Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Ed Greshko wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
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.
As has been pointed out, Starbucks is acting as an ISP. On top of that,
unless it is a one time visit, they can probably correlate the times
with the security camera logs to limit the number of suspects. (This
does not help if they connect from outside the store.)
I shouldn't have picked a specific example.... Humm...let me think...how
many other establishments in the free world offer wifi services and *don't*
act as their own ISP and *don't* have security cameras. Hummm....
Go back and read the Bruce article that was pointed to very early in the
thread.
