[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Netstumbler] Browse Networks

Well, there are possibly many people who aren't into the actual just WarDriving, but into the LANJacking aspect of it. Maybe he's taking a different approach to getting a job securing networks or something of that sort. If this is so, maybe you need to diffrentiate and move away from even connecting to an AP. So, then all these 'WarDriving" apps should actually disable TCP/IP on the adapter from being used while the app is open to show full point of WarDriving (just finding and logging the AP ?). I jumped onto this list because I wanted to read more about NetStumbler, get e-mails on new updates for it, and because I am very interested in 802.11. Maybe I am one of the many few who will take advantage of other people's weaknesses in order to benefit myself, (i bring my own beer, but if i can take yours and have more, why not ?) This is how the world revolves. If you can't protect your assests and other things, you WILL be taken advantage of. The way i see it, theres' no point in trying to swim upstream to get something when it's must easier to go with the flow and still get what you want. This may have become a little rant over the sillyness of this whole subject. But, this is probably the last time I am going to respond to messages on this mailing list because everything here is taken MUCH too seriously. kthnx


nomiS


From: David Vincent <david.vincent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: netstumbler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: "'netstumbler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <netstumbler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Netstumbler] Browse Networks
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:40:33 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from recon.c2security.org ([192.217.228.34]) by mc4-f32.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:41:05 -0700
Received: (qmail 12849 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2003 15:58:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 12838 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2003 15:58:53 -0000
X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jEHjJx36Oi8+Q1OJDRSDidP
Mailing-List: contact netstumbler-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: no
List-Post: <mailto:netstumbler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-Help: <mailto:netstumbler-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:netstumbler-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:netstumbler-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-Archive: http://www.michinganwireless.org/archive
Delivered-To: mailing list netstumbler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <6130FAF67D15D411BF7100E01899071F1DB3EF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2003 15:40:38.0180 (UTC) FILETIME=[F5D29640:01C33A66]
Return-Path: netstumbler-return-82-semen_demon=hotmail.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> The point being made by Mr Bond is that it the responsibility
> of the owner to protect themselves. If they are open access
> and breached it is more their fault than the 'assailants'. It
> would be foolish to stand by an idealistic "wardrivers" ethic.
>
> IMHO it should be stressed by the vendor to the buyer that
> security should be enabled, and the implications of security
> breach. Also, hacking tools available on the web could be
> monitored and if necessary, their operations shut down.

it IS stressed by the vendors, I see these warnings everywhere.  monitoring
the hacking tools is copmletely unfeasible tho, you must admit.

yes, the network owner, if they have any sort of clue, should restrict
access to their network.  but because it is open doesn't make it free or
public, and doesn't mean you can go walking there.

fields without fences are still private property.

unlocked doors do not mean you can just walk into any room you want.

unless you seek authorization, you are unauthorized!

-d


_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail