analogy

Postby nikolatesla20 » Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:24 pm

Originally posted by sparafina
He might not mind if someone freeloads on his network, but I'm certain that his service provider would. I'm sure that he would change his tune if someone jumped on his network and unleashed a ton of spam or worse a virus. Those late night/early morning visits from the authorities can be a real bitch.



Um, then secure your network. If you're too ignorant/stupid to take care of your own stuff, you deserve a visit from the authorities :rolleyes:

You perhaps have noticed that you can get wireless switches now from BestBuy and CompUSA for about $49? But yet do any of them come with a wireless security tutorial?

Methinks not. Thousands of clueless users...unless the default setup is actually secure for a change (hopefully). Accident (or should I say, exploits) waiting to happen, and I'm sure they will whether I / you / we like it or not.


-niko
nikolatesla20
Mini Stumbler
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:27 pm

Postby The Others » Thu Mar 04, 2004 3:48 pm

Originally posted by nikolatesla20
If you're too ignorant/stupid to take care of your own stuff, you deserve a visit from the authorities :rolleyes:


So it's the user's fault, right?

Originally posted by nikolatesla20
But yet do any of them come with a wireless security tutorial?


So it's the manufacturers fault right?

Please, decide who should be blamed.

To highlight the ridiculous nature of your first quoted bit, let me tell you a story... I was out a few weeks back and got stabbed, resulting in hospitilisation. When the police arrived I was informed it was my own fault; I was not wearing a knife proof jacket. Although such body armour is available I neglected to wear it. Being attacked was therefore my fault, in fact, my attacker was praised for bringing this to my attention.

Duh, don't I feel stupid... :rolleyes:
all good ends all

?u=273
User avatar
The Others
 
Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Dos Palabras, Mandoras

Postby sparafina » Thu Mar 04, 2004 3:59 pm

Originally posted by The Others
I was out a few weeks back and got stabbed, resulting in hospitilisation. When the police arrived I was informed it was my own fault; I was not wearing a knife proof jacket. Although such body armour is available I neglected to wear it. Being attacked was therefore my fault, in fact, my attacker was praised for bringing this to my attention.


Hey, now you know what its like to be a rape victim.
User avatar
sparafina
Mini Stumbler
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 2:12 pm
Location: TX,MD,NY

Postby The Others » Thu Mar 04, 2004 4:01 pm

Originally posted by sparafina
Hey, know you know what its like to be a rape victim.


Well, that put a downer on my evening. Thanks...
all good ends all

?u=273
User avatar
The Others
 
Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Dos Palabras, Mandoras

Postby sparafina » Thu Mar 04, 2004 4:11 pm

Originally posted by The Others
Well, that put a downer on my evening. Thanks...


sorry, but true
User avatar
sparafina
Mini Stumbler
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 2:12 pm
Location: TX,MD,NY

Re: analogy

Postby Monitr7 » Fri Mar 05, 2004 4:48 am

Originally posted by strosien
Would it be fair to say that wardriving is roughly equivalent to driving though a neighborhood, noting lat/lon of where cars are parked, license plate# and if the doors on the car are locked? (Optionally uploading that info to a car-locking enthusiasts website?) If not, why not?


Ya know, after further consideration, I'll agree with that analogy, but I'll give you one better, much more in keeping with your view that open nodes are there for the taking.

Having an open node, I'll grant, is like having an SO (spouse, girlfriend/boyfriend, sheep, whatever [hey, I'm trying to be non-sexist, so don't get any ideas]) who'll do anyone with a pulse. However, you place your complete faith and trust in said SO, and are completely unaware of thier "open" nature (much like most folks who buy an AP; just plug it in and go with no security, due to ignorance of the nature of wireless).

Let's go a step further and talk about the "rightness" of using other people's bandwidth. Does it make it right when complete strangers are coming into your house, unannounced and with no intention of telling you, and banging the crap out of your SO? It's not like you were banging them at the time, so it's okay, right? Wrong. I'm thinking you'd be kind of pissed (unless you INTEND to allow your SO to do that), especially if the aforementioned "banger" leaves somthing behind, like a virus. :eek:

Damn good analogy, if you ask me.
WTOTD Industries - Where quality is Job #3.

G8tK33per doesn't care about the tarded people!
-Kanye West
User avatar
Monitr7
 
Posts: 1694
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Rebrandsoftware's mom's house...

Postby Barry » Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:02 am

Damn good analogy, if you ask me.


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Thanks, I now hove coffie on my moniter...
Never do anything you don't want to explain to the paramedics.
User avatar
Barry
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 11:10 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Re: analogy

Postby nikolatesla20 » Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:24 am

Originally posted by Monitr7

Let's go a step further and talk about the "rightness" of using other people's bandwidth. Does it make it right when complete strangers are coming into your house, unannounced and with no intention of telling you, and banging the crap out of your SO? It's not like you were banging them at the time, so it's okay, right? Wrong. I'm thinking you'd be kind of pissed (unless you INTEND to allow your SO to do that), especially if the aforementioned "banger" leaves somthing behind, like a virus. :eek:

Damn good analogy, if you ask me.



Yes, but you would also hold your SO responsible as well, since you didn't know this about them (or did you?). In either case, both parties took part in the act, and both hold a part of the blame. And if you don't hold the SO partly responsible, then you deserve to get part of that virus too, since you are letting them just do whatever they want. In other words, you couldn't blame them for getting the virus if you never did anything to prevent it (knew they were bangin everything but did nothing to stop it).

Even if you get into an automobile accident that isn't anywhere near your fault, you still get 10% of the blame, just for being on the road. The reasoning is if you didn't have a car you wouldn't have ever been in that situation in the first place, to be IN that accident.

Wireless is comparable, even though you didn't give someone permission to use your connection, if you don't take steps to secure it or are just ignorant of what that is all about (most users very soon, with the cheap prices of equipment now), and someone uses your connection for something bad, you should still be held in part responsible. If you didn't have that wireless connection, that bad thing could never have happened.


Originally posted by TheOthers

So it's the manufacturers fault right?

Please, decide who should be blamed.


How many exploits for WIndows software exist? And who do people usually like to point the finger at? Microsoft. If you point your finger at Microsoft for every little thing that happens to your computer when it gets exploited, instead of taking steps to secure you system, then you cannot argue with the point of blaming the equipment manufacturers that don't ship secure wireless equipment. It's the exact same situtation. People blame Microsoft all the time for unsecure default installation of software, same situation for default unsecure wireless products. I know of a LOT of people that blame Microsoft. Are you one of them?


-niko
nikolatesla20
Mini Stumbler
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:27 pm

Postby Monitr7 » Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:27 am

Originally posted by Barry
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Thanks, I now hove coffie on my moniter...


My bad. :D I was making a serious post, really! Honest, and for true!

"What? Monitr7 actually making a serious post? Surely you jest!" :eek:
WTOTD Industries - Where quality is Job #3.

G8tK33per doesn't care about the tarded people!
-Kanye West
User avatar
Monitr7
 
Posts: 1694
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Rebrandsoftware's mom's house...

Re: Re: Re: analogy

Postby Monitr7 » Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:38 am

Originally posted by nikolatesla20
Yes, but you would also hold your SO responsible as well...
-niko


By all means, I agree that people using wireless networking should do everything they can to secure them. However, I also believe that just becuase a node is open, it doesn't mean that it's a free-for-all on the AP.

Part of organized wardriving is to get the word out regarding wireless security to those that aren't "in the know". Unfortunately, a lot of folks don't pay any attention to the security issues and just leave the AP open, resulting in their AP being used by those dreaded "1337 \/\/1rl355 h4X0r5" getting some free internet service.

Is the schmoe with the open AP partially responsible? Yer damn right. But, the putz that's using the schmoe's AP illegally is more responsible, due to the fact that the putz is the one actually breaking the law.

So, in closing, I agree, but yet disagree, all at the same time. How's about that for duality?

EDIT: BTW, holy crap! An actual intelligent discussion!:eek:
WTOTD Industries - Where quality is Job #3.

G8tK33per doesn't care about the tarded people!
-Kanye West
User avatar
Monitr7
 
Posts: 1694
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Rebrandsoftware's mom's house...

Re: Re: analogy

Postby strosien » Fri Mar 05, 2004 9:02 am

Originally posted by Monitr7
...are completely unaware of thier "open" nature ...


for clarification, if the SO were charging for the services then the authorites would have an issue with it but otherwise nobody except the me and the neighbors are going to be unhappy out the activities of the SO in your scenario so the "illegality" element of the "intrusion" is not present, only the broken trust.

In any event....

....in your analogy.... how would you be "discovering" whether the SO's in the neighborhood were "open" or not?

Using this analogy sure changes wardriving into a very strange hobby indeed.

EDIT: BTW, holy crap! An actual intelligent discussion

Thank-you!
Just wanna drive....
strosien
Mini Stumbler
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 7:41 pm
Location: Michigan, hehe...

Re: Re: Re: analogy

Postby Monitr7 » Fri Mar 05, 2004 9:12 am

Originally posted by strosien
....in your analogy.... how would you be "discovering" whether the SO's in the neighborhood were "open" or not?


Oh, that's easy. It's called WhoreDriving! Da-da-dum-pshh! :D
WTOTD Industries - Where quality is Job #3.

G8tK33per doesn't care about the tarded people!
-Kanye West
User avatar
Monitr7
 
Posts: 1694
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Rebrandsoftware's mom's house...

Re: Re: Re: analogy

Postby wrzwaldo » Fri Mar 05, 2004 10:33 am

Originally posted by strosien
for clarification, if the SO were charging for the services then the authorites would have an issue with it but otherwise nobody except the me and the neighbors are going to be unhappy out the activities of the SO in your scenario so the "illegality" element of the "intrusion" is not present, only the broken trust.

In any event....

....in your analogy.... how would you be "discovering" whether the SO's in the neighborhood were "open" or not?

Using this analogy sure changes wardriving into a very strange hobby indeed.


Thank-you!



Well in one neighborhood I lived in it was not very difficult at all (much like the broadcasts from an AP)! I suspect others had broadcast disabled.
wrzwaldo
 
Posts: 8995
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 12:43 pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: analogy

Postby nikolatesla20 » Fri Mar 05, 2004 10:39 am

Originally posted by Monitr7

Is the schmoe with the open AP partially responsible? Yer damn right. But, the putz that's using the schmoe's AP illegally is more responsible, due to the fact that the putz is the one actually breaking the law.

So, in closing, I agree, but yet disagree, all at the same time. How's about that for duality?



Exactly, I agree with you, the person using the connection is at greater fault of course. I heard a bill was trying to be passed to actually hold the wireless owner more accountable. Personally, I agree with that bill (making it a law as well). If there are no consequences, no one will ever bother trying to make sure their wireless is secure.

For example, if you leave a gun loaded and lying around the house and a child gets a hold of it...well, I think you could be held accountable since you are supposed to lock it up.

The "damages" due to a virus or too much spam are hard to calculate (even tho some companies seem to present some nice bloated numbers), but there are damages to some extent. The wireless owner, if their connection was used to generate those damages, should share small part in the blame for those damages, (just like the gun scenario) because they didn't take positive steps to secure their network. Of course, if it could be shown that they did have WEP enabled, etc, then that is a different story.

-niko
nikolatesla20
Mini Stumbler
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:27 pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: analogy

Postby nikolatesla20 » Fri Mar 05, 2004 10:39 am

Originally posted by wrzwaldo
Well in one neighborhood I lived in it was not very difficult at all (much like the broadcasts from an AP)! I suspect others had broadcast disabled.


LOL
nikolatesla20
Mini Stumbler
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Newbie Bin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron