Re: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access

["David M. Zendzian" <dmz () dmzs com>]

There was a little point you did miss :)

First, the network was "Open" and free for use for the business' 
Customers. So they have no security enabled to allow their customers 
free access to the wifi.

Second, wireless isn't like a store door. It goes beyond the door, and 
out into the street. My cell phone is set to automatically connect to 
any wifi network it sees and attempts to sync email. I didn't set this 
up, it's a "feature" of windows mobile and the only way to prevent it is 
to disable wireless, which is not practical for business use of the device.

I know he was sitting in his car actually using the network (unlike my 
automatic connection via cell phone). However I keep seeing this 
reference to knocking on the door of buildings when referring to 
wireless. The day that we can define a perimeter to wireless and have it 
stop and have a virtual "door" then we can use this analogy. Until then, 
wireless goes lots of places it's not suppose to, and most devices 
automatically connect to the highest signal connection they see. As for 
using it, yes that's like walking into the store. You know you are using 
it and have no way out of saying you weren't. But the connection and 
association of wireless is nothing like knocking on the front door of 
something. :)

David

Serg B. wrote:
> Perhaps I am missing the point here, but... An individual should
> simply not utilise a network that does not belong to them unless they
> have been allowed to do so.
>
> I tend to equate it to something like walking down the street and
> checking if each house/apartment has an open door. If I find an open
> door I will walk into the house and start using homeowners things
> without their permission.
>
> Of course the network owner could (and should) implement some sort of
> safety guards. However the person attempting to connect to the network
> must understand that this network does not belong to them and
> therefore they must make sure that they are allowed to use it or not.
>
>
>   Serg
>
>
> On 04/06/07, stonewall <stonewall () cavtel net> wrote:
> > Would it be hard for manufacturers to implement in the AP's
> > software a logon banner when you try to "connect" your XP
> > box to the AP (of course not)?  "This wireless network and
> > Internet access are the property of Blah Blah's coffee shop,
> > and are for the use of our on-premises customers only.  Any
> > other use is unauthorized and is subject to legal sanction"
> > (or some other suitable legal mumbo-jumbo).  I thought there
> > was a consensus of sorts that such notification was more or
> > less considered "good practice", passed the "reasonable man"
> > test, and was a de facto standard.
> >
> > Recall, it wasn't that long ago that XP was configured BY
> > DEFAULT to connect automatically to the strongest wireless
> > signal it could find.  That being said, it is no more stupid
> > to run an open access point than it is to connect to someone
> > else's without authorization.  The trouble is, the only ones
> > who know this are folks in this business.  The general
> > public has no clue.  Arresting someone for this is
> > horsecrap.
> >
> > stonewall
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: listbounce () securityfocus com 
> > [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com] On
> > Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God)
> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:21 PM
> > To: pen-test () securityfocus com
> > Subject: Re: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access
> >
> > Or just have the SSID start with "PUBLIC" or "PRIVATE" or use the same
> > nomenclature for the router name.  Or dictate that broadcast SSID's are
> > public, and hidden SSID's are private.
> >
> > If it is going to be "law" then it needs to be simple enough for 
> > people to
> > understand.  Ideally, the wifi router manufactures would build in a 
> > tag for
> > "private" or "public" and build the selection into the setup wizard.  
> > Hell,
> > that option could even drive market share.
> >
> > t
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kenneth Klinzman" <kklinzman () tektegrity com>
> > To: <pen-test () securityfocus com>
> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:17 AM
> > Subject: RE: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access
> >
> >
> > Very nice find!
> >
> > My office co-horts and I were having the same kind of discussion.  It
> > seems like all it would take is a banner in the coffie shop saying
> > internet to customers only would be all it takes to make the argument
> > valid that they are informed. However, it is not like wireless stops at
> > the walls of the coffee shop like cabled connections would.  So to know
> > it was for customers only would take the offender to have entered the
> > shop and seen the sign.  Maybe some kind of portal page should be
> > required detailing the terms of use for wireless that users receive when
> > they first log in to the wireless.  Either way the legality of using a
> > internet connection that does not belong to you and you know nothing
> > about is very grey area...  Those of us who are mostly law abiding would
> > just assume it was wrong to do.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com]
> > On Behalf Of Jeffory Atkinson
> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:19 AM
> > To: ebk_lists () hotmail com; pen-test () securityfocus com
> > Subject: RE: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access
> >
> > Nice find,
> > Really make you think. Using free wireless is illegal but not if there
> > is a message saying public then it is not. Maybe I am not seeing the
> > whole picture but I believe the burden of notification is on the
> > owner/access point. This is the case in most states. Using the articles
> > example of a radar detector, if you travel in to the state of Virginia
> > you will clearly see the burden of notification in black and white on
> > sign stating they are illegal.
> >
> > I am curious to here other thoughts.
> >
> > JMA
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com]
> > On Behalf Of ebk_lists () hotmail com
> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 12:43 PM
> > To: pen-test () securityfocus com
> > Subject: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access
> >
> > Given all of the discussion regarding wifi access and the legalities
> > surrounding it, I found this interesting:
> >
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276720,00.html
> >
> > While I find the ruling in this circumstance a bit extreme, I think that
> > it is good that we are now getting some case law to back up what has
> > been up to this point mere speculation on what *may* happen in a court.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
> >
> > Are you using SPI, Watchfire or WhiteHat?
> > Consider getting clear vision with Cenzic See HOW Now with our 20/20
> > program!
> >
> > http://www.cenzic.com/c/2020
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
> >
> > Are you using SPI, Watchfire or WhiteHat?
> > Consider getting clear vision with Cenzic See HOW Now with our 20/20
> > program!
> >
> > http://www.cenzic.com/c/2020
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
> >
> > Are you using SPI, Watchfire or WhiteHat?
> > Consider getting clear vision with Cenzic
> > See HOW Now with our 20/20 program!
> >
> > http://www.cenzic.com/c/2020
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
> >
> > Are you using SPI, Watchfire or WhiteHat?
> > Consider getting clear vision with Cenzic
> > See HOW Now with our 20/20 program!
> >
> > http://www.cenzic.com/c/2020
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
> >
> > Are you using SPI, Watchfire or WhiteHat?
> > Consider getting clear vision with Cenzic
> > See HOW Now with our 20/20 program!
> >
> > http://www.cenzic.com/c/2020
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
This List Sponsored by: Cenzic

Are you using SPI, Watchfire or WhiteHat?
Consider getting clear vision with Cenzic
See HOW Now with our 20/20 program!

http://www.cenzic.com/c/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------