OT: unathorized network user.

[Ed Greshko]

Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> Ed Greshko wrote:
>> Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
>>> When you are talking about wireless security, it is not just the 
>>> information on your local network that valuable. The network 
>>> connection itself is also valuable. This is especially true if the 
>>> attacker wants to do things that they do not want traced back to 
>>> them. If they use your connection to send out SPAM, you stand a good 
>>> chance of having to prove to your ISP that you did not do it. If they 
>>> use it to break into another system, you may end up explaining it to 
>>> the police, or having to defent yourself in court. If it is someone 
>>> that lives close enough to use your connection for long periods, they 
>>> may use it for file sharing. This is especially true if you have not 
>>> changed your routers password, or have UPnP enabled on the router.
>>
>> I can't help but thinking that if these problems were so prevalent 
>> that Starbucks would have discontinued offering wireless a long time 
>> ago.  Or, that no city would ever think of establishing a wireless 
>> network.
>>
> As has been pointed out, Starbucks is acting as an ISP. On top of that, 
> unless it is a one time visit, they can probably correlate the times 
> with the security camera logs to limit the number of suspects. (This 
> does not help if they connect from outside the store.)

I shouldn't have picked a specific example....  Humm...let me think...how 
many other establishments in the free world offer wifi services and *don't* 
act as their own ISP and *don't* have security cameras.   Hummm....

Go back and read the Bruce article that was pointed to very early in the 
thread.