Steal This Wi-Fi

[michaewlewis]

Whenever I talk or write about my own security setup, the one thing that surprises people -- and attracts the most criticism -- is the fact that I run an open wireless network at home. There's no password. There's no encryption. Anyone with wireless capability who can see my network can use it to access the internet.

To me, it's basic politeness. Providing internet access to guests is kind of like providing heat and electricity, or a hot cup of tea. But to some observers, it's both wrong and dangerous.

Continued.....
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/01/securitymatters_0110

My thoughts exactly..

[patio]

I'd rather give a war-driver bum the same thing i do on the street...a few bucks.
If he get's a bottle of Ripple for it instead of paying for wireless well than that's his problem.

 

The Author deserves whatever security is compromised on his machine....he must be out of material to write such an irresponsible diatribe....

[Deerpark]

Having an open network is alright if you're fully aware of the consequences of doing so like Bruce Schneier is. Unfortunately I don't think most people with an unsecured wifi connection is aware of it and therefore haven't taken steps to secure their browsing in other ways. So if you take advantage of other peoples open wifi; you won't know if they're actually offering it to you, or they simply isn't aware of its openness. If you're going to offer your wifi to strangers I'd much rather you do it porperly and use a service like FON.

And I have to say I think he takes a bit of a head in the sand approach to the risks. Like his example with RIAA.

In a less far-fetched scenario, the Recording Industry Association of America is known to sue copyright infringers based on nothing more than an IP address. The accused's chance of winning is higher than in a criminal case, because in civil litigation the burden of proof is lower. And again, lawyers argue that even if you win it's not worth the risk or expense, and that you should settle and pay a few thousand dollars.

I remain unconvinced of this threat, though. The RIAA has conducted about 26,000 lawsuits, and there are more than 15 million music downloaders. Mark Mulligan of Jupiter Research said it best: "If you're a file sharer, you know that the likelihood of you being caught is very similar to that of being hit by an asteroid."

It may not be a huge risk but it is still going to suck if you have to pay for your neighbor's music downloads.

[michaewlewis]

its not irresponsible... its helpful. and the chances that someone is going to sit in a car in front of your house and try to hack your network is about the same as someone hacking your network from a different state... maybe even less. But in either case, I have all my sensitive data in a truecrypt folder.

[Zylstra]

I think securing your network is important if you plan on exchanging secured information... eg: Bank accounts, email password, forum passwords, etc etc.

I personally use WPA-PSK [TKIP] + WPA2-PSK [AES], and also MAC Address filtering...
It works well, and is compatible with everything in my network. (Before, I used to use WEP, and a friend informed me it can be hacked with free tools in about 5 minutes)

Now, I am a heavy network user, and that increases my chances of partial packet scanning network exposure, however, that's why I always have the MAC filter enabled.. just as a backup. (Though, it is possible to spoof your MAC address, my router is somehow picky whenever something changes. eg: Whenever I reinstall the OS on any computer on my network, I have to delete the filter value and put it in again)

I have personal data on my computer, specifically email(s).
I have a descent firewall, etc

[quaxo]

Like Zylstra, I keep my network very secure too, with WPA-PSK [TKIP] and MAC Address Filtering. I live in a condominium with lots of neighbors.

[michaewlewis]

How vulnerable are you if you access a secure banking website with 128bit encryption on a unsecured wireless network? Does ssl not mean anything on wireless?

[Zylstra]

How vulnerable are you if you access a secure banking website with 128bit encryption on a unsecured wireless network? Does ssl not mean anything on wireless?

It should still be plenty secure over WiFi, after all, its an encrypted connection, completely unreadable to hackers.

[SilentAssasin64]

I don't bother securing my wireless.  I have 2 neighbors.  1 of which are my grandparents, the other is another elderly couple.  The chances of them getting into my network are non-existent.  However, if I were to live up the street a few blocks I would definitely secure it.

[quaxo]

I'm gonna sit outside Silent's house with my laptop and steal his internet. 

[GX44]

I don't understand people who don't secure anything these days tbh.

The way I see it, having an unprotected wireless network is similar to having your wallet strapped to your arm with a rubber band. Why take the risk?

(sorry for the poor comparison with the wallet, haha... I'm having a bad word day and forget the actual name used when you draw up a reference like that... anyone else get those days?)

[quaxo]

It's a simile.

And no, I don't have days like that. I'm an English teacher, it's not allowed. 

[gamerx365]

ur an english teacher? you dont get paid for radio ads? or you don't do those anymore?

[michaewlewis]

Whatever it is, I don't see how having your wallet on your arm even comes close to having an unsecured wireless in principle. I'd say its more like having a bag of chips on the table at a superbowl party. Anyone can have some, but don't take the whole thing.

[WillyW]

Analogy, perhaps?