have a wireless card in my laptop and picked up a pretty good signal from someone's Linksys access point in my building.
I bought a Netgear cable/dsl wireless router (4 Ethernet ports also ) thinking I can set it up as a repeater (for the stolen signal) and be able to hook in other (wired) PC's in my apartment. The problem is, the
antenna is only a transmitter (as far as I can tell) and the router expects an Internet connection to come from the dsl/cable port. Did I get the wrong box? I saw an Ethernet bridge on the Netgear site. Is this what I need?
I could easily steal my neighbours signal if i wanted to. i dont need a router or an access point, i just need an antenna to point at the wall to pick up the signal coming from his access point, set my ssid to be the same as his (it is default of course) and set my card to get an ip address from his access point / router.
my client's access point was wide open and his network was abused by persons unknown to commit internet fraud over which my client had no control. further my clients computers were infested with trojans and remote control programs meaning his computer could be used to launch fraudulent activities again which he had no control over. HIs credit card details were also abused and used to purchase illegal material over the internet, my client has been the victim of identity theft and has had his computer used as a trojan to undermine further his privacy and abuse his name and identity, i put it to you that you will find it impossible to prove that my clients computer and network were abused in the way i have outlined and therefore all charges against my client should be dropped as it is impossible to prove my client performed any of the illegal acts without further evidence such as video evidence and witness statements which can prove conclusivley it was my client who execute the instructions and not a malicious third party with access to my clients computer and his network.
My client beleived he was connecting to his own access point,which by coincedence,and by default of the wireless equipment makes his and the complainants wireless systems interoperable. we plead not guilty
Although it is unlikely that your client would be charged with internet fraud, an argument can be made that your client was negligent. Due to the recent "worldwide" reporting of identity fraud and electronic related crimes, he should have known to take "reasonable" steps to secure his "wide open" network in an attempt to prevent him and others from being victims of such crimes.
Because a great deal of computer owners are in the same situation, this particular claim would be excused.
B.S.! It is not difficult to practice safe computing. There are plenty of resources, both online and in print that will help a computer user practice safe computing.
See above regarding "safe computing"
A trail starts and ends somewhere. When money is involved, that trail has a scent. So if your client actually committed the fraud, he will be sniffed out. (LOL)
You do realize that law enforcement agencies use hackers to assist them in claims such as yours. In other words, don't be so quick to acquit.
Define "reasonable" and what construes due diligence in this case? Does having an SSID of "default" or "linksys" represent prima fascia evidence of negligence? Does such neglect also constitute an attractive nuisance? What are the generally accepted practices?
Is the owner and operator of the wireless contrivance totally responsible for its operation? Or do the deep pockets of the negligent manufactory offer better hunting grounds? Perhaps the dealer was also negligent by not informing the purchaser of their risks? Was the customer properly informed that they may be at risk if they failed to follow instructions (i.e. warning labels)? How about:
Warning. Operating this electronic contraption in an insecure manner may constitute an information security risk and may cause data or financial loss.
Pers You are a clueless idiot for operating this router without any encryption. Click here to indemnify the manufacture from any responsibility and damages resulting from your ineptitude. [ OK ]
There also is the issue of what constitutes "permission" of the owner to use the access point. Does it need to be in writing? Are there any limitations and restrictions? Does giving permission also include cruising the owners unsecured Windoze computer? Does giving permission indemnify the user from any subsequent actions and consequential damages? What is the procedure for revoking permission?
In most states, it is necessary to demonstrate financial loss in order to sue for damages. The criminal charge of "unauthorized access" probably also exposes the user to civil charges of financial damage. However, to what extent does the lack of due diligence on the part of the access point owner and manufacturer affect the awards?
In my never humble opinion, the issues totally unclear and will probably be settled inconsistently on a regional basis. I also suspect that the manufacturers will continue to ship access points that are by default insecure until some court assigns them partial or total responsibility for someone's financial loss. Then, it will swing the other way, and we'll be seeing overwhelming security features enabled by default. It usually takes a hole in their profits to get their attention.
That's not the issue. The customer has a "reasonable expectation" that the wireless contrivance will operate in the advertised manner. If the wireless contrivance is advertised as having security features, and those security features are neither functional nor easily enabled, then the customer cannot be expected to safely operate the device. Also, the courts tend to rule that a customer must be first informed of what constitutes "safe computing" in order from them to be responsible for doing so. Seen any "computer security checklist" documents included with wireless routers?
Yep. How many of those documents are in the box with the router? The alleged victim could also claim that access to all those safe computing documents first requires internet access, which was unavailable until AFTER the wireless router was setup in an unsafe manner.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.