you I prefer to post as the TheWiseGuy and discuss the facts but I will take a clown like you to the mat by dropping the G and posting as TheWiseguy.

So again explain the LAW!
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to SSX4life

Premium Member

to SSX4life
said by SSX4life:

Techincally "connecting" to a wireless signal at all is a breach in the law by the ISP....
There's a difference between knowingly/willingly connecting and the technology defaulting to connections. By default 802.11 devices will connect to each other.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88 to SSX4life

Member

to SSX4life
Law, schmaw; A judge will always rule in the pro-capitalism/pro-business direction. Easy to claim RICO for 2 neighbors sharing 1 water or gas bill to lower taxes/surcharges, or a handful of neighbors sharing a water bill for a discounted bulk rate for a commercial user.

herdfan
Premium Member
join:2003-01-25
Hurricane, WV

herdfan to SSX4life

Premium Member

to SSX4life
said by SSX4life:

It's like the water utility company telling me I need to have a water hose key on my house to prevent "stealing of water from water pirates".
Not even close. You pay for water based on metered usage. If you want to let someone take water from you, then the water company bills you.

I know I don't want my neighbor who is too cheap to pay for service piggybacking off my connection. (actually it was his kid who wants broadband service, but daddy won't pay). Mine is locked up tight.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer

Member

Depends on how "Open Hotspot" is defined

WEP is really the only security protocol that every Wi-Fi user will at a minimum be able to implement and that broken protocol isn't much security at all.
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN

Pv8man

Member

Re: Depends on how "Open Hotspot" is defined

yes, exactly

you cant use the new WPA2, because that's easily crackable within 30 min.

And you can't use a MAC address filter, because your client MAC can be seen in the air and spoofed after you de-auth the original MAC.

So, ya... there is no such thing as a secured wireless network, at least...yet...but I don't think there will ever be one.
DabberDan
join:2004-11-15
Canada

DabberDan

Member

Re: Depends on how "Open Hotspot" is defined

said by Pv8man:

you cant use the new WPA2, because that's easily crackable within 30 min.
I thought I read that even with a GPU accelerated brute force, it would still considerably longer to crack a WPA key?

URL?
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to Pv8man

Premium Member

to Pv8man
said by Pv8man:

So, ya... there is no such thing as a secured wireless network, at least...yet...but I don't think there will ever be one.
I'm sure you meant for residential use, but here's a secure wireless network capability.

»www.rfcomm.harris.com/pr ··· et54.pdf

a101
@cox.net

1 recommendation

a101 to Pv8man

Anon

to Pv8man
said by Pv8man:

yes, exactly

you cant use the new WPA2, because that's easily crackable within 30 min.

WPA2 is crackable in 30 minutes only if the user has chosen a weak passphrase. For a strong passphrase, it is effectively unbreakable. At least within the lifetime of an attacker.

O.O.
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN

Pv8man

Member

Re: Depends on how "Open Hotspot" is defined

Depends on how good of a rig you have.

I have two of these bad boys hooked up via SLI
»www.newegg.com/Product/P ··· 14130410

each with 96 stream processors, 320 bit memory, 1500 Mhz GPU over clocked with good cooling.

Trust me, it makes all the difference, I was able to crack a 12 character paraphrase in just barely under 40 minutes.
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA

cornelius785

Member

Re: Depends on how "Open Hotspot" is defined

that post smells of BS. PROVE IT you did that for WPA/WPA2 and not WEP (you can enter a passphrase in some devices). so there are 94 (2*(26+10+11)) possible characters to try for each letter without getting to into doin ALT+???. since it probably wasn't known how long the passphrase was, that's ~4.8*10^23 possible combinations. as far as i know, the only attack against WPA is just brute force, unlike WEP in which the key sample space and dramatically reduced. i'm guess you had to go through ~1/2 of all 12 character passphrases and all passphrases less than 12 characters. that puts the keys per-second at ~1*10^20. even if you only did 12 character pass, that number does not change by much. sure a GPU can speed up the cracking by 10x-15x to 100x according to some links out there (looking at openciphers for a couple keys/sec number, it ranges from 25 to 70 for CPUS and 430 to 1000 for fpgas), that still only puts you at 10^5 keys/sec, no where near 10^20.

in conclusion, you are either confused or are lying.

AB_Lazy
@dslextreme.com

AB_Lazy to Pv8man

Anon

to Pv8man
I'd say I'm unknowledgeable about how craking wireless signals go...but...

How does having bitchin' graphic card(s) somehow assist with a processor-heavy task like cracking? I'd think that'd be more a testament of your CPU(s) than GPU(s).

Its a Secret
Please speak into the microphone
Premium Member
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast

Its a Secret to Pv8man

Premium Member

to Pv8man
said by Pv8man:

Trust me, it makes all the difference, I was able to crack a 12 character paraphrase in just barely under 40 minutes.
How about a 63 character set? ...You're screwed, pal.
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA

cornelius785 to a101

Member

to a101
don't forget WPA enterprise which, from what i understand, has pretty much no attack except trying to hack a system for the keys and certificate.
MTU
Premium Member
join:2005-02-15
San Luis Obispo, CA

MTU

Premium Member

Re: Depends on how "Open Hotspot" is defined

The claim as to nVidia GPU cracking of WPA2 was debunked by Steve Gibson (GRC).

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit

DataRiker to Pv8man

Premium Member

to Pv8man
said by Pv8man:

yes, exactly

you cant use the new WPA2, because that's easily crackable within 30 min.

And you can't use a MAC address filter, because your client MAC can be seen in the air and spoofed after you de-auth the original MAC.

So, ya... there is no such thing as a secured wireless network, at least...yet...but I don't think there will ever be one.
This post is absolutely false. Given an appropriate random key (15 - 63 char.) WPA and WPA are thus far uncrackable BY EXPLOIT, so one would need to use brute force. Most examples posted on the internet were of dictionary based attacks,thus the user supplied a word or combination of such, which is a "user" error that is self-defeating.

Supposing one had an accelerated graphics card, the mean time to brute force a password would probably be no less than a few hundred years.

Airwolf7
Premium Member
join:2004-12-12
Franklin, KY

1 edit

Airwolf7 to Pv8man

Premium Member

to Pv8man
said by Pv8man:

yes, exactly

you cant use the new WPA2, because that's easily crackable within 30 min.
.

p_kx6,+4A!v3!3h$R.\1s4[[|N</;C\[N}ao1&-6%\B#i#[Cn*&:s[x)Xd=|W"4
 

They can crack the above Passkey that I use with my Wireless Gateway configured for WPA2-Personal with AES encryption in about 30 minutes?

••••
NefCanuck
join:2007-06-26
Mississauga, ON

1 recommendation

NefCanuck

Member

Another view

I'm not sure if I don't agree with the ISP's position in general (now put down those flaming torches and let me explain please)

The problem with a completely open hotspot is the fact that it's not only a danger to the ISP with unauthorized access leading to possible 'bot net floods, but is a danger to the user, because once an attacker has access to the user's hotspot, how long do you think it would take for the attacker to gain access to the PC?

Not bloody long, considering that if a user is short sighted enough to leave their hotspot wide open, chances are their PC is either poorly secured, or worse yet, not at all.

I'd consider this the equivalent of a mandatory seatbelt law, you have the security built into your hardware, use it or risk losing it.

NefCanuck

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Another view

said by NefCanuck:

I'm not sure if I don't agree with the ISP's position in general (now put down those flaming torches and let me explain please)

The problem with a completely open hotspot is the fact that it's not only a danger to the ISP with unauthorized access leading to possible 'bot net floods, but is a danger to the user, because once an attacker has access to the user's hotspot, how long do you think it would take for the attacker to gain access to the PC?

Not bloody long, considering that if a user is short sighted enough to leave their hotspot wide open, chances are their PC is either poorly secured, or worse yet, not at all.

I'd consider this the equivalent of a mandatory seatbelt law, you have the security built into your hardware, use it or risk losing it.

NefCanuck
I agree that the open hotspot policy is a good one. Their TOS doesn't discuss it, but the ISP involved should also help their customer secure an open WiFi router BEFORE they terminate access. Only if the user REFUSES to secure their router should they proceed to termination.

Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium Member
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1

1 edit

Anonymous_

Premium Member

Re: Another view

said by FFH5:

said by NefCanuck:

I'm not sure if I don't agree with the ISP's position in general (now put down those flaming torches and let me explain please)

The problem with a completely open hotspot is the fact that it's not only a danger to the ISP with unauthorized access leading to possible 'bot net floods, but is a danger to the user, because once an attacker has access to the user's hotspot, how long do you think it would take for the attacker to gain access to the PC?

Not bloody long, considering that if a user is short sighted enough to leave their hotspot wide open, chances are their PC is either poorly secured, or worse yet, not at all.

I'd consider this the equivalent of a mandatory seatbelt law, you have the security built into your hardware, use it or risk losing it.

NefCanuck
I agree that the open hotspot policy is a good one. Their TOS doesn't discuss it, but the ISP involved should also help their customer secure an open WiFi router BEFORE they terminate access. Only if the user REFUSES to secure their router should they proceed to termination.
Time wanner cable alows OPen WIFI AP's

with FON
»www.wi-fiplanet.com/news ··· /3673536
33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

1 edit

33358088 (banned)

Member

ok children this is the way it is

A) ISP you PAY for the line bandwidth, just like electricity bill, if you actually want to run a line all the way to your barn in the back , YOU ARE ALLOWED. Just like if you really want to pay for the bill and hook up your neighbors.

B) the bandwidth you receive is not increasing you are allowed whatever you are allowed that's it.

C) in reference to both A) and B) as such it is not illegal to OPEN your wifi and i would add that in many countries that placing terms of service as such produce undue harm on the disabled and as such should be and could be struck down as harmful in the courts. I read every example above and i think this is why the ISP can't call the cops on you for doing this. Don't think they wouldn't if they could.

D) Pressure form hollywood's MONETIZE the net movement are really whats to blame and who can CONTROL something THAT HAS FREEDOM at the CORE. In effect i could get 7 lines bonded and in effect via teksavvy I AM ALLOWED TO RESELL ON TOP OF THAT, or i could give out freely a little as a public HOTSPOT service.

E) there are 3 such places in our fair city now n Peterborough. That's 3 times as many as before. HOWEVER, i can't afford a laptop to get the service anyhow.

F) the other issue here is whose responsible for line activity and as we're beginning to see if you have "anonymous free internet" then neither I nor YOU can be charged harassed or bothered about what transits this form a internet. It is as i said before a HUGE SECURITY issue for them or more like CONTROL. Every time they clamp down people go for more freedom. HAVE YOU GOT THE MESSAGE YET MR ISP MAN.
watice
join:2008-11-01
New York, NY

watice

Member

Re: ok children this is the way it is

Nobody said it was illegal to open your wifi, but if you have an agreement like say a service contract, I can see why they wouldn't want me to have open wifi in the middle of a popular city on a residential account.

SYNACK
Just Firewall It
Mod
join:2001-03-05
Venice, CA

1 edit

SYNACK

Mod

A can of worms

Having an open WIFI connections is a can of worms. According to your AUP, you are responsible for your connection.

For example if your connection is used to download massive amounts of child porn, you might get a knock at the door and your computers confiscated and it will take a long time for your "Somebody hacked my WIFI" defense to be proven.

If I would ever willfully open my WIFI, I would probably pipe it through some serious content filters and bandwidth limiters.

See also this story that happened in my area a few years back.
bgraham2
join:2001-03-15
Smithtown, NY

bgraham2

Member

People are Wierd

After working as a field rep I would have to say that if ISP's started terminating accounts with open wireless access then they are going to loose a lot of customers in the New York metro area. It was not unusual to find between 5 and 10 every time I parked my car. Sure I "borrowed" a few kilo bytes checking my email. Many of these were also businesses and not just households with a couple of computers.

Why people leave wireless open is beyond me. It only takes a couple of mouse clicks and typing a few letters to secure it.

These people do not realize the danger of someone either stealing or destroying their data.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: People are Wierd

said by bgraham2:

Why people leave wireless open is beyond me. It only takes a couple of mouse clicks and typing a few letters to secure it.

These people do not realize the danger of someone either stealing or destroying their data.
Charity?

tomj1225
Premium Member
join:2001-12-17
Allentown, PA

tomj1225

Premium Member

Security

99.99% of people who have their own internet account on a wireless router, unsecured are clueless about computers in general. Most of the people around here know alot about computers, and thus have their wireless points set to some form of security. So given the fact that most unsecured wireless spots are due to user ignorance, what they really should do is go after the router manufacturers such as Linksys, Belkin, Netgear, etc.

The fact that Linksys makes wireless routers set by DEFAULT to be unsecured, out of the box should not penalize the average user who assumes that if they are buying a router, it will be secure and not leave them at risk. It would just as easy for most routers to come out of the box by default set to some level of encryption and the user would have to put in a password. But instead, they are set by default to be unsecure.

Of course, it's much, much easier to go after the average joe than to put up a fuss or get in a legal battle with some of these companies who know what they are talking about and have legal counsel.

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium Member
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX

DarkLogix

Premium Member

Re: Security

Ya the manufacturers should set some base security

Linksys started to make it easy for those with the button security thing

but cisco is better default is radio OFF
and cisco being cisco if you config it you should know to secure it

as for me my Wi-Fi is WPA2 w/ a 256 bit long key and hidden SSID as well as 2 ssid's one leads nowhere and if you connect to it I'll block your MAC and set a DHCP reservation to use a fake DNS server and fake default-gateway as well as changing my Key to another completely random 256bits

neonhomer
Dearborn 5-2750
Premium Member
join:2004-01-27
Edgewater, FL

neonhomer

Premium Member

What if...

What if you AP is open, but you use something like MAC filtering to keep people out? They wouldn't know unless they tried to connect to the AP, would they.

totalaccess
Premium Member
join:2002-10-04
Austin, TX

totalaccess

Premium Member

due to mesh

this is due to mesh and the telcos are fighting it tooth and nail.