On 24/01/2008, Ed Greshko <Ed.Greshko@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > > > Well, threads tend to evolve. The OP was given an answer to his problem, > > but was also told about the limits of that answer. From there the thread > > evolved into a more general discussion of wireless security. > > > > When you are talking about wireless security, it is not just the > > information on your local network that valuable. The network connection > > itself is also valuable. This is especially true if the attacker wants > > to do things that they do not want traced back to them. If they use your > > connection to send out SPAM, you stand a good chance of having to prove > > to your ISP that you did not do it. If they use it to break into another > > system, you may end up explaining it to the police, or having to defent > > yourself in court. If it is someone that lives close enough to use your > > connection for long periods, they may use it for file sharing. This is > > especially true if you have not changed your routers password, or have > > UPnP enabled on the router. > > I can't help but thinking that if these problems were so prevalent that > Starbucks would have discontinued offering wireless a long time ago. Or, > that no city would ever think of establishing a wireless network. > Starbucks (in fact, TMobile, or whoever happens to be running the franchise) is acting as an ISP in that case. -- imalone
