Just been reading this link. WEP is not as secure as I thought!

http://securityfocus.com/infocus/1814

Is it actually illegal to try and find someone's WEP key?

If NOT is it illegal to enter the WEP key into your own system and for
example connect to the Internet via someone else's system.

If NOT it MUST surely be illegal to browse someone else's file system.

Is it the wireless telegraphy act or something else that covers this.

I must stress I have no intention of trying to hack into someone else's
system. I live in a rural area and the nearest property in about a mile away
and I have no desire to go cruising up and down the neighbourhood with my
laptop!

I only want to know in case someone tried to crack MY system!

Kimball K Kinnison wrote:

Who told you it was secure, the manufacturer?

Not likely to be Wireless Telegraphy act as using 2.4GHz spectrum does
not require a specific licence, more likely the Computer Misuse Act

Kimball K Kinnison <nospam@nospam.please.org.else> wrote:
Computer Misuse Act.

The router is a computer (my WRT54G runs an ebay sniping program for
example, in addition to normal duties).
'You' are changing contents of memory that you do not have permission to
do in the router.
Perhaps also the same argument for the ISPs computers at the other end.
(packet buffers, MAC tables, ...)

WEP is horribly insecure.

In article <41c87997$0$45370$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>,
root@mauve.demon.co.uk (Ian Stirling) wrote:

Case law supporting this claim?

A router is not a computer within the meaning of the 1990 Act.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

Paul Cummins wrote:

Not exactly case law, but in this case what's the significant difference?

It runs linux booted from flash rom, surely it can't be excluded that
easily, you could build a functionally similar router out of a mini-itx
board with dual ethernet, a mini-pci WiFi card and a CF card for
storage, again booting linux ...

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 23:47 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

Case law supporting this claim?

Almost any technically aware person would accept that a router is a
computer.

Whether it is one within the meaning of the act is more debatable,
since there is no real definition in British law of what the term
"computer" means.

I believe Ian is right, but unless and until a case comes to court, we
won't know for sure.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Read the dictionary backwards and look for secret messages.

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

In article <32jhs01bbmglca9j730v7g0ofa4jailtj1@4ax.com>, me8@privacy.net
(Alex Heney) wrote:

On the contrary, most technically aware people will state that a router is
not a computer - it may compute, but it runs a single program which is
held in (semi) permanent memory and cannot be easily changed.

A computer, by comparison, runs any number of generic programs
concurrently or consecutively, and the memory can be changed easily with
simple commands.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

IANAL

A router is a hardware device with limited native "programming" potential
- if its classed as a computer, why isn`t a microwave oven, or indeed any
device with an embedded IC that gives feedback of some sort ? (ie. a kids
doll that cries, but stops when you wave the associated bottle at it)

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

In article <32jhs01bbmglca9j730v7g0ofa4jailtj1@4ax.com>,
Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> writes:
A computer scientist knows a router is a computer. However, what the
general public think of it is quite different. For many years they would
have demanded it had flashing lights and spin tape reels madly back and
forth to qualify. Now, they'd probably insist it had a monitor, or be
able to run MS Windows, or some equally banal criterion.

English case law would take account of the views of those who know what
they're talking about, and of the populist view - and no doubt come up
with something completely at odds with both. But of course it hasn't
done so yet, as many point out.

--
Tim Clark

Colin Wilson <void@btinternet.com> wrote:

If an electronic device is programmable and processes information that
makes it a computer, the traffic systems I worked on (EEPROMS) the watch I
wear, the car I drive all have computers in them (according to the manual
the car has about 25 ) These may have only been programmed once (car and
watch ones) but they still process info. The first CASE computers I worked
on in machine code with 1kb of RAM where definitely computers even if they
are now totally surpassed in power by my watch :-)

That makes me feel old :-(

What the politicians describe as a computer is not relevant as Engineers
designed them and they can and have defined them.

FYI doing a google on "definition computer" pulls up a pile of links from
some good universities which more or less all agree.

For the OP I do not know the law but if someone is worried about security
WIFI is not a good way to go, if they need it WPA is at least the min level
they should be looking at. WEP would keep out the neighbour stumbling
around but would not stop someone who wanted in. I gave up worrying and
encrypted my financial information and ignored the rest. I run WEP and have
left the router so I can see the lights, If there was activity and I or my
family are not online I would investigate. I also let the firewall track
all urls and IP just in case.


Andy

In message <memo.20041221234746.3828G@paul.vlaad.co.uk>, Paul Cummins
<agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk> writes
couple of months ago!
--
Pete Devlin
[{//////news03//////at\\\\\secondrow/////co\\\\\uk}]
Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the world.
Kaiser Wilhelm

In article <MPG.1c32e87bb459cd7298abcd@news.individual.net> ,
Colin Wilson <void@btinternet.com> writes:
The NetGear DG834G runs Linux, and anyone with a web browser can have its
source code. If that isn't a computer, I dunno what is.
--
SAm.

On the Wed, 22 Dec 2004 01:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Paul Cummins
uttered forth the following...

Paul Cummins <agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:
I have installed, and run esniper (an ebay sniping tool) on my router (the
WRT54G) It's capable of much more.

Paul Cummins wrote:
So what you're saying is that if someone connects to a wireless router
thats okay but if someone connects to a computer with a wireless card in
it, that isn't okay?

So a basic PC configured as a Linux based router is which of the above?

If the Linux based router is not a computer, then what would a computer
running Windows and MS "Internet Connection sharing" be?

If the Linux based router is a computer, then what is my Netgear DG384G
router? (I believe it runs a Linux kernel -- but if not, it still runs a
multitasking OS!).


Of course, all of this arguement is moot in the absense of a lawyer
and/or case law since a machine used for the single task of
"communications routing" might be cased as *plumbing* for the purposes
of law. I believe internet caches are classed as plumbing, else there'd
be lots of communications companies being sued for holding copies of
copyrighted data.

--
Peter.

Please pardon my ignorance. What does esniper do?

--
IamTheWalrus

IamTheWalrus <andy@filterfeeders.org> wrote:
Ebay sniping tool.

Sniping is placing a bid in the last several seconds of an auction.
Ideally, proxy bidding would mean that this isn't any better than
placing it days before.

In practice, it can enable you to get stuff cheaper, as it does not give
bidders you've outbid time to contemplate if their "maximum bid"
is really the most they are willing to pay.

It's nice to put it on a computer that's on all the time, and does
not get (for example) disks upgraded, or stuff done to it, but just stays
up all the time.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 02:12:52 -0000, Colin Wilson <void@btinternet.com>
wrote:

What makes you think one of those would not be?

For the purposes of the DPA, it is irrelevant whether they are, since
unauthorised access to them is virtually impossible without also
committing other crimes.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 01:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

Frankly, I don't believe you there.

But maybe I'm overestimating people's knowledge (even technically
aware people).



There is nothing that says a computer has to be generic.

Almost everybody would (correctly) accept that the chip in the engine
management unit of most cars is a computer. But that is less
programmable than most routers, and JUST as specific.,

There is, to me, absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a router is a
computer.

The memory in a router can be changed, and for most people, it is no
harder to download and install new firmware than it is to install a
new program on their PC.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"Stupid" is a boundless concept.

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

In MsgID<smpjs0lej6dh9ijiaifdf20i194rjsorjl@4ax.com> within
uk.telecom.broadband, 'Alex Heney' wrote:

I'd actually argue that there's a distinction between a microprocessor and
a computer. To my mind the distinction is that a computer has a
programmable user interface and will run any program written in the
correct CPU code.

However, given that the courts and lawyers want to approach the problem of
bad design and lax implementation leading to easy system ingress by
punishing the ingressors rather than the incompetent designers and users,
I doubt if they'll agree.

--
Dave Johnson - requiem@freeuk.com