OT: unathorized network user.

[Ed Greshko]

Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:

> Well, threads tend to evolve. The OP was given an answer to his problem, 
> but was also told about the limits of that answer. From there the thread 
> evolved into a more general discussion of wireless security.
> 
> When you are talking about wireless security, it is not just the 
> information on your local network that valuable. The network connection 
> itself is also valuable. This is especially true if the attacker wants 
> to do things that they do not want traced back to them. If they use your 
> connection to send out SPAM, you stand a good chance of having to prove 
> to your ISP that you did not do it. If they use it to break into another 
> system, you may end up explaining it to the police, or having to defent 
> yourself in court. If it is someone that lives close enough to use your 
> connection for long periods, they may use it for file sharing. This is 
> especially true if you have not changed your routers password, or have 
> UPnP enabled on the router.

I can't help but thinking that if these problems were so prevalent that 
Starbucks would have discontinued offering wireless a long time ago.  Or, 
that no city would ever think of establishing a wireless network.

> How much security is right for you depends on your needs. But knowing 
> the different options, and how well they protect you is worth knowing. A 
> person that lives in the country, and has a router that only covers 
> their property probably does not need as much security as someone that 
> lives in an apartment building. In the first case, anyone that can tap 
> into your network is going to be conspicuous. In an apartment building, 
> it is a different story. There are a lot of levels of risk between these 
> cases, but this gives you an idea.
> 
> Mikkel
> 


-- 
Civilization is fun!  Anyway, it keeps me busy!!