people borrowing my wireless

[empip]

I have several MS virtual machines installed on my desktop.
Each has it's own mac addy. (copies appear to be given new mac when using Virtual PC Console to create new VM)
The router reported them as accessors.

Find the mac in XP -- <Network Connections> <Local Area Connection> <Support> <Details> See 'Physical Address'

Wanna change yer coat?
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/window-on-windows/?p=1406&tag=content;leftCol

http://download.cnet.com/SMAC-MAC-Address-Changer/3000-2085_4-10536535.html?tag=mncol

-0-

 

[ericmark]

I seem to remember they need to prove "mens rea" (the intent to commit a crime) except for road traffic acts.

With the old BBS system the SYSOP was responsible for reasonable checking of material sent through his box. When one registered for first week he would check all posts, second week one in 10 and so on. If you were caught you would lose access to box and would need to digi-peat to next box.

And in worst case POST OFFICE or what ever called at time would remove ones licence.

But with the 7Plus method of sending data it became impossible to check what anyone sent.

I would watch other peoples messages although as sent in packets you could easy miss a bit. Also often only got one side.

I wonder if anyone still uses packet radio?

 

[EddieM]

also, if you have a BT home hub, then it is designed to allow anyone to piggy back onto t'internet via your hub, as it broadcasts a BTFON public access signal. Well at least that was what I was told! Could be utter tripe of course.

 

[djrock]

also, if you have a BT home hub, then it is designed to allow anyone to piggy back onto t'internet via your hub, as it broadcasts a BTFON public access signal. Well at least that was what I was told! Could be utter tripe of course.

It looks like it only allows bt broadband users or if you pay 30 quid and share your own internet connection out.

By default BT FON is disabled on the home hub.

 

[Hipokondriak]

It's in the small print.

If you read the T&C's of your contract with your ISP, it will usually have a clause, that passes the responsiblity of the data being up/downloaded, to you, the person paying the bill.

So when PCPlod comes knocking, YOU have to prove it wasn't YOU doing the nasty stuff. I believe it is called the burden of proof. Or some such explanation.

But I am happy to be proven wrong. That's what we are here for, to learn and move on.

 

[djrock]

So when PCPlod comes knocking, YOU have to prove it wasn't YOU doing the nasty stuff.

QFA

It also opens you up to man in the middle attacks.

 

[lymmranger]

There is currently no legal requirement/responsibility to secure your internet connection, wireless or not.

FACT!

.....search for Davenport Lyons or ACS Law and read up on the filesharing "speculative invoicing" debacle which has rumbled on for about the last 3 years. (warning - hundreds of pages long!!!!!!!)

However common sense is that you should secure your network, especialy if your PC contains any sort of personal information

 

[djrock]

There is currently no legal requirement/responsibility to secure your internet connection, wireless or not.

FACT!

.....search for Davenport Lyons or ACS Law and read up on the filesharing "speculative invoicing" debacle which has rumbled on for about the last 3 years. (warning - hundreds of pages long!!!!!!!)

However common sense is that you should secure your network, especialy if your PC contains any sort of personal information

Theres probably not a legal responsibility to secure your WLAN but the police will still turn up at you door! Not the person who committed the crime from your ip address.

 

[mickeymouse]

Let me put a situation to you. You are in a jury service. The defendant is accused of downloading child pornography. He says "I didn't do it, someone must have stolen my wi-fi!" The prosecution says, "his wi-fi was encrypted and we found no evidence of anyone stealing his wi-fi" [it had WEP encryption, which is different and useless, but the prosecution do not say this, either because they don't know or they are evil]. You are then shown 300 images, which the prosecution says, the defendant downloaded, these images make your blood boil.

Would you believe the defendant? Something that makes my own blood boil in cases like this is that simply being accused of something is enough to make you guilty of it in far too many peoples eyes. The prosecutor is saying the defendant did it and their wi-fi was encrypted, no evidence of another using it was found. Only one MAC address used it online. You are not an IT expert, what do you do?

It's more likely to be MP3s and movies or credit cards than child porn but it will still play out the same way.

Anyhow, like the guys say if you enable the WPA2 encryption it's good enough most of the time. Probably harder to break than the mobile broadband signal now those hackers have broken the GSM algorithm and made a rainbow table.

 

[djrock]

Let me put a situation to you. You are in a jury service. The defendant is accused of downloading child pornography. He says "I didn't do it, someone must have stolen my wi-fi!" The prosecution says, "his wi-fi was encrypted and we found no evidence of anyone stealing his wi-fi" [it had WEP encryption, which is different and useless, but the prosecution do not say this, either because they don't know or they are evil]. You are then shown 300 images, which the prosecution says, the defendant downloaded, these images make your blood boil.

Would you believe the defendant? Something that makes my own blood boil in cases like this is that simply being accused of something is enough to make you guilty of it in far too many peoples eyes. The prosecutor is saying the defendant did it and their wi-fi was encrypted, no evidence of another using it was found. Only one MAC address used it online. You are not an IT expert, what do you do?

It's more likely to be MP3s and movies or credit cards than child porn but it will still play out the same way.

Anyhow, like the guys say if you enable the WPA2 encryption it's good enough most of the time. Probably harder to break than the mobile broadband signal now those hackers have broken the GSM algorithm and made a rainbow table.

In that case more evidence is needed. All his or her computers would be taken and examined.

You can break WPA OR WPA2 but that only happens if theres a weak key.

 

[mickeymouse]

In that case more evidence is needed. All his or her computers would be taken and examined.

Are you sure? I don't know if they would bring a prosecution or not, but if they did I very much doubt an average jury would need more evidence to convict.

Remember this incident where hundreds of people were most likely wrongly convicted of child porn offenses? It's not relevant other than to point out that the law is far from infallible and lots of people get convicted of things they didn't do.

Are you guessing or do you know for sure they would need more evidence to bring a prosecution? I'm hoping you are right here so it would be great if you knew for sure because a conviction would be down to the jury and nobody can know for sure what a jury will do, just think of all the angry scenes outside of courts when someone is accused of that sort of crime, those people don't know the evidence, they only know the accusation and they have already made their mind up, it only takes a percentage of those sort of people as in, the kind who presume guilt until proven innocent to end up with a problem because someone did naughty things with your wi-fi.

 

[berrylodge]

Is there a way in which i can search if there is anybody using my wireless.
It is protected but i am finding that my download limits are being reached very quickly . And my next door neighbour is a computer wiz i think he might be hacking in, Can i find out a specfic computer that is using my wireless. and what should i do to stop it, apart from removing his teeth for him???

So in answer to original question as an IT & Telecoms engineer I would recommend the following:

1. Turn on MAC Filtering and enter MAC addresses of your own equipment (including Blackberry, iPhone etc.)

2. Always use WPA2 encryption with a long phrase consisting of mixed case letters, numbers and symbols to minimise the use of dictionary attacks.

3. Switch off your routers SSID broadcast so that your network cannot be easily spotted by chancers.

4. Netgear DG834 routers have a "spoof" MAC address facility which will stop a wireless hacker in his tracks if he thinks he has found your router MAC address as many of the available Linux based hacking tools lock onto to your MAC address. Not all routers have this facility.

Even that isn't foolproof but if you follow the above as much as possible you shouldn't have any problems, I certainly haven't and a hacker known to me in my area has tried to access my wireless (requested by me) but failed.

There should be no need to switch off your router when you have finished, it is sometimes better to leave it running to keep the connection live with your ISP.

 

[djrock]

In that case more evidence is needed. All his or her computers would be taken and examined.

Are you sure? I don't know if they would bring a prosecution or not, but if they did I very much doubt an average jury would need more evidence to convict.

Remember this incident where hundreds of people were most likely wrongly convicted of child porn offenses? It's not relevant other than to point out that the law is far from infallible and lots of people get convicted of things they didn't do.

Are you guessing or do you know for sure they would need more evidence to bring a prosecution? I'm hoping you are right here so it would be great if you knew for sure because a conviction would be down to the jury and nobody can know for sure what a jury will do, just think of all the angry scenes outside of courts when someone is accused of that sort of crime, those people don't know the evidence, they only know the accusation and they have already made their mind up, it only takes a percentage of those sort of people as in, the kind who presume guilt until proven innocent to end up with a problem because someone did naughty things with your wi-fi.

I don't know for sure but I would hope so more evidence would be needed. The law needs to keep up with the Internet. Yep I know theres a minority of idiots out there.

 

[djrock]

So in answer to original question as an IT & Telecoms engineer I would recommend the following:

1. Turn on MAC Filtering and enter MAC addresses of your own equipment (including Blackberry, iPhone etc.)

2. Always use WPA2 encryption with a long phrase consisting of mixed case letters, numbers and symbols to minimise the use of dictionary attacks.

3. Switch off your routers SSID broadcast so that your network cannot be easily spotted by chancers.

4. Netgear DG834 routers have a "spoof" MAC address facility which will stop a wireless hacker in his tracks if he thinks he has found your router MAC address as many of the available Linux based hacking tools lock onto to your MAC address. Not all routers have this facility.

Even that isn't foolproof but if you follow the above as much as possible you shouldn't have any problems, I certainly haven't and a hacker known to me in my area has tried to access my wireless (requested by me) but failed.

There should be no need to switch off your router when you have finished, it is sometimes better to leave it running to keep the connection live with your ISP.

The Netgear DG834 is not wireless and I don't think MAC address spoofing is related to the wireless function. Hiding your SSID can cause problems with some devices. I have been told that there is no point in hiding your ssid since it can be easily found but I still keep mines hidden.

At the the moment WPA AES or WPA2 with a very long and random key is secure.

 

[berrylodge]

To be more precise it's a DG834G UK but it's technically the same router with wireless. I had assumed that people would realise I was referring to the wireless version.

Totally agree with security types although I only now use WPA or WPA2.

I haven't had any problems at all with accessing a wireless network with SSID disabled but I only use a server, 2 PC's a laptop and 2 iPhones.

I stand corrected on the router MAC address. This is used purely for MAC address authentication required by some ISP's and nothing to do with wireless.