So, who is going to pay for the defense lessons, the body guards you suggest? OR are you assuming just everyone can afford to pay for these and/or has time to learn just to meet what you think they should do?
Evidentally the problem does not happen on a personalized page for Google, so my question to google would be what do they do diff between the news page and the news from TD on the personalized page?
If the movie theaters would charge less, more people would want to see a movie and could afford to see one (or more often diff ones)..
The prices to go to a movie are too utrageous these days.
So basically.. lets go make a law just to make one and be clueless about what is behind the actual law being made.. doesnt matter if the good people get hurt by it, as long as a law is made right?
Depends on who you are. There are pleanty who would purposely crack the WEP and MAC filtered one just to show how unsecure it is. Out of the box is no challenge.
WPA.. now that is a different story. Especially combined with MAC filtering, no ssid broadcast, change the defaults, change channels to reduce the signal strenth, disabling dhcp, etc.. That is the one to use to make it "more" secure.
The whole point of the article anyway was to show that people realize how insecure wireless.
MAC filtering - it is easier to spoof a MAC than using Wepcrack to crack wep... its just s key change in teh regiatry or ifconfig in linux. And when reading packets, its not hard to find the MAC address to spoof or the ip scheme used..
Thank you! If people did not already have it in their mind that wireless was NOT secure... then it would not be as secure as they "thought" it was... hence they think it is not secure and they are right, it is NOT... being where they get it is as secure as they think it is. (love that play on words! .. its like trying to figure out triple and quardruple negatives with fuzzy logic)
(For the most part that is.. I have to agree there ARE ways to lock it down good and have it MORE secure than most believe it is(n't), but it will never have the security that wired does.)
Don't forget turn off DHCP and also change the channels. With different channels having different strengths, a lot of people overlook the fact that you want the wireless to be in the range of where
you are, but not past it.
Also.. I have seen countless number of people take those precautions BUT not change the default settings for the SSID and password <shakes her head>
As for if you have to use WEP.. unfortunately a lot of people still do. Netgear, Linksys, D-Link and others who did not have WPA on their firmware (or compatibility on the NIC) a few years ago...
There are still people running the same WAPS. Heck there are still some that don't even care if it is unsecured.. and do not understand why.
I had to do demonstrations to teach how to install wireless a couple of years ago.. and I also did many installs.
Some may call it cheesy, but I made a flash video of some of it one night when I was bored.
What do they mean by probing? Port scanning ? OS detection? Doing a whois or a dnslookup on the hostname? None of these are illegal or contribute unauthorized access to a system. Neither does using Lynx.
Port scanning is seeing if a port is open on a server. It is not illegal. All it does is send a packet to a port to see if the port responds or not. It is a very legitimate tool used by network admins. When you open a web browser, you are sending packets to port 80 on a webserver. If it responds, you know the port is open. You can test other ports the same way or with a tool that tests all. It can be known as a precursor for an attack by script kiddies, but nothing about it is illegal.
OS detection is just getting a fingerprint of a computer to see what operating system it is runining. Nothing illegal about that.
Doing a whois on a domian to see who owns it is redily availbe from arin.net. That is public information. What would be agaist policy is if someone lied on the domain registration, but not looking at the information to see who owns the site. That is what it is there for. The DNS ifo is there as well.
Lynx is a text based web browser. It is very popular and much faster to view websites via lynx. All it displays are content and links of a site. You can move from one page to another much faster because you do not have to wait for grpahics to load up. It is a standard browser availabe on most *nix boxes.
Would someone please enlighten me on what is "illegal" about any of that? Now if he tried to brute force his way into the websites ftp and was successful and replaced files, or gained ENTRY to the computer or server.. I could see it being illegal.
"Probing" a computer is not illegal. That is also a broad defination. What is illegal is gaining entry to one and altering or viewing content not meant to be seen.
Even if you goto a website.. say http://www.whatever.com/1/2/3/4/index.html and use your backspace key to back up to the directory before such as http://www.whatever.com/1/2/3/ or http://www.whatever.com/1/2/ is not illegal at all. If it lists files in the directory than someone had better be more worried about the security of the server, but it is on that site for public display and if directories are lsiting and you see the contents.. then its not illegal.
The way that is written makes no sense. Either that judge is clueless or a lot of details were left out of the story.
That is what I do not get. People seem to freak out of the idea of "tracking" ... but anything google tracks is already being tracked as it is.
Do you think that people dont read web server logs? Companies like yahoo and MSN don't see the search logs and use it to help improve their search engines?
What is google doing different other than making it publically know your stuff is being tracked instead of out of site out of mind like other companies?
Whether it is announced like google does.. or not.. it is STILL being tracked.
Personally, I am READY for a plain vanilla messenger. ICQ used to be nice and simple... then AOL bought it. AIM.. well... too much junk on it. MSN.. WAY too much beels and whistles and junk.
It is about time someone made something plain and simple. I welcome it with open arms.
They act like the SIMS2 nude patch is new. That is at least 3 years old and was present from the get go in the original SIMS game. If parents don't want their kids playing these games, the PARENTS need to be PARENTS and not let the kids play the game.
Stuff like this will always be out there. Why blame the video game for the lack of parenting. Are these people using video games as babysitters ? deja vu! Wasn't that the issue about tv years ago? Don't blame the video game for the lack of parenting skills - isntead maybe parents need to be parents again instead of finding something else to blame for what he/she could have prevented by spending time with the kid and actually being a parent instead of whining about the video game the kid plays.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by aleeya.net.
pucker up (as someone)
Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal... (as aleeya)
(untitled comment) (as aleeya)
Lower Prices (as aleeya)
Safer? (as erica)
I can't say that it would influence me one way or another.. and as for "safer".. doesn't make me feel any safer.
point blank. a new way for more people to make more money by expanding the possbilities of domains that can be purchased.
And as for emails.. that is going to be a MESS.
In other words... (as erica ann)
Re: No Subject Given (as erica ann)
WPA.. now that is a different story. Especially combined with MAC filtering, no ssid broadcast, change the defaults, change channels to reduce the signal strenth, disabling dhcp, etc.. That is the one to use to make it "more" secure.
The whole point of the article anyway was to show that people realize how insecure wireless.
Re: No Subject Given (as erica ann)
And when reading packets, its not hard to find the MAC address to spoof or the ip scheme used..
it is not exactly the best defense around.
Re: You are all missing the point here (as erica ann)
(For the most part that is.. I have to agree there ARE ways to lock it down good and have it MORE secure than most believe it is(n't), but it will never have the security that wired does.)
Re: No Subject Given (as erica ann)
Don't forget turn off DHCP and also change the channels. With different channels having different strengths, a lot of people overlook the fact that you want the wireless to be in the range of where you are, but not past it.
Also.. I have seen countless number of people take those precautions BUT not change the default settings for the SSID and password <shakes her head>
As for if you have to use WEP.. unfortunately a lot of people still do. Netgear, Linksys, D-Link and others who did not have WPA on their firmware (or compatibility on the NIC) a few years ago... There are still people running the same WAPS. Heck there are still some that don't even care if it is unsecured.. and do not understand why.
I had to do demonstrations to teach how to install wireless a couple of years ago.. and I also did many installs.
Some may call it cheesy, but I made a flash video of some of it one night when I was bored.
http://www.girlgeekette.net/2005/09/04/wireless-networking-the-wifi-movie/
I even have some posts on the subjects on wireless from experiences I have seen and researched / taught
http://www.girlgeekette.net/category/wireless-info/
"Probing?" (as erica ann)
Port scanning is seeing if a port is open on a server. It is not illegal. All it does is send a packet to a port to see if the port responds or not. It is a very legitimate tool used by network admins. When you open a web browser, you are sending packets to port 80 on a webserver. If it responds, you know the port is open. You can test other ports the same way or with a tool that tests all. It can be known as a precursor for an attack by script kiddies, but nothing about it is illegal.
OS detection is just getting a fingerprint of a computer to see what operating system it is runining. Nothing illegal about that.
Doing a whois on a domian to see who owns it is redily availbe from arin.net. That is public information. What would be agaist policy is if someone lied on the domain registration, but not looking at the information to see who owns the site. That is what it is there for. The DNS ifo is there as well.
Lynx is a text based web browser. It is very popular and much faster to view websites via lynx. All it displays are content and links of a site. You can move from one page to another much faster because you do not have to wait for grpahics to load up. It is a standard browser availabe on most *nix boxes.
Would someone please enlighten me on what is "illegal" about any of that? Now if he tried to brute force his way into the websites ftp and was successful and replaced files, or gained ENTRY to the computer or server.. I could see it being illegal.
"Probing" a computer is not illegal. That is also a broad defination. What is illegal is gaining entry to one and altering or viewing content not meant to be seen.
Even if you goto a website.. say http://www.whatever.com/1/2/3/4/index.html and use your backspace key to back up to the directory before such as http://www.whatever.com/1/2/3/ or http://www.whatever.com/1/2/ is not illegal at all. If it lists files in the directory than someone had better be more worried about the security of the server, but it is on that site for public display and if directories are lsiting and you see the contents.. then its not illegal.
The way that is written makes no sense. Either that judge is clueless or a lot of details were left out of the story.
Re: No Subject Given (as aleeya)
Do you think that people dont read web server logs? Companies like yahoo and MSN don't see the search logs and use it to help improve their search engines?
What is google doing different other than making it publically know your stuff is being tracked instead of out of site out of mind like other companies?
Whether it is announced like google does.. or not.. it is STILL being tracked.
About Time (as aleeya)
It is about time someone made something plain and simple. I welcome it with open arms.
say NO to bloatware and yes to vanilla!
Re: first they came for the videogames... (as aleeya)
SIMS itself had that mod.. (as aleeya)
Stuff like this will always be out there. Why blame the video game for the lack of parenting. Are these people using video games as babysitters ? deja vu! Wasn't that the issue about tv years ago? Don't blame the video game for the lack of parenting skills - isntead maybe parents need to be parents again instead of finding something else to blame for what he/she could have prevented by spending time with the kid and actually being a parent instead of whining about the video game the kid plays.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by aleeya.net.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt