Penetration Testing mailing list archives
Re: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access
From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor () hammerofgod com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 19:20:58 -0700
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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access ebk_lists (Jun 01)
- RE: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access Jeffory Atkinson (Jun 01)
- RE: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access Kenneth Klinzman (Jun 01)
- Re: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access Paul Melson (Jun 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access cwright (Jun 02)
- RE: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access Mike Messick (Jun 02)
- Re: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access Thor (Hammer of God) (Jun 02)
- RE: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access stonewall (Jun 03)
- Re: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access Serg B. (Jun 04)
- Re: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access Michael Hale (Jun 04)
- Re: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access David M. Zendzian (Jun 04)
- RE: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access stonewall (Jun 03)
- RE: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access Jeffory Atkinson (Jun 01)
- RE: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access cwright (Jun 02)
- Re: Re: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access cwright (Jun 04)
- Re: Re: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access cwright (Jun 04)
- RE: Re: Interesting Ruling Regarding WiFi access Erin Carroll (Jun 04)