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

91–100 of 239 posts

Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

#91

Post by hobs »

ht85 wrote: post #69
cabaalis wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's illegal to come into my house and take my stuff even if I forget to lock my back door. For some reason, on HN when I've made this argument before, the resulting comments have been that the internet is somehow different, and that real-world analogies don't exist. Using equipment that you don't own in a way the owners don't intend is apparently well-accepted.

Probably because this is a victimless crime... What he did would be more akin to someone entering your property, having their lunch in your garden and cleaning up before leaving.

Uplink for airplanes is not free by any means.

Regardless of the criminality a real world analog would be more akin to someone taking a chair in a starbucks without paying - maybe there's room, and maybe it doesnt burden them unduly - but the company definitely pays a cost for each table aggregated across its customers.

Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

#92

Post by allannienhuis »

ht85 wrote: post #69
cabaalis wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's illegal to come into my house and take my stuff even if I forget to lock my back door. For some reason, on HN when I've made this argument before, the resulting comments have been that the internet is somehow different, and that real-world analogies don't exist. Using equipment that you don't own in a way the owners don't intend is apparently well-accepted.

Probably because this is a victimless crime... What he did would be more akin to someone entering your property, having their lunch in your garden and cleaning up before leaving.

maybe more like someone entering a restaurant, sitting down at one of their tables and eating a lunch they brought themselves, or just reading a book, taking up that table during a busy lunch period.

Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

#93

Post by mikeash »

ht85 wrote: post #69
cabaalis wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's illegal to come into my house and take my stuff even if I forget to lock my back door. For some reason, on HN when I've made this argument before, the resulting comments have been that the internet is somehow different, and that real-world analogies don't exist. Using equipment that you don't own in a way the owners don't intend is apparently well-accepted.

Probably because this is a victimless crime... What he did would be more akin to someone entering your property, having their lunch in your garden and cleaning up before leaving.

This is a business and satellite bandwidth is fairly precious.

A better analogy would be going into a restaurant with big “No Outside Food” signs with a sandwich you made at home, hiding the sandwich in a false compartment to get past a check at the door, printing the restaurant’s name on your sandwich wrapper so it looks like you bought it there, and then eating it at a table meant for paying customers.

Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

#94

Post by _underfl0w_ »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #56

I did this as well using Orbot (Tor software for Android) and an OBFS4 proxy. In Southwest (the airline), you connect to the wifi for watching the movie and where you are in air. But if you want internet, you pay. I have some of my applications always Torified on my phone. I opened my 3d printer app to view its status, expecting a hard fail. And... it loaded!

Genuine question here - isn't Tor traffic reputed for having a certain "footprint"? I would be worried about accessing the Tor network over public WiFi, but maybe that's just me.

Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

#95

Post by eslaught »

novok wrote: post #86
bobcostas55 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this not apply to stuff like trackers bypassing anti-fingerprinting browser protections?

You could say the same about adblock then, so lets not open that can of worms

Is it though? The adblocker runs locally on your own computer; it certainly prevents the ads from doing what the designer intended, but it doesn't make the designer's computer (or any computer controlled by the ad network) do anything.

Versus tracking does actually do something on your computer (e.g. running JS to discover fonts). Arguably that is a circumvention of the intentions of the user on their own hardware.

Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

#96

Post by mikeash »

Dayshine wrote: post #55
kemitche wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not nuts when compared to non-tech laws. It's illegal to come into my house and take my stuff even if I forget to lock my back door. If we want to protect security professionals, we should write laws that do so.

It's not illegal to use 500GB of fibre bandwidth in a month when you only pay for 250GB though (say due to a bug in their method of counting usage).

If you do it by accident? Sure. If you discover that you can trigger the bug by unplugging the router at 11:59PM and take advantage of this to blow through your limits? That’s not so legal, no.

Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

#98

Post by astura »

ht85 wrote: post #69
cabaalis wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's illegal to come into my house and take my stuff even if I forget to lock my back door. For some reason, on HN when I've made this argument before, the resulting comments have been that the internet is somehow different, and that real-world analogies don't exist. Using equipment that you don't own in a way the owners don't intend is apparently well-accepted.

Probably because this is a victimless crime... What he did would be more akin to someone entering your property, having their lunch in your garden and cleaning up before leaving.

Closer to breaking into a vacant hotel room instead of checking in at the front desk.

Re: Stunnel and Airline Wi-Fi

#99

Post by somethingnot »

bobcostas55 wrote: post #77
PaulAJ wrote: post #25

In the USA this would be a violation of the CFAA https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 . Specifically, the router is a "protected computer" and the procedure described here is "exceeding authorised access" because it routes packets around a mechanism that was designed to stop them. Maximum penalty 5 years. (Some might argue that it was authorised because the computer let him do it. However the CFAA simply d…

How does this not apply to stuff like trackers bypassing anti-fingerprinting browser protections?

His attack is active, privacy plugins are passive, even if they report back false fingerprints.

Offense versus defense.

Post reply on HN