Firewall Wizards mailing list archives

RE: Interlopers on the WLAN


From: "Cox, Michael" <mscox () ti com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 08:48:47 -0600

On a slightly different tack, and hopefully not too far off topic, what
saves the owners of the truly open WLAN's from liability if the access they
grant is used for nefarious purposes? With my ISP I have the chance to sign
an acceptable use agreement, but somehow I doubt that the pub hands these
out with the beer.

Thanks!
Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Royds [mailto:broyds () rogers com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:39 PM
To: Frank O'Dwyer; pjklist () ekahuna com
Cc: firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
Subject: RE: [fw-wiz] Interlopers on the WLAN


Last weekend, I and other members of Whitehats.ca went to a 
local pub. When we arrived there there were little cards on 
each table that this pub has wireless Ethernet available. 
Nice pub touch since it was just a block from the Cognos head office. 

I think, that is the only real invitation to use a wireless LAN. 
Using one just because it is there is the same as going into 
someone's office and plugging into the RJ45 connection in the 
wall.  It wouldn't make you too popular with the corporate 
LAN administration so why should connecting to open wireless 
mean anything different.

-----Original Message-----
From: firewall-wizards-admin () honor icsalabs com
[mailto:firewall-wizards-admin () honor icsalabs com]On Behalf Of Frank
O'Dwyer
Sent: Tue November 05 2002 18:29
To: pjklist () ekahuna com
Cc: firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
Subject: Re: [fw-wiz] Interlopers on the WLAN


I think it ought to make a difference if an attempt has been made to
secure the network. Otherwise you are expecting people to 
read your mind
as to whether you intend the network to be private or not. For all its
faults, WEP is at least a fairly large clue that the network 
is intended
to be private.

But if you haven't even turned WEP on, then who's to say whether your
network is supposed to be for employees only, or an access hotspot for
anyone who passes by. It's not like you left your door unlocked or
something, it's more like you hung a big orange sign on your 
door saying
"welcome!". The very fact that you're broadcasting the ESSID with no
security measures whatsoever could be reasonably construed as a public
invitation to connect.

Similarly if you had a publicly accessible system which popped up
"welcome to the foo system" and logged you straight in with 
no password,
(rather than "this system is private property and 
unauthorised access is
not permitted", followed by a login prompt) then you would 
(and should)
have a tough time pressing charges against anyone who connected.

Cheers,
Frank

On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 08:23, Philip J. Koenig wrote:
Please forgive if this has been covered before, I'm not reading the 
group daily these days.

Is it reasonable to assume that those who access WLANs without the 
permission of the owner are violating the same cybercrime laws that 
apply to any unauthorized access of a computer network?

Some have recently argued this is not the case if someone doesn't 
"enable the security features", but personally I don't see the 
distinction between this kind of activity and anything normally 
prohibited by laws such as California Penal Code section 502a and 
various other cybercrime laws.  It doesn't seem to me that the law 
makes a distinction about whether the network in question 
was secured 
or not. (what does 'secured' mean anyway?)



_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards


Current thread: