Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

bryceboe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#31

Post by bbzbryce »

gfodor wrote: post #25
hakaaaak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are providing the service, it isn't stealing. It is just using the service in a way that was not intended by the provider.

No, you see, using the service in a way not intended by the provider would be, for example, setting up your laptop as an ftp server from the airplane. This is different since it's pretty obvious you are circumventing measures put in place to force you to pay for access.

The real take-away from the article is that by allowing access to _any_ Google service, access to the entire Internet is indirectly granted. This knowledge has applications well beyond "stealing" Internet on air planes.

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#32

Post by tehwebguy »

vtail wrote: post #18
deelowe wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Where do you get this from? > 1. Fifteen different prices depending on what alleged type of device you're using, and gasp whether you have more than one. The device type is a good indicator of bandwidth usage. It's sensible to bill using this model for now. They could use metered bandwith, but something tells me you'd complain about that too. > 2. Internet access is only required for most tasks due to people's l…

Re: 6 - I should also say that to "give the TSA the boot", it is the US government who should stick up for its customers and end this security theater.

His post is all over the place, but what I believe he meant with that line was that the Airlines should lobby to privatize airport security.

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#33

Post by burnstek »

kleiba wrote: post #29
gfodor wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with it, exactly?

If you steal something from someone then you'll have the item in question in your possession afterwards while the original owner does not have it any more. Access to the internet is nothing you can steal. Of course that is no justification for using the provided service without paying for it, but it's fundamentally different from theft.

You obviously don't fly much. This is you stealing access from me when you're on a platform meant to have just a handful of paying users.

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#34

Post by aaronbrethorst »

samstave wrote: post #28
vtail wrote: post #7

I'm amazed by some of the comments like "Wow great article. I knew there must be a way to avoid paying." and by author's apparent believe that contacting the support several times via twitter and not getting a response morally justifies sharing his recipe with other people and wishing them "Happy “free” surfing, for now anyway". Stealing is stealing, no matter what "justification" one may have about high prices. edit…

I fly virgin a lot. The gogo internet used to be $8 bux. Then $15 - last week it was now $20... for three hours. You claim stealing is stealing, well to you, I say gouging is gouging and fuck them.

So buy a monthly pass or write a letter to Richard Branson.

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#36

Post by untog »

samstave wrote: post #28
vtail wrote: post #7

I'm amazed by some of the comments like "Wow great article. I knew there must be a way to avoid paying." and by author's apparent believe that contacting the support several times via twitter and not getting a response morally justifies sharing his recipe with other people and wishing them "Happy “free” surfing, for now anyway". Stealing is stealing, no matter what "justification" one may have about high prices. edit…

I fly virgin a lot. The gogo internet used to be $8 bux. Then $15 - last week it was now $20... for three hours. You claim stealing is stealing, well to you, I say gouging is gouging and fuck them.

You know what you do when you want the prices to go down? Don't buy it.

In-flight internet is a new product. They are establishing what an acceptable price point is.

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#37

Post by kleiba »

burnstek wrote: post #33
kleiba wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you steal something from someone then you'll have the item in question in your possession afterwards while the original owner does not have it any more. Access to the internet is nothing you can steal. Of course that is no justification for using the provided service without paying for it, but it's fundamentally different from theft.

You obviously don't fly much. This is you stealing access from me when you're on a platform meant to have just a handful of paying users.

(This will be my last post on this thread because I think I've now gotten into a mode where everyone's just downvoting whatever I say.)

I would just like to point out that I said more than once that I am not trying to justify the behavior described in the original article. Maybe I just didn't make myself clear enough, or people really just disagree. But all I've been trying to say that this illegal behavior does not run under the heading "theft".

The reasoning is similar to why illegal file sharing is not theft - it is copyright infringement.

It is also not relevant whether a paying customer will have less bandwidth to their disposal if someone accesses the internet service on a plane for free because the paying customer would also lose the same bandwidth if another /paying/ customer would use it. Thus the paying customer would not be able to sue the one who accesses the internet illegally.

The access provider could, but not for theft.

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#38

Post by vinhboy »

I really appreciate these types of articles. I learn a lot from them. I actually also discovered the google thing on Gogo the last time I was on their network. But I never made the connection that the author did. I found that insight to be very educational. Not to mention, now I have some reading to do about TCP over DNS, IMCP, etc...

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#39

Post by Xcelerate »

vtail wrote: post #7

I'm amazed by some of the comments like "Wow great article. I knew there must be a way to avoid paying." and by author's apparent believe that contacting the support several times via twitter and not getting a response morally justifies sharing his recipe with other people and wishing them "Happy “free” surfing, for now anyway". Stealing is stealing, no matter what "justification" one may have about high prices. edit…

I agree with you. I consider using GoGo's internet connection without paying for it to be stealing.

However, the article intrigues me because connecting to the outside internet is like a giant puzzle looking for a solution, which would provide plenty of in-flight entertainment. I don't consider that immoral (since you're not actually using the resulting connection), but I suppose if you get caught trying to hack through their system you'll get in some kind of legal trouble.

Re: Bypassing Gogo’s Inflight Internet Authentication

#40

Post by foohbarbaz »

DNS tunneling is only good in theory. Ah, good old days. There was time (2003?) when I had a T-Mobile phone with GPRS and an IR port. I connected it to my laptop and discovered DNS lookups worked. Downloaded DNS tunnel sources, compiled and tried. It was not usable, way way too slow. The latency of the DNS server was the main issue. Besides, the tool was very crash prone. More of a proof of concept than real thing. I spent a few hours reading code and fixing bugs just to get it to the point where it somewhat worked. The DNS traffic used by the tunnel is quite easy to identify and probably filter out (the names looked up follow a specific pattern).

So, there was no need for ISP to get worried. Given how slow access would be and the skill level required to get it to work, it is thousand times cheaper to ignore the "security hole".

The Google app engine proxy looks more "useful".

Post reply on HN