[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: OT: unathorized network user.



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.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]