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

Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

potatofrom.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–239 of 239 posts

Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

#231

Post by ajross »

pritambaral wrote: post #43
ajross wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's straight up unauthorized access to a computer system. They tell you they don't allow it and you have to pay for it, the author clearly knew that, and evaded the protections. Cite me a legal environment where that is not a crime.

Which computer system does this access that the user was unauthorized to access? The user's home server?! The made-for-DRM CFAA that might classify fooling a flimsy filter as "unauthorized access to a computer system" is very much US-specific. Over here on the other side of the world, I'm thankful I'm not subject to such legislation or judicial system, but to one which still has a sensible definition of "hacking".

Sigh. Routers are computers too.

Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

#232

Post by peteretep »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #229
peteretep wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every user who bears the additional cost of the service because of freeloaders is a victim.

Your working definition sounds like it's wrong: Could you give an example of what you call a "victimless crime"?

Have you tried Wikipedia?

Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

#233

Post by deanclatworthy »

Zenbit_UX wrote: post #140
baxtr wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t than both devices “fight” for the access? Who gets the packages?

Yes, it makes both connections highly unstable. Not recommended.

It works flawlessly. You can go further to end up kicking them off with some more shady tools. Not that I’d approve of that.

Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

#234

Post by pritambaral »

ajross wrote: post #231
pritambaral wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which computer system does this access that the user was unauthorized to access? The user's home server?! The made-for-DRM CFAA that might classify fooling a flimsy filter as "unauthorized access to a computer system" is very much US-specific. Over here on the other side of the world, I'm thankful I'm not subject to such legislation or judicial system, but to one which still has a sensible definition of "hacking".

Sigh. Routers are computers too.

Sigh. There's no _unauthorized access_ of a router here; neither the wireless network nor the router login were cracked.

Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

#235

Post by l1n »

nealabq wrote: post #136

The site's down for me. I got a 404 and a few minutes later a Firefox "Did Not Connect: Potential Security Issue" followed by this explanation: Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to potatofrom.space because this website requires a secure connection. What can you do about it? potatofrom.space has a security policy called HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), which means that Firefox can…

All HN submissions are archived at archive.is, you can access this one at http://archive.is/https://potatofrom.space/post/viasat-airli...

Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

#236

Post by baxtr »

deanclatworthy wrote: post #233
Zenbit_UX wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it makes both connections highly unstable. Not recommended.

It works flawlessly. You can go further to end up kicking them off with some more shady tools. Not that I’d approve of that.

I guess some friend of a friend told you?

Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

#237

Post by NKosmatos »

lalabert wrote: post #83
aisofteng wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just note that doing that is probably a fireable offense.

Definitely agree! Irrespective of motive it would raise questions about integrity! You don’t want to be going there!!

Fully agree with you, this is something that needs to be treated seriously especially in a professional business environment. I'm mainly interested on the technical side of things and on what is feasible, not on ways to bypass security for illegal purposes.

Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

#238

Post by NKosmatos »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #111
spydum wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not sure office == work place, but most workplaces have policies around intentionally bypassing network security/firewall rules. If your workplace has any kind of security operations/threat detection, you could find yourself explaining why exactly your host is reaching out over suspiciously encrypted channels?

Specifically, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egress_filtering . If the OP's company has restrictive firewalling and filtering already, they also probably have egress filtering and monitoring as well.

I agree with you, this will surely raise a red flag in our administrators panel and this isn't my intention. I'm mainly interested on the technical side of things.

I know that most ports and traffic types are already blocked. What about outgoing https traffic, this is encrypted and should be allowed to pass...something like an https tunnel.

Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

#239

Post by SomeOldThrow »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #207
SomeOldThrow wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also immoral to force bad pricing down customer throats. And yet that is the definition of the inflight wifi business. EDIT: I’m fairly sure at current prices a single flight could pay for a month’s service for a single plane, probably several times over. The profit margins (& I imagine some the cut to the airline) must be enormous, & there is no pretense of fair terms at sale time because a single corporation c…

The profit margin for luxury addons is always insane. That doesn't make them unethical. In fact, there's a very good argument to be made that luxury pricing is positively ethical, as it allows the base experience to be offered for a lower price to more price-sensitive customers.

> In fact, there's a very good argument to be made that luxury pricing is positively ethical, as it allows the base experience to be offered for a lower price to more price-sensitive customers.

How come that isn't happening here?

Anyway, it's a commodity. The positioning of it as a luxury service amounts to theft.

Post reply on HN