I have just installed a wireless/router/modem with one computer on a
wireless link and the other direct on a USB cable from the router. It is an
Origo router.

Can any neighbour use my router to get on the internet? If so how do I
prevent it?

TIA

"Heringbone" <heringNOSPAMbone@NOSSPPAM.com> wrote in message
news:2os7soFdmm8qU1@uni-berlin.de...
Its not illegal to use a wifi connection that is publicly avaliable unless
security has been broken.
Turn on WEP Encryption that should be standard, ensuring that you don't just
use the standard password settings.

This should be detailed in the manual.

Sam

---
If you have any queries regarding this email please contact Horshamnet on
08708811293.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19/08/2004

Then set your router to only accept connections from MAC addresses of the
hardware you have, and nothing else


On 22/8/04 7:46 pm, in article
4128e9f5$0$951$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net, "Albrow SJ"
<news.stn1_homenet1@homenet.f9.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 21:07:37 +0100, Graham in Melton
<nota@nospamplease.net> wrote:

MAC address filtering is a waste of time. For the average user they are an
inconvienience and for those with knowledge, easily spoofed.






greg

--
Es ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein
Denn das ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein

Greg Hennessy wrote:
why easily spoofed? Use MAC filtering myself.

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 21:00:43 +0000 (UTC), "Edward"
<edwardthornton@btinternet.com> wrote:


Its trivial to sniff the connection and find out what valid MACs are
flowing.


Encrypting the traffic with WEP > 40bits, WPA-PSK, or authenticated logon
using something like 802.1x is far more secure.


Here on my home brew AP I use PPTP and

http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/authpf.html


greg


--
Es ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein
Denn das ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein

Albrow SJ wrote:


Under Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990:

1. A person is guilty of an offence if
* he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to
secure access to any program or data held in any computer
* the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
* he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform
the function that this is the case
2. The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this
section need not be directed at
* any particular program or data
* a program or data of any particular kind; or
* a program or data in any particular computer


In a nutshell, if you know that you are not authorised to use a computer
system then it *IS* an offence regardless of whether you broke through
any security to gain ('secure') the access.

To answer the OP's question: using WEP encryption would be better than
no security, WPA would be even better. Having the Wireless Access Point
not broadcast its SSID would also help.

The best way forward, of course, is to assume that whatever you do you
will never be 100% secure.

In article <412914f9$0$31783$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
linker3000@youkaytwodotnetuk2.net (Linker3000) wrote:

So how do you know if a network with no security is 'open' or 'closed'?

IOW, how do you know the intention of the owner _before_ accessing the
network?

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

https://www.flextel.ltd.uk/cgi-bin/s...h?page=A119302

Yes I know, I wondered how long it would take.

However: there are many computers \ wificards that will simply pick up a
wifi connection if avaliable, and many (or at least some) that are
intentionally open.

It could be considered that it is not obvious that access is unauthorised if
security is zilch. If wep was on with default settings however then it would
be a different matter.

There is also the issue that actually the person isn't securing access to a
computer or any data by picking up a wireless access point automatically and
browsing the net. Whilst technically this is no different to going in and
seeing what data is avaliable on local computers, in practice the majority
of people picking up open access points are unlikley to do anything bad,
only use the internet through it.

The fact that the law is rather ambiguious could be why there have (as I am
aware) been very few convictions.

Sam

True - its all relative, most of us don't have anything worth getting at on
home networks, so discouraging casual browsing localls and free net access
is probably enough.

Sam

---
If you have any queries regarding this email please contact Horshamnet on
08708811293.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19/08/2004

Greg Hennessy wrote:

While it's certainly not foolproof, it's another layer of security, it
costs nothing to use, so it basically free. Use it, but don't rely in
it by itself. Used in conjunction with WEP, and hiding of SSID,
security will be just fine. If you are mega paranoid, change your WEP
keys every couple of weeks.

--
"This dog don't give a feck..."

Paul Cummins wrote:

I know what you mean - but you might as well ask 'If I'm passing a house
and I see the front door open and a wallet on the hall table how do I
know whether the owner wants me to take it or not?'

In practice, you don't know the intention of the network owner, so you
ASSUME NOTHING.

On the flip side, if you have a system 'open to the world' that is not
actually for public access then you'd be daft not to put up some sort of
front page with a note!

Albrow SJ wrote:

Agreed

In article <41291dba$0$31790$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
linker3000@youkaytwodotnetuk2.net (Linker3000) wrote:

BT Openzone is a secure network, but public access is encouraged...

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

https://www.flextel.ltd.uk/cgi-bin/s...h?page=A119302

Heringbone wrote:

you're using term "illegal" can you tell us all what laws you think
might be broken by someone utilizing a service you have publicly advertised?

Paul Cummins wrote:
hacking through the front end and you are committing an offence.

Greg Hennessy <me@privacy.net> wrote:

: MAC address filtering is a waste of time. For the average user they are an
: inconvienience and for those with knowledge, easily spoofed.

Disagree totally! To just keep neighbours out (none of who I expect to have
ANY hacking abaility) it's both easy to setup, no inconvenience whatsoever
and works well!

On 23 Aug 2004 10:21:44 GMT, Brian McIlwrath <bkm@bkmpc.bnsc.rl.ac.uk>
wrote:

Which properly configured encryption will do by default.

It's pointless complication.


greg
--
Es ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein
Denn das ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein

Easy - Any property which is not yours, is not yours for the taking.

If you see a wireless network which is open then don't assume it's free and
you are allowed to use it.

Ask permission first otherwise you are not authorised and could be then
performing an illegal act :-)



"Paul Cummins" <agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20040822230418.2040T@0007148297.gst-group.co.uk...

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 21:38:03 +0100, Greg Hennessy <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

But its highly unlikely that the average 'next door neighbour' would
have anything like that level of knowledge.

Chris

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 22:49:39 +0100, Linker3000
<linker3000@youkaytwodotnetuk2.net> wrote:

I don't see how that is relevant here. He's not accessing any computer
system to which he's not entitled. He's just accessing publicly
available open systems connected to the internet.

Chris