21–30 of 33 posts
So, what exactly is the point of this article? "If you're on an insecure network, people can steal your data." ?? Not such a big surprise...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that so? A landline phone is also trivial to tap into. Should you not expect some degree of privacy on the phone?
Phones, like mail, are a special case in a whole bunch of ways, legally, is my (Not A Lawyer) understanding. Using them as a basis for comparison is probably not going to reveal a lot.
should be renamed 'A Script Kiddie's Story'
I wrote the article and would just like to make a few points.
I am NOT a hacker. I don't claim to be. I'm just a geek that's curious about network security. They called it "A hacker story" because this is what hacking is to the general populace.
I understand that REAL hacking is completely different.
The point of the article is this:
It's REALLY easy for even a non-hacker to get all this information. I'm not saying to stop using open netqworks, just be careful what you do on them. That's all.
Thanks everyone for reading it.
So, what exactly is the point of this article? "If you're on an insecure network, people can steal your data." ?? Not such a big surprise...
Remember the huge fuss that came about when people found out Google was getting the same data with their streetview cars... Tis why I started the article with that.
Someone is eventually going to go to prison after stupidly uploading evidence of themselves wiretapping a wireless network they don't own. There's also an interesting double standard here: would it be quite so acceptable to casually listen in on people's GSM calls or wireless house phone calls?
Also, the FCC isn't charging Google for what they did. So I assume I'm fine.
Someone is eventually going to go to prison after stupidly uploading evidence of themselves wiretapping a wireless network they don't own. There's also an interesting double standard here: would it be quite so acceptable to casually listen in on people's GSM calls or wireless house phone calls?
Might be this guy, trespassing in the building is a lot different than accessing an open network from a public place.
Door to Door salesmen "trespass' every single day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firesheep is just an automated GUI for what we've been doing all along. Ettercap, wireshark, etc are far more flexible and can be used to execute a wider variety of attacks. Firesheep, for example, won't ARP poison on a wired network.
Wireshark won't ARP poison either, afaik.
I mean, I even explicitly mentioned Ettercap, which does ARP spoof. Is there a way I could have made that clearer?
So, what exactly is the point of this article? "If you're on an insecure network, people can steal your data." ?? Not such a big surprise...
Trespassing into an apartment building seemed a bit gratuitous and creepy, though, and might distract from the lesson (by making people think they can really improve their security by being on the lookout for nerds tailgating them in the door). I think the point could have been made just as well by sitting in a coffee shop, or checking into a hotel with free Internet access for an evening.
Someone is eventually going to go to prison after stupidly uploading evidence of themselves wiretapping a wireless network they don't own. There's also an interesting double standard here: would it be quite so acceptable to casually listen in on people's GSM calls or wireless house phone calls?
Does there exist legal precedent for this? It would seem hard to argue for expectation of privacy on an unsecured wireless network on a protocol without TLS.
The FCC rules for WiFi devices basically state that they must not cause any harmful interference and must accept any interference that occurs including that which may cause undesired operation. Read the manual that comes with any WiFi device and the text of that will be in there (the FCC rules require it to be).