LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 01-22-2009, 12:00 AM   #31
RON Howe
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Posts: 61

Rep: Reputation: 15

thou shalt not steal thy neighbour's wifi
 
Old 01-22-2009, 03:47 AM   #32
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 7,453
Blog Entries: 55

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I was going to write "Ethics? That'th down thouth, ithn't it?", but I've done that in another thread a while ago. So I won't bother.
 
Old 01-22-2009, 08:50 AM   #33
farslayer
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: Willoughby, Ohio
Distribution: linuxdebian
Posts: 7,232
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 190Reputation: 190
Tons of articles on this in the Press. Do I necessarily agree with them is another question. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should. Does using the Free Wifi from the Library while sitting outside the Library on a bench seem like it should be wrong? No, but people have been arrested for it. So you could go by the 'it's not wrong unless you get caught' and try to justify your bad actions.

Using free wireless at library described as theft
Man was tapping into library connection after hours.
Published: February 24, 2007
http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/story...-8559268c.html


Michigan Man Arrested For Using Cafe’s Free WiFi From His Car
Published on May 31, 2007
http://www.netstumbler.com/2007/05/3...-from-his-car/

London Man Arrested for 'Stealing' Wi-Fi
http://www.pcworld.com/article/13632...ling_wifi.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking



So lets look at this from a different angle.

Say someone is accessing an Open Wifi access point and its YOURS.. They decide to use bit-torrent, and limewire, and whatever to download all sorts of illegal materials, (child porn, pirated software, movies, music, stolen credit card numbers) and to expand their junior cracking capabilities by using your connection to attack other peoples networks. This all gets tracked back to the owner of the WAP since it's their IP address that is being used. The owner of the connection is then arrested and thrown in jail.. It would take a little time for them to determine that didn't happen from your machine but from someone else using your connection. Meanwhile their reputation is damaged, they may loose their job, before it's all shaken out in the wash that they are innocent, all because they didn't know any better how to secure their WAP.

So you can see why some jurisdictions are a bit ham fisted over using an open Wifi AP..

All this crap about it was unlocked, the keys were in it, so it's OK. is just you, rationalizing your bad actions, with no consideration for others.

So the car with the keys in it had a baby in a child seat, when you took it for a 'joyride' is it wrong now ? You didn't know the baby was there, and you didn't intend it harm.. What do you think you will be charged with now when you are caught ? Where exactly do you draw the line ?


If you NEED internet everywhere you go, get a Aircard from Verizon, Sprint BT, whomever.. It's also more secure than connecting to any open WAP you see.. that might even be a Fake AP being used for a Man-in-the-middle-attack, and your cavalier attitude about connecting to open AP's allowed you to become the attackers latest sucker.
 
Old 01-22-2009, 09:35 AM   #34
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 12,541
Blog Entries: 23

Rep: Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943
Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTrenholme View Post
No, Qwest (as do most 'phone companies) provide only the connection from your house to the DSL modem bank at the local switch. [Your DSL modem talks to their DSL modem, but their DSL modem then connects you (over cables of some type) to some ISP.] You can choose any ISP that can connect the upstream end of the cable to the Internet backbone.

If you look closely at the 'phone company's Web pages about their DSL service, you'll usually find a link to "Alternitive ISPs" For example, here's the Qwest link.

As to cost, I have a 1.5Mb/sec. connection for $25/mo. plus another $5/mo. for MSN. When I looked at the prices quoted by the alternative providers on that link, the cheapest I saw was $25/mo. additional.
MSN is then your Information provider. The DSL, Broadband or whatever the connection is your Internet Service Provider. They don't have to provide you with a Homepage, or any other manner of information provision. That's up to the consumer to choose. You are using the Wire/medium between your modem and the PO to access the Internet. Sure you may choose any Information provider. Most small ISP utilizing the connections do control access via the media connection. For DSL it is generally the wiring from the PO to the user which is owned by a telco provider.

If you choose to use a dialup you would be using the wires to access a ISP that in turn would provide you with access to a selected Information Provider. That Information Provider may be your ISP, MSN or another selected Information provider.

You are paying QWest the $25/Mo for IP access to MSN that you chose as your Information Provider which cost you $5/Mo?
 
Old 01-22-2009, 12:28 PM   #35
PTrenholme
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Olympia, WA, USA
Distribution: Fedora, (K)Ubuntu
Posts: 4,186

Rep: Reputation: 346Reputation: 346Reputation: 346Reputation: 346
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
Hi,


MSN is then your Information provider. The DSL, Broadband or whatever the connection is your Internet Service Provider.[...]
One of us seems to be confused.

My understanding of the DSL system is:
1) There is a signal "piggy-backed" on the wire connecting my 'phone to the local switch. That signal is interpreted at both end by a DSL modem. After interpretation it is converted to a standard Ethernet signal.

2) At my end, that converted signal is cabled through a firewall to a wireless modem and several other devices.

3) At the 'phone company end, the signal is cabled to an "Internet server" that routes traffic, addressed to devices registered at my end of the DSL line, to and from the Internet backbone.

My point is that the "Internet server" in step 3 is not provided by the 'phone company as part of the DSL service they provide. All the DSL service is, is the DSL modem at their switch end and the wiring from the switch to my home.

The connection to the backbone is done by the Internet Service Provider (ISP), and all that the ISP must do is keep track of the addresses registered at my DSL end of the line and package traffic addressed to those addresses so it is processed by the 'phone company's DSL modem and sent to my DSL modem.

Again, my understanding is that the DSL connection does not provide access to every packet moving through the Internet backbone. That is, that traffic on the DSL connection is filtered down to only traffic addressed to devices registered at my end of the connection, and, of course, traffic needed to make the registration. (I don't know offhand what the maximum bandwidth of the DSL line is, but I seriously doubt that it approches that needed to handle even a small fraction of the total traffic on the backbone.)

So I pay $25/month to the 'phone company to rent a DSL modem at their end of the line connection of my 'phone to the local switch. (I already pay for the 'phone line itself as part of my land-line service.) Part of the $25 is, they say, to pay for the "cable" connecting their DSL modem to the ISP, although that "cable" is, in fact, just my share of the bandwidth of a single optical cable which means that most of the $25/month pays "overhead," not actual cost.

Anyhow, unless I misunderstood the above, the part the ISP plays in the picture is just to run a computer that transfers packets to and from the Internet backbone. For that, $5/month seems a fairly reasonable charge. If MSN provides additional services, fine, but I only need to connection to he backbone. (For example, my mail is filtered and stored in Colorado by a different ISP. I suppose I could use MSN for that, but I prefer the processing done by the Colorado company. It only costs me an additional $20/year for the mails service, and the fact that I'm paying MSN for mail service I'm not using doesn't bother me very much since, unless I'm the confused one, I need them for the connection to the backbone.)
 
Old 01-22-2009, 03:21 PM   #36
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 12,541
Blog Entries: 23

Rep: Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943Reputation: 1943
Hi,

The 'DSL' is actually a higher frequency signal that is carried over the Telco lines. The modem-modem is correct but the ISP can be anyone on the modem-fddi/wire thus you are placed on the Internet via the translation or demodulation by the modem at the PO/Telco switch.

The FCC required that the local Telco company (incumbent local exchange carriers ILECs) lease their lines to other Internet providers. This opened access of signal providers across the U.S. via the ILECs to achieve the use of the Internet throughout the U.S. telco system.

Quote:
My point is that the "Internet server" in step 3 is not provided by the 'phone company as part of the DSL service they provide. All the DSL service is, is the DSL modem at their switch end and the wiring from the switch to my home.
Here's where our points differ. The Telco doesn't have anything to do with this other than the provision of the lines. That is unless the Telco/ILEC is your ISP. You can have 'Joe's Internet' as your ISP. 'Joe's Internet' would have a lease with the 'Telco/ILEC' for the lines. 'Joe's Internet' would then provide access to what you describe as a backbone. 'Joe's Internet' would be your access provider to the Internet thus your 'ISP'. The IP is a standard and the DSL has nothing to do with it other than convey the data via the media wire. The modems (modulator-demodulator) do the work of translation of the signal transmitted across the wire.
 
Old 01-22-2009, 03:48 PM   #37
sol_47
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 4

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Sol_47 says

Thanks for your threads.

I did select my Wireless router and entered the Router password to connect to the router.
So I am using my router.

"PassMark WirelessMon", showed both my wireless router and my neighbour's router are secure (Mine is WPA-PSK Neighbours is WPA2).

I still don't understand how I can browse the internet without logging into AOL?
Also from what I have browsed, AOL does not do Fedora.
 
Old 01-22-2009, 04:00 PM   #38
tredegar
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: London, UK
Distribution: Debian "Jessie"
Posts: 6,085

Rep: Reputation: 398Reputation: 398Reputation: 398Reputation: 398
Quote:
I did select my Wireless router and entered the Router password to connect to the router.
So I am using my router.
So, you are connected to your router, but the question that needs to be answered is "What has your router connected to?"
It certainly isn't AOL.
Quote:
Also from what I have browsed, AOL does not do Fedora.
So far as I am concerned, AOL doesn't do diddly-squat, so, as I said in post #3, you are probably using your neighbour's internet connection.
Please re-read this (by now, l-o-n-g) thread from the beginning.
 
Old 01-22-2009, 04:30 PM   #39
sol_47
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 4

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Sol_47

But WirelessMon says networks that my Belkin wireless G usb adapter
can detect are secure.

Is there another way to detect my neighbours open access point?
 
Old 01-22-2009, 04:43 PM   #40
MoonMind
Member
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Switzerland
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 448

Rep: Reputation: 38
sol_47:

You're already connected to your own AP - if you told it correctly, you entered your password, so it's okay!

Your AP either connects directly to WAN (your ISP's way of providing access to the net, whatever that is) or by connecting to another router/modem. Check your actual setup! The last box in your internal chain (counting from your AP) does the WAN connection. If you want to stop that, switch it off... (or use whatever front-end is offered to handle the device).

M.
 
Old 01-22-2009, 07:16 PM   #41
PTrenholme
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Olympia, WA, USA
Distribution: Fedora, (K)Ubuntu
Posts: 4,186

Rep: Reputation: 346Reputation: 346Reputation: 346Reputation: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
[...]
Here's where our points differ. The Telco doesn't have anything to do with this other than the provision of the lines. That is unless the Telco/ILEC is your ISP. You can have 'Joe's Internet' as your ISP. 'Joe's Internet' would have a lease with the 'Telco/ILEC' for the lines. 'Joe's Internet' would then provide access to what you describe as a backbone. 'Joe's Internet' would be your access provider to the Internet thus your 'ISP'. The IP is a standard and the DSL has nothing to do with it other than convey the data via the media wire. The modems (modulator-demodulator) do the work of translation of the signal transmitted across the wire.
Um, no, here's where we're making the same point. As far as I can tell, the above extract from your post corresponds to what I was trying to say. Perhaps I could have been more clear, and, if so, I appoligize for confusing you.

To revert to sol_47's question, the discussion onebuck and I were engaged in was an attempt to clarify what an ISP must do, as opposed to what the provider can do.

Your confusion is because your ISP must connect you to the Internet, but, in your case, AOL was not part of the connection, only a "value added" offering by your ISP.

I was illustrating this point by describing my situation, where I use MSN as my ISP, but do not use the "added value" of, for example, their mail service nor their "customized" Internet Explorer interface. In fact, I seldom use my Windows OS for anything except an occasional Windows-specific application or problem. (Actually, I can't think of any reall use in several years.)

But I do pay the $5/month to MSN for ISP services.

Last edited by PTrenholme; 01-22-2009 at 07:17 PM.
 
Old 01-23-2009, 03:15 PM   #42
sol_47
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 4

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
My AP connects to the British Telcom phone network.

My ISP is AOL. They supplied the AP.

As Fedora 9 not using AOL. I am suprised there is a gateway to the ISP.

I thought whatever is happening could be repeated for other Fedora users.
Thus making an easy way to connect to the internet.
 
Old 01-24-2009, 01:45 AM   #43
PTrenholme
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Olympia, WA, USA
Distribution: Fedora, (K)Ubuntu
Posts: 4,186

Rep: Reputation: 346Reputation: 346Reputation: 346Reputation: 346
I believe you may have got it backwards but, in the terms you've used, the "AP" is your ISP and gateway. AOL may, in fact, be your ISP, but the part of the service that connects you to the Internet is separate and comes before the AOL mail and other services. All a Linux system needs is the connection, and the login you did on your Windows system was to connect you over the Internet to the additional AOL services.

So AOL is your ISP, and, after you connect to the internet using the part of AOL that's an ISP, you could log on to the AOL Internet services.

If fact, if you open Firefox (or any other browser) in Fedora, and go to the AOL web site, I believe that you'll find "Login" option where you can log in to (some of) the AOL services you were using from Windows. (By the way, you should be able to configure the Linux mail service to access your AOL mail box for you. If you look, you should find instructions of how to do so in the AOL web pages.)

And, as I intimated before, the "connect you to the internet" part of the ISP services is automatically done as soon as your DSL modem connects to the corresponding DSL modem at the local switch.

Last edited by PTrenholme; 01-24-2009 at 01:46 AM.
 
Old 01-24-2009, 08:16 AM   #44
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 4,081
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 1526Reputation: 1526Reputation: 1526Reputation: 1526Reputation: 1526Reputation: 1526Reputation: 1526Reputation: 1526Reputation: 1526Reputation: 1526Reputation: 1526
Back in the day, AOL used to be a closed system. You dialed directly into it through its own proprietary software application. Back then you'd either be with AOL, Compuserve or CIX (which was the system I used to use). As Internet Service Providers came on the scene and started to offer raw tcp/ip access rather than the closed systems that had come before, AOL had to respond to changing customer requirements and also brought in its own ISP service to provide raw tcp/ip, however, its closed system with its proprietary software was still there, it was just that it was changed to now also communicated over TCP/IP instead of a direct dial in. I'm assuming this is still the case, though I only ever tried AOL on one of their 14 day free trail things a long time ago.

It's possible that what's confusing the original poster, is this duality between AOL the ISP and AOL the content provider. he doesn't have to login to the AOL software to use the TCP/IP services AOL provide because his router/dsl will have authenticated itself. AOL isn't providing access to his pc over wifi, his nat-router is. Unless AOL has changed since I last used it, the only time he should have to login is when accessing AOLs own internal content, which I'm guessing is all done via the browser these days.


The 'whether it's ok to use an open wifi access point or not' question is a difficult one. To me it all boils down to whether its reasonable to believe its intended to be public or not. Over here in the UK, some town councils have implemented public access wifi for their town centers. Now if you're in the town and you pick up a wifi hotspot how are you to know whether its a public one, or a poorly implemented/secured private one. The only clue you'll have is the SSID, if you're from out of town you may not be familiar with the SSID naming scheme used. The 'coffee shop' example is also particularly troublesome. Yes, the Coffeeshop may only be intending it to be used for their paying customers while within the shop, but how is anyone else to know that unless the SSID is something like "Coffeeshopcustomersonly"

Finally, an analogy,

It's Halloween. Little kids are doing the rounds and come to a house where there's a bowl full of sweeties on the porch and a sign saying 'Happy Halloween, help yourself'. It's fairly clear what is expected of you. You are expected to play fair and only take a handful and leave the rest for others, but there's nothing their to expressly say this, and I'm guessing it'd be quite legal to take the lot, though not moral to do so.

Lets take this one stage further. Same porch, same bowl of sweeties, same bunch of kids in their cute little costumes, but this time... NO SIGN!

Now, this time, its very likely illegal to take some, though possibly you could consider it both reasonable and moral to still take a handful, considering that it is still Halloween, and why else would a bowl of sweeties be there? The whole thing starts to get murky though and its probably safest to just walk by.

Lastly, same porch, same bowl of sweeties, same bunch of kids, but the sign only says "Happy Halloween" Now where do you stand legally and morally? I'm sure you can see how this can be related to the SSID of that coffee shop's wifi point.

The whole thing is a can of worms. Safest not to open it.
 
Old 01-24-2009, 09:10 AM   #45
pixellany
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,802

Rep: Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738
Quote:
The 'whether it's ok to use an open wifi access point or not' question is a difficult one. To me it all boils down to whether its reasonable to believe its intended to be public or not. Over here in the UK, some town councils have implemented public access wifi for their town centers. Now if you're in the town and you pick up a wifi hotspot how are you to know whether its a public one, or a poorly implemented/secured private one. The only clue you'll have is the SSID, if you're from out of town you may not be familiar with the SSID naming scheme used. The 'coffee shop' example is also particularly troublesome. Yes, the Coffeeshop may only be intending it to be used for their paying customers while within the shop, but how is anyone else to know that unless the SSID is something like "Coffeeshopcustomersonly"
Good points here......I have underlined what I think may be the key.

If you are sitting in Moonbucks donut shop and your system finds an open signal with essid "moonbucks", the chances are pretty good that it is intended to be used free by patrons of the shop.

OTOH, if you are parked on a residential cul-de-sac and the essid is "simpsons_home", it's a pretty safe bet that they DID NOT intend for you to be tapping in.

Another angle which the lawyers might like:
You computer gets a piece of malware which is designed to load itself onto any wireless network that you connect to. By tapping in to your neighbor's AP, you cause this malware to be propogated. This in turn leads to your neighbor becoming a victim of identity theft. There's a credible argument that you share in the liability.

Get your own internet connection.....
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Internet explorer on linux or a free virtual machine? zahadumy Linux - Software 26 12-17-2006 03:19 PM
Free Internet T.V for LINUX itz2000 Linux - Software 16 06-11-2006 05:22 PM
Free internet host for Linux Web sites? General General 3 11-28-2005 04:46 PM
Free Internet connectivity with Linux? ronballard Linux - General 1 02-21-2001 04:50 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:25 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration