paran0id

I hope this isnt considered a cross-post, as I posted this as a comment to the news article on the homepage, and I dont think everyone allways reads the comments.

Anyway--
In regards to the FBI agent who supposedly wrote the email concerning the legalities of netstumbling--
I sent him the following email:

I have attached a recent posting to http://www.netstumbler.com which claims to be from you. As there is much speculation as to what you read on the internet, my first question is if this is truly a legitimate post made by an FBI official.
If it is, this raises some questions for me. Are there any laws/cases which more clearly define the "line" to not be crossed when looking for the presence of wireless networks? When you say "Identifying the presence of a wireless network may not be a criminal violation, however, there may be criminal violations if the network is actually accessed" what exactly defines "accessed"? For instance some operating systems (Windows XP) by default, scan and try to connect to available wireless networks as soon as you insert a wireless card. If someone is broadcasting a wireless signal that is using DHCP (effectively handing out IP addresses to ANYONE that asks), then it is entirely possible for someone to connect (even accidentally) to a wireless network (and therefore be in violation) without even knowing.
Other software such as boingo http://www.boingo.com does essentially the same thing, but must knowingly be installed first. Other software such as netstumbler http://www.netstumbler.com and kismet http://www.kismetwireless.net simply search for the signal, with no means of connecting. Would this make Windows XP and Boingo illegal in the laws' eyes?
As I do installations of wireless networks, in and around the Pittsburgh area, I am very curious as to the law, because I often use combinations of these and other software.

Thank you for your time.


If anyone has any other questions or vague issues to ask about, post them here and I will try to present them to him if he replies.

blackwave

More FBI messages on wardriving

http://forum.defcon.org/showthread.p...=7992#post7992

http://www.securitytribe.com/fbi.txt

... look for a black van parked outside your pad that has Flowers By Irene painted on the side.

__________________
-=BW=-

paran0id

Being that that particular FBI office is less than 5 minutes away from me, I wouldnt be too surprised!

bwsaloum

Par,

I've done a little bit of research on the legalities of "stumbling", as I have a vested interest. And sufficed to say, federal laws are a little vague - in reference to WLAN discovery. But the biggie is how the laws may vary from state to state, which I haven't started at detail yet.

When I get into the office, I will post the title and sections of federal law, regarding wire tapping and illegal computer access, but, technically, the moment you snag an IP address and are "attached" to a network, you're breaking the law. Consequently, if you go any further by, say, mapping, hacking, packet capturing - with the intent of extorting the operatiors OR selling info that you've captured to a third party, you're breaking at least 9 laws and could be served for comitting a felony. Surfing the net with someone elses wavz is also a major no-no. To digress for a second, had the company that Steve Ballmer (of MS) been on the ball, they could have nailed him to the wall for tresspassing and illegal use of their wavz. But, no, he "got away with it".

I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV) but, everybody I've checked with (list too long to type) says that while stumbling isn't exactly "illegal", doing anything on someone elses dime - without their explicit concent most definately IS.

By the way, they've been aware "stumbling" and WLAN discovery a little longer than the date on the email implies.


</OFF SOAP BOX>

__________________
BWS


Technology is NO PLACE FOR WHIMPS

Kaber

Own the message.

__________________
--"Its my job, to freeze you."

renderman

To the best of my knowledge, stumbling (defined by pure discovery and no access) has never been tested in court and as such there is no precident.

We are in virgin legal territory here, so be careful. Keep in mind though that 802.11b was designed to automatically associate with AP's, does that mean that the Orinoco client manager can land you in the clink? I kind of doubt it. knowingly trespassing though if a defiante no-no

BUT....

From experience, the (at least Canadian) authorties probably don't care since I had a CSIS employee as part of my Wardriving team in Vegas If they do it, then so can I

Just my $0.02

Render

rogerRabbit

Yes, but the difference is they can get away with it .

Quis custodiet custodians.

bwsaloum

Not virgin territory...

Title 18 Sections 1030 & 2510...

Warning: It's kind of like reading in stereo

Attached Files

sec.txt (17.4 KB, 28 views)

__________________
BWS


Technology is NO PLACE FOR WHIMPS

Thorn

Many, if not most states have something similar. Here is Vermont's:

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/...13&Chapter=087

The thing that I love about this, is that the damages are set so low; $500 is the misdemeanor/felony trigger. My charges to come in just to check over a network will probably exceed $500, assumming it takes the better part of a day. (And I'm pretty reasonable in comparison to other consultants around here.) Counting the time of an in-house IT staff is probably going to be even higher.

So automatically, most places will jump right into felony territory, just to have the any alleged damage assessed.

__________________
Thorn
"I'm The Doctor. I'm a Time Lord. I am from the planet Gallifrey in the constellation Kasterborous. I'm 903 years old and I am the man who is going to save your lives and all 6 billion people on the planet below... You got a problem with that?"

bwsaloum

Thorn,

Ohio's is actually more comical than the federal code, and more poorly written than VT's...

§ 2933.52 Interception of wire, oral or electronic communications.
Text of Statute


(A) No person purposely shall do any of the following:


(1) Intercept, attempt to intercept, or procure another person to intercept or attempt to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(2) Use, attempt to use, or procure another person to use or attempt to use an interception device to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, if either of the following applies:
(a) The interception device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, satellite, microwave, or other similar method of connection used in wire communications;


(b) The interception device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of communications by radio.

(3) Use, or attempt to use, the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the contents were obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of sections 2933.51 to 2933.66 of the Revised Code.
(B) This section does not apply to any of the following:


(1) The interception, disclosure, or use of the contents, or evidence derived from the contents, of an oral, wire, or electronic communication that is obtained through the use of an interception warrant issued pursuant to sections 2933.53 to 2933.56 of the Revised Code, that is obtained pursuant to an oral approval for an interception granted pursuant to section 2933.57 of the Revised Code, or that is obtained pursuant to an order that is issued or an interception that is made in accordance with section 802 of the "Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968," 82 Stat. 237, 254, 18 U.S.C. 2510 to 2520 (1968), as amended, the "Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986," 100 Stat. 1848-1857, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 (1986), as amended, or the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," 92 Stat. 1783, 50 U.S.C. 1801.11 (1978), as amended;
(2) An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of employment while engaged in an activity that is necessary to the rendition of service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire or electronic communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks;


(3) A law enforcement officer who intercepts a wire, oral, or electronic communication, if the officer is a party to the communication or if one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception by the officer;
(4) A person who is not a law enforcement officer and who intercepts a wire, oral, or electronic communication, if the person is a party to the communication or if one of the parties to the communication has given the person prior consent to the interception, and if the communication is not intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal offense or tortious act in violation of the laws or Constitution of the United States or this state or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act;


(5) An officer, employee, or agent of a communications common carrier providing information, facilities, or technical assistance to an investigative officer who is authorized to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication pursuant to sections 2933.51 to 2933.66 of the Revised Code;

(6) The use of a pen register in accordance with federal or state law;

(7) The use of a trap and trace device in accordance with federal or state law;
(8) A police, fire, or emergency communications system to intercept wire communications coming into and going out of the communications system of a police department, fire department, or emergency center, if both of the following apply:


(a) The telephone, instrument, equipment, or facility is limited to the exclusive use of the communication system for administrative purposes;

(b) At least one telephone, instrument, equipment, or facility that is not subject to interception is made available for public use at each police department, fire department, or emergency center.

(9) The interception or accessing of an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that the electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public.
(10) The interception of a radio communication that is transmitted by any of the following:


(a) A station for the use of the general public;

(b) A governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including a police or fire system, that is readily accessible to the general public;

(c) A station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services;

(d) A marine or aeronautical communications system.
(11) The interception of a radio communication that relates to a ship, aircraft, vehicle, or person in distress.


(12) The interception of a wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to a lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of that interference.

(13) Other users of the same frequency to intercept a radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of that system, if the communication is not scrambled or encrypted.

(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, a felony of the fourth degree.
HISTORY: 141 v S 222 (Eff 3-25-87); 142 v H 231 (Eff 10-5-87); 146 v S 2 (Eff 7-1-96); 146 v H 181, § 3. Eff 7-1-96.

The effective date is set by section 5 of HB 181.

__________________
BWS


Technology is NO PLACE FOR WHIMPS

bwsaloum

On a side note, I attempted to post the URL to the above legislation, but, sadly, the link was actually LONGER than the text I cut & pasted. Believe me, it was!

__________________
BWS


Technology is NO PLACE FOR WHIMPS

Thorn

I wouldn't doubt the link was longer.

I notice that this is just electronic intercepts. What "anti-hacking" laws does Ohio have, or do they feel that this covers it?

__________________
Thorn
"I'm The Doctor. I'm a Time Lord. I am from the planet Gallifrey in the constellation Kasterborous. I'm 903 years old and I am the man who is going to save your lives and all 6 billion people on the planet below... You got a problem with that?"

bwsaloum

good question... haven't gotten around to that one yet.

will find out and post.

__________________
BWS


Technology is NO PLACE FOR WHIMPS

mentat

Doesn't 802.11b transmit into a public part of the spectrum. If that's so, how can they punish people for intercepting something which is intentionally broadcast on a public frequency. I can understand there being punishment if you break someone's WEP key to intercept their communications, but if it's in plain text...

blackwave

This kind of stuff happens when the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and vice-versa... it creates a big gray blob for people to play in for a while...

__________________
-=BW=-