Tech Support > Computers & Technology > Internet & Broadband > Do I have a bandwith 'thief'?
Do I have a bandwith 'thief'?
Posted by Rick22 on October 19th, 2006


Of late I've noticed a lot of activity from my broadband wireless
modem/router (flashing light) even when my PC is either off or not
connected to the Internet.

I suspect I have a neighbour who is 'stealing' my bandwith. Would I be
correct in thinking this and is there any way I can check if someone is
accessing my connection?

I don't have any security set on my modem/router and am loath to go to
all that hassle if I am wrong in my suspicions. I have also tried
pulling the AC plug out of the unit for a while. This sometimes
restores it to its 'idle' state but later it'll be active again.

Any suggestions, recommendations or similar case stories would be very
welcome.

Thanks.

Posted by gort on October 19th, 2006



Well you know what you need to do then !!. Enable WPA encryption and your
problems solved.

Dave


Posted by dave @ stejonda on October 19th, 2006


In message <1161229419.983882.273230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
Rick22 <rburton22@gmail.com> writes
Go into the router GUI and see if there are connected devices you don't
recognise.
?

Even if it's not happening now it could happen anytime.

--
dave @ stejonda

Posted by The s-Bray on October 19th, 2006



"Rick22" <rburton22@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161229419.983882.273230@b28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
Just think of your wireless router as your car. You wouldn't leave your car
open with the keys inside in the middle of a large town would you? So why do
you leave your wireless router wide open to any hacker/thief who can see
your signal.

Set WPA on the wireless side, change the default SSID and disable the SSID
broadcast, and also change the default username/password. I would go one
step further and use static IP addresses for the local machines. Disable
DHCP in the router and assign IP addresses (preferably outside the standard
192.168.x.x subnet, use the 10.x.x.x. address range) to each machine.



Posted by Flyer on October 19th, 2006



"Rick22" <rburton22@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161229419.983882.273230@b28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
Why not stick a big sign outside your property advertising free broadband
access for all? ;-)

Whoever is using your wireless access, could be spamming via your
connection, or downloading kiddie porn, guess who's responsible?

Setup WPA-PSK now, before it all ends in tears, you know it makes sense ;-)

P.



Posted by Bob Eager on October 19th, 2006


On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:43:40 UTC, "Rick22" <rburton22@gmail.com> wrote:

Are you going to wait until someone downloads p0rn via your connection,
and the police bash in your door at 5 a.m.? Fix the security now...

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

Posted by Pier Danone on October 19th, 2006


"Rick22" <rburton22@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161229419.983882.273230@b28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
| Of late I've noticed a lot of activity from my broadband wireless
| modem/router (flashing light) even when my PC is either off or not
| connected to the Internet.
|
| I suspect I have a neighbour who is 'stealing' my bandwith. Would I be
| correct in thinking this and is there any way I can check if someone is
| accessing my connection?

Leave your access point open and suspect you may have a bandwidth theif? ROFL!
I guess you don't use the security features on your home doors either then?


Posted by Flop on October 19th, 2006


Rick22 wrote:
The other possibility is that your computer IS accessing the network
frequently.

If you have running programs, e-mail with short refresh times,
Messenger, the router itself, etc these will just 'blip' the network but
give the impression of heavy use.

Personally, I would assume in the first place that it is my computer and
try to disprove it. Next, see if I can find a list of attached devices.

If it is your neighbour, he may be equally naive and assume that the
strongest signal is him. Can you be sure which neighbour it is? Signals
can travel a long way. If you confront them they may be upset to
discover that they have broken the law. Neighbourly trust can rebound.
Taking another posters analogy - give your neighbour your house key in
case of emergency whilst you are on holiday. Come home to find the house
stripped but no sign of break-in. First thoughts? Second thoughts will
be that a burglar has efficiently picked your locks.

But, please, try and put some security in place. It will ease your mind
tremendously.

flop

Posted by SJP on October 19th, 2006



"Rick22" <rburton22@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161229419.983882.273230@b28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...



Posted by NoNeedToKnow on October 19th, 2006


On 19 Oct 2006, "The s-Bray" <the-sbray@spammma.com> wrote:

LOL. I suggest you replace that so the DHCP server, if enabled,
uses <some other address range> than <address range on your LAN>
since for some routers, 10.x.x.x is standard :-) Your example is
good, but rather assumes the OP's LAN is set up like your own LAN!

Posted by Steve Terry on October 19th, 2006



"Rick22" <rburton22@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161229419.983882.273230@b28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

Where in the house have you put the wifi router,
putting it on the floor of a ground floor room will
more than halve the distance of having it upstairs.
(better still if you have a basement put it there)

After all you only want the RF to cover your house not the whole street

Steve Terry



Posted by Richard Tobin on October 24th, 2006


In article <WLCY622351C33@wilecoyote.org>, Flyer <me@privacy.net> wrote:

Er, they are. You can't avoid responsibility by using someone else's
connection.

-- Richard

Posted by Bob Eager on October 24th, 2006


On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:30:08 UTC, richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard
Tobin) wrote:

You might have a job proving it wasn't you.

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

Posted by NoNeedToKnow on October 24th, 2006


On 24 Oct 2006, richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:

Agreed, they are, but if the IP (because of NAT in the router connecting
the LAN to the internet) is the only information logged, whose door will
get 'the knock' do you think? At a guess, it will not be the downloader
but the owner of the wireless access point, won't it. One reason for it
to be switched off unless needed, here, at least.

Posted by Mark McIntyre on October 24th, 2006


On 24 Oct 2006 15:30:08 GMT, in uk.telecom.broadband ,
richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:

This is true, provided you can prove it was someone else (or if in
criminal court show reasonable doubt). Unfortunately thats often
harder than you'd suppose.
--
Mark McIntyre

Posted by Chris Hills on October 25th, 2006


Bob Eager wrote:
English law does not require the accused to prove their innocence, it is
up to the accuser to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Posted by Bob Eager on October 25th, 2006


On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:28:59 UTC, Chris Hills <chaz@chaz6.com> wrote:

I knew someone would say that, but I thought the points below were
obvious:

(a) You can get a lot of hassle before you are found not guilty.
(b) THe use of your IP address might be considered to be 'beyond
reasonable doubt'.
--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

Posted by NoNeedToKnow on October 25th, 2006


On 25 Oct 2006, Chris Hills <chaz@chaz6.com> wrote:

from some item on radio - innocent party accused of various illicit
use of the internet (downloading child porn, or similar) and had his
equipment confiscated while the investigation was carried out... Some
long time (a year or so) later, PC returned, but not in working order
(no mention of compensation - and the PC was used in his business!)

One might be innocent until proven guilty, but with various aspects
(such as the RIP act requiring the user to supply encryption keys 'on
demand' {from some article on the web, so perhaps incorrect!} and be
treated as an unco-operative suspect if unable so to do)...

Posted by ato_zee@hotmail.com on October 25th, 2006



On 25-Oct-2006, NoNeedToKnow <me@privacy.net> wrote:

Just say you bought the drive or PC at a car boot sale, found the
encrypted folders, and hoped one day to get round to
cracking the password.

"It'd be great if you can decrypt them for me, they might be
interesting"

OTOH they could be encrypted, boilerplate text, as decoys.
If you throw enough resources at it, you can crack most
encryption algorithms.

Posted by Steve Terry on October 26th, 2006



"Chris Hills" <chaz@chaz6.com> wrote in message
news:fhM%g.41377$r61.14811@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
With them you are Guilty until able to emigrate

Steve Terry