"Dave Stanton" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
newsan.2006.03.17.19.03.39.788648@privacy.net...
North Essex, not far from Stansted Airport ;o)

Drive up our road with Retina loaded onto a PDA, and you get a whacking
great big list of networks ... mostly unsecured. Apparently ;o)

"Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dveiqo$2iaq$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk...
Nope. It generally just means you might have to give it a little thought and
a few minutes of your time before you can

"Tx2" <groups@tx2online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142627435.934849.298420@j33g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
I used to pay £3 for 30 minutes to pick up my emails when stopping in
hotels.
Now I get to spend me £3 on another pint ;o)

"Colin Wilson" <void@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e853c4ab3c2de7d98992e@news.individual.ne t...
DIY Yagi beam with a remodelled coat hanger ? ;o)

"Colin Wilson" <void@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e853c4ab3c2de7d98992e@news.individual.ne t...
Nope just with my wireless Samsing laptop

Yes it's all mad what you can do. I was thinking about gettting a yagi from
here:-

http://www.solwise.co.uk/wireless-ou...-24.htm#24YAGI

"Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dveiqo$2iaq$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk...
No the person should be insecure if he realized his network was unsecured !!
But anyway I don't see why not, if there's no WEP / WAP key being used they
it's FTA surely ?

I'm amazed so many still don't bother to use a key, you would think that the
shop would tell them or they would read the manual. Apparently it slows down
the connection but would think it was barely noticeable

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:21:34 -0000, I know everything
<00000@00000.000> wrote:

FTA as far as the WLAN segment. But if the only way to connect to
anything beyond the WLAN segment is via a VPN, then who cares if you
have unwanted guests connected to your AP? So long as your genuine
WLAN clients are secure, then all your unwanted guests can do is try
and hack other unwanted guests (or be 'attacked' by something else, of
yours, on the WLAN segment).

Encryption at the 802.11 layer and at the VPN layer is inefficient.
I'd be amazed at anyone who chose to use both.

You must have some good computer shops around where you live - the
ones round here either (a) haven't a clue or (b) sell you exactly what
you ask for and couldn't care less what you want to do with it.

True - but then neither WEP nor WPA provide compression, so it is
better to turn them off and use a VPN that (a) provides better
security and (b) does provide compression.

I can see 4 neighbours, but as you already 'know' everything', why bother to
ask ?
Regards,
Martin

"Martin²" <never@give.one> wrote in message
news:441b73ff$0$9226$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
Oooh catty, it's a joke mate, no one knows everything but some think they do
!

I know everything wrote:
Well we are shortly going to be offering FREE (or rather buy a cup of
coffee or tea and get free access) Wireless Access for 30 mins via abox
sitting in the foyer running ZoneCD.

To see how popular the technology is up here in the Borders (Greenlaw -
TD10) we decided to have a drive up to Edinburgh with Netstumbler
running on the laptop....

Between Greenlaw and Edinburgh we picked up 147 networks with roughly
1/3 being unencrypted.

Going into Edinburgh and driving to the other side of town..... we cam
away with 847 networks!!! roughly 1/2 being unencrypted - but taking
off the likes of EuroZone and various other purposely OPEN networks -
it was again roughly 1/3 of networks wer unencrypted. The stats reveal
that Netgear, Linksys, Belkin and ???? 2WIRE ???? (who makes them?) are
very popular networks - and almost all of them are not only unencrypted
- they also have the default SSID which probably suggests they are
running the default admin logins too - no - I never logged on to any of
them.

Overall quite an informative day out and some very interesting network
names like:

MAC: 0014BF87944D SSID: dickhead
MAC: 001124098E59 SSID: 3 Some

and a fair few others - the one question I do have that I hope someone
can answer.... there are a fair few Ad-Hoc networks popping up with no
encryption called "hpsetup" what are they - is this some sort of
wireless network allowing HP stores to access laptops or something???

Anyways - though I didn't intentionally try to access any networks -
while sat in a traffic jam in the centre of Edinburgh for 20 minutes -
Windows XP did it's trick (the one Microsoft programmed it to do - but
potentially breaks some sort of law) and automatically decided that it
could see a network it could access, so logged on. Having never
experienced this before I have to adit it was kinda cool to be sitting
in a car in the centre of Edinburgh VNC'ing onto my home machine (via
the wonders of Hamachi).

One last thing before I dissapear - I used to be under the impression
that giving to Adjacent networks the same name caused problems (unless
they are roaming networks) and yet in the centre of Edinburgh there
are hundreds of networks with no SSID on Channel 1, I haven't done much
research on Networks with no SSID - but one would assume that people
logging on to these networks - would always be logging on to each
others access points??

Andy

In message <OsudnejlefZCoYbZRVnygA@giganews.com>, Gizmo <Gizmo@home.now>
writes
encryption enabled. Almost 80% of the encrypted ones using WEP, many
using default names and I'd guess a fair proportion in the 'out of the
box' state with default or no passwords. Worryingly, many of them
weren't home users.
--
Clint Sharp

"Clint Sharp" <clint@clintsmc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
newsc$bMmCeVJHEFwn6@clintsmc.demon.co.uk...
You can't help some folk /

Still ... saving me a few bob when checking me emails / surfing in hotels
)

"Clint Sharp" <clint@clintsmc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
newsc$bMmCeVJHEFwn6@clintsmc.demon.co.uk...
Might try this, what prog are you using to display and store the networks ?

Btw is it now deemed illigal to connect to an un secured network ?

"I know everything" <noone@home.here> wrote in message
news:441eb58d@news.greennet.net...
I use Retina or NetStumbler.

Yup - under the Computer Misuse Act.
However; It would have to be proven beyond doubt that *you* knowingly
connected to an unsecured network.

Which of course using Microsoft Windows XP on a laptop would be
impossible to prove because the way Microsoft designed the operating
system to be "user friendly" means the laptop will quite happily
automatically log on to an unsecured network, without needing any
prompting for the user

So essentially one can argue - it's Microsoft who is breaking the law
each time the laptop connects to an unsecured network which you don't
have permission to access

"Andy Jones" <andy.s.jones@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142800431.977742.30220@g10g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
Actually it's exactly what's happening now with me. I am always connecting
to the neighbours network, little bit annoying !

"Gizmo" <Gizmo@home.now> writes:

Though could it not (and if not why not) be argued that by having an
unsecured wireless network the owner/administrator is (implicitly)
giving permission to connect? I do not use a wireless network myself,
but my understanding is that (especially unsecured) access points
often broadcast their presence, in effect saying "Internet connection
available here". Also, if the network is using DHCP (which I would
imagine that most unsecured ones do) the even once connected to the
wireless side, the connecting computer has to ask the DHCP server in
the network for an IP address. Again, if the DHCP server allocates an
IP address could this not also be taken as the owner/administrator of
the network giving permission for that computer to connect via the
network?

It is well known that ignorance of the law is not a defence to a
criminal charge. Yet is it not also the case that ignorance of how to
correctly use tools and equipment which you own or operate is not a
defence either? So the owner of the unsecured network should not be
able to use the excuse that they did not know that they had configured
their network to solicit and accept connections from all and
sundry.

"Gizmo" <Gizmo@home.now> wrote in message
news:AK6dneJzONReL4DZRVnyjg@giganews.com...
So all the stuff Jason Bradbuy showed on the gadget show last year incl
saying how he leaves his network 'open' for anyone else to use now 'naughty'
when did this 'law' come into existance ?

In message <441eb58d@news.greennet.net>, I know everything
<noone@home.here> writes
have signs saying Free WiFi Internet, help yourself, so it would have to
be assumed that they didn't leave it open for you to use.
--
Clint Sharp

"Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87veuaf6ax.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
No it doesn't.
That was used in a recent court case and the "hacker" was convicted.

If you come across one with an ID like "free access" you might get away with
it but not if its just open or default.