Reminds me of DNS tunneling. But this approach is probably faster.
Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi
211–220 of 239 posts
Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the phrase "exceeds authorized access" does not distinguish between the access increasing beyond the authorization and the authorization decreasing below the current access. Suppose I put in my Terms of Service the phrase "Access to this system is contingent on running the delivered webpage, including all first-party and third-party Javascript, without modification." Now, whether or not the HTTP r…
> Access to this system is contingent on running the delivered webpage, including all first-party and third-party Javascript, without modification. Refusing to fetch a particular resource would be non-access. You cannot punish non-access as unauthorised access, because no such crime of non-access exists.
I am very confused as to what you're trying to say with this.
Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing about morals is that we can disagree. Just because this scenario fits your definition of "stole" does not mean it fits mine. My perspective is that a fundamental aspect of the Internet and the digital world is that the software-codified rules are basically authoritative. While constructive behavior still does matter - eg knowingly turning off a hospital ventilator is still murder - the only gain here was te…
> My perspective is that a fundamental aspect of the Internet and the digital world is that the software-codified rules are basically authoritative. Do you think that hacking per se is ever immoral?
I suspect you're still associating hacking with other actions that can be facilitated by hacking. But the very next thing I wrote was "knowingly turning off a hospital ventilator is still murder", so it only makes sense to answer as if you strongly intend the "per se".
In isolation, why would finding a hole in someone else's ruleset be immoral? If hacking per se were immoral, then there could be no such thing as a "white hat".
Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do you live? Open WiFi is like a water fountain, or a bench, in a pubic place to me. There's no explicit sign telling you to use it but who'd put it there of it were not to be used? I'm in the UK. So, for example if I'm out and about and there's an open WiFi I'll connect to it without seeking permission .. in fact I think it would be weird to go and ask (if you could work out who to ask).
In the UK, what you're doing is illegal under the Computer Misuse Act. I don't think the police are out scouring the streets for people stealing wifi, so you probably won't be prosecuted for it. But still, it is technically illegal. Example: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-wireless/two-cauti... (It's also very, very, very terrible practice for your own security. Don't do it.)
Connecting to open WiFi for internet access is just as secure as connecting to WiFi with WPA enabled. There are so many insecure hops between you and your destination that the last mile access mode is irrelevant.
Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Access to this system is contingent on running the delivered webpage, including all first-party and third-party Javascript, without modification. Refusing to fetch a particular resource would be non-access. You cannot punish non-access as unauthorised access, because no such crime of non-access exists.
I am very confused as to what you're trying to say with this.
[deleted]
Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi
#216I'm seeing a lot of people say that airplane wifi is overpriced, and I'm kind of baffled. Yes, compared to terrestrial wifi it's expensive. But... you're in a fast moving object communicating with satellites (satellite launches are expensive!) and I don't really understand why people are so eager to call this bad pricing.
I don't fly enough to care, but the pricing model has become a death of one thousand cuts. I can see why that is bothersome, even if it can be described as fair exchange of value or whatever.
Well it turns out people prefer to pay 10$ and 5*12$ instead of 70$ for a flight, probably because it feels like you can save a bit.
At the end the airline needs to get its bottom line green and airplanes and satellite wifi are not cheap, not to speak of the highly paid people needed to run it all.
It's one thing to call that unethical, but at the end the market decides and it seems that all-inclusive deals simply do not resonate as well.
Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi
#217Hey guys, thanks for all the comments! I realized that it was not an ethical idea to post, so I decided to take it down. I did not get a cease and desist, but I would appreciate if you could refrain from reposting it.
If you are interested in seeing some of my other (more ethical) work, check out Delphus [1], an open research study management platform which I am working on at my new startup ;)
[1]: https://delph.us
Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi
#218Reminds me a of a 2600Hz article from the 90s.
Too bad that magazine has fallen to the way side. I still purchase it every now and then (when I'm in a Barnes and Noble).
The letters from readers surprise me quite a bit: seems like it has decent circulation in the prison population. wonder why that is...
Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My perspective is that a fundamental aspect of the Internet and the digital world is that the software-codified rules are basically authoritative. Do you think that hacking per se is ever immoral?
I suspect you're still associating hacking with other actions that can be facilitated by hacking. But the very next thing I wrote was "knowingly turning off a hospital ventilator is still murder", so it only makes sense to answer as if you strongly intend the "per se". In isolation, why would finding a hole in someone else's ruleset be immoral? If hacking per se were immoral, then there could be no such thing as a "w…
> I suspect you're still associating hacking with other actions that can be facilitated by hacking.
I specifically wrote "per se", so no - I'm not.
> If hacking per se were immoral, then there could be no such thing as a "white hat".
White hat hacking it typically specifically authorized (e.g. red teams). That is not the case with the example from the article.
In the locksport community there is a pretty strong norm to only pick locks you own or have specific authorization to pick.
Computer security not the same thing, but it's also not that different.
Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the local culture needs to be taken into account. Suppose I walk onto your porch, see something I want, and take it with me. That's pretty plainly theft, right? Now suppose I am eight years old, taking candy from a bowl left out on Halloween. That's pretty plainly not theft. To somebody unfamiliar with the cultural practice of trick-or-treating, they might assume that it is theft. The internet has different c…
> That's pretty plainly not theft. There's not a matter of perception or culture as the candy was intentionally left out for a trick or treater to take. And since it's a well known holiday, the intent has been communicated.
And that's exactly my point: the cultural norms dictate whether something is an offer or not. For Halloween, the placing of candy outside one's door indicates that it is intended to be shared. For WiFi networks, in the absence of any other indication, not placing a password indicates that it is intended to be used.