bbbbbb555

in my house i get a good signal from my wireless router and 2 other ones from neighbors i guess. i can connect to all of them since the other 2 have no kind of encryption, so i was wondering if there is a way to connect to them all at once and somehow get faster internet. im not sure if this is possible, but let me know.
thanks

kofspades

nope, it won't work

__________________
Even if you stop the clock, it gives the right time twice a day.
Once we get out of the eighties, the nineties are going to make the sixties look like the fifties.

Y2KDREAD

and it's not really that lega lto connect to neighbors networks.

__________________
Signatures are for chumps.

Flyguy

I pick up other people's signals all the time with my laptop. If your neighbor doesn't take the time to read the instructions and lock down his router, then it's his own damn fault.

glytch

I'm not positive on this, but I believe for this trick to work, you would need a wireless card for each connection.

__________________
If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit. - Mitch Hedberg

Mr Mephisto

The same way it's somebody's "own damn fault" if they don't lock their back door and you go in and steal from them?

If you do this,

a) You're a hacker (and not in the positive meaning of the word)
b) You're a thief (in the negative meaning of the word)
c) You should know better


To answer the question, there is no easy way to bind three seperate WLAN networks, each from different subnets, into one "fat pipe".


Mr Mephisto

__________________
null

tehrob

there used to be (therefore still is,) a thing called a shotgun modem that does exactly what you are talking about, but with a modem, or several modems to get faster speeds.

In fact, I think most servers can do this, I think it's called load balancing if you need something to llok up in Google some time.

bbbbbb555

thanks for the advice, i have only used the neighbors network when there were some problems with mine, but i agree with the people that say if they dont have encryption then it is free for all.

Flyguy

I'm sorry but I call complete bullshit. You're comparing apples to oranges. Trespassing on your property and someone too damn lazy to read the instruction manual are two completely different things. And I'm not a hacker by the way. I have a wireless card that AUTOMATICALLY seeks out the best network to hop on to. And if it finds one without encryption, it'll hop on. That's what it's designed to do.

Bottom line, lock down your shit or don't complain if people are using your bandwidth. It's very simple to do. It won't keep out serious hackers, (there's almost no way to keep out someone who's determined enough anyway) but it'll keep out passer-by's with net stumbler on their laptops.

portwineboy

Some people, like me, keep their wireless link open knowingly.

In NYC I frequently connect up to open WAPs and check email and such. If I was running a bit torrent client 24/7 or dl'ing huge files, then maybe I'd be a thief.

I'd say what I do is more akin to taking a drink from the neighbors garden hose.

I'm not a thief or hacker.

Proposed amendment to a law in NH (HB495) says:

1 Computer Related Offenses; Network Security. Amend RSA 638:17, I to read as follows:

I.(a) A person is guilty of the computer crime of unauthorized access to a computer or computer network when, knowing that the person is not authorized to do so, he or she knowingly accesses or causes to be accessed any computer or computer network without authorization. It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution for unauthorized access to a computer or computer network that:

[(a)] (1) The person reasonably believed that the owner of the computer or computer network, or a person empowered to license access thereto, had authorized him or her to access; or

[(b)] (2) The person reasonably believed that the owner of the computer or computer network, or a person empowered to license access thereto, would have authorized the person to access without payment of any consideration; or

[(c)] (3) The person reasonably could not have known that his or her access was unauthorized.

(b) The owner of a wireless computer network shall be responsible for securing such computer network. It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution for unauthorized access to a wireless computer network if the unauthorized access complies with the conditions set forth in subparagraph I(a)(1)-(3).

__________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.

JustDisGuy

Not necessarily. I run an open WiFi node as a service to my neighbors and as an act of self-protection.

My neighbors get free broadband access if they want it, and I get the necessary 'shadow of a doubt' about who was at the keyboard (or even, whose keyboard was in use!) when the latest GreenDay album was downloaded... well, perhaps when it was uploaded. It's apparently completely legal to download music here in Canada... uploading may or may not be.

Either way, having an open WiFi node in my home enhances the anonymous nature of the internet for users who wish to remain anonymous, and it's being provided intentionally. If I find another open WiFi node, I can only assume that it is intentionally configured that way - I see no reason to think otherwise.

__________________
"Act as if the future of the universe depends on what you do, while laughing at yourself for thinking that your actions make any difference."

Mr Mephisto

This simply shows a lack of understanding of WLAN security on your part.

It is entirely possible to secure a WLAN in such a manner that will prevent any hacking.

With regards to justifying stealing someone else's bandwidth, simply because "it's there" and it's "their own fault", I think you and I will simply have to disagree.

It is no different from stealing something from someone's house. I guess you're the kind of guy who would pick up a ball of cash left lying just outside someone's door because it was their own "damn fault" for dropping it.

Whatever floats your boat buddie...


Mr Mephisto

__________________
null

Mr Mephisto

That's fair enough and indeed quite common in some areas. It's called community networking. Kudos for you for doing this. But flyguy implied that they knew the other person had not intended it this way and it was "their own damn fault."

If people here honestly can't see a difference, then the problem lies with them, not me.

You could argue that, but chances are that most people have unencrypted WiFi networks due to errors on their part. To argue otherwise is to dodge the question. I believe in many states, claiming "ignorance" is not a legal defence. At least that's what the cop shows would have us believe.

Anyway, I'm not going to get into an ethical argument about the pros and cons of stealing bandwidth from non-technical users. Any reasonable person knows this is wrong. There's a chance it's being offered free, but there's also a higher probability that it is not.


Mr Mephisto

__________________
null

bendsley

The closest thing I can think of is something called channel(port)-bonding. You would actually need 3 network cards to make this work (in this case you are describing), so it's really not worth it.

__________________
"You hear the one about the fella who died, went to the pearly gates? St. Peter let him in. Sees a guy in a suit making a closing argument. Says, "Who's that?" St. Peter says, "Oh, that's God. Thinks he's Denny Crane."

Flyguy

Fact is that you don't know if it’s being offered free or not. Maybe the guy really is leaving his router unsecured to increase his anonymity. Personally, I think it's a good idea to help cover your ass. But I guess we can agree to disagree.

Also, regarding WLAN security, most likely there's always a way in. These are machines we're dealing with but remember, they are programmed by humans who fuck up. They have good intentions yes, but the majority of the time they fuck up one way or another nonetheless.

And another thing, if anyone has ever used this address line:

http://68.124.92.203/mpk.php?cmd=x&s...1=Submit+Query

and called someone else a "hacker" you're nothing but a fucking hypocrite. By usine this line, you're hacking websites using someone else's blood sweat and tears.

JStrider

i know you can find out the WEP encryption with some software that catches all the packets it can being sent and looks for certain "interesting" packets and after its gotten enough of them in can tell you the password... it normally takes a couple days at minimum... longer if their is low traffic...

its on the knoppix STD distro...

__________________
-=JStrider=-

~Clatto Verata Nicto

BuDDaH

Change of tone, is needed people.
Let's try sticking to the topic, ok?

__________________
I'd hit that so hard whoever could pull me out would become King of England!

Mr Mephisto

I think you misunderstand the recent developments in WLAN security.

WEP itself is a fundamentally weak encryption protocol. I won't go into technical details here, but due to the statistical probability of reusing a particular IV (Initialization Vector) to generate your WEP key, it's possible to crack WEP if you capture a sufficient number of packets. In other words, if you "listen" long enough, capture the packets and "decode" them offline later.

What does this mean?

If you "listen" (or "capture") enough WLAN packets, you can break the WEP key by using some freely available tools. Basically this means you setup your laptop to intercept WLAN traffic, and use the packets you capture to crack the key (more details available upon request).

WPA (WiFi Protected Access) introduces some significant enhancements to basic WEP to address these weaknesses. The most important contribution is a new (sub)protocol called TKIP. This stands for Temporal Key Integrity Protocol. It basically means that each and every packet uses a different (or non-predictable) IV value to generate the particular WEP key value, thereby avoiding the statistical probability of a hacker ascertaining your basic WEP key.

WPA also introduces BKR (Broadcast Key Rotation) and MIC (Message Integrity Check) that address other, less well known, weaknesses.

Finally, WPA also provides a system for key management, that allows the periodic regeneration of WEP keys, irrespective of the added security provided by TKIP.

In otherwords, WPA hardens wireless security to level such that is UNBROKEN and entirely secure.


Now, let's move on.

WPA is based upon WEP. And we know that WEP is fundamentally flawed. So the IEEE moved to introduce new security protocols to improve security in wireless networks. Hence the introduction of 802.11i (also known as WPA2).

Without going into too much detail, 802.11i/WPA2 replaces WEP entirely with a new block-cipher system based upon AES (or Advanced Encryption Standar). This is the encryption standard required by the US Government and Federal Agencies and is required for FIPS140 compliance (the Federal standard for encryption used for sensitive information).

What does this mean?

802.11i is even "stronger" than WPA. It should be considered the "next generation" of wireless security. Like WPA, it is currently unbroken and entirely secure.




THEREFORE...


WLANs have two options for copper-fastened security.

WEP with WPA (TKIP, MIC, BKR and key management)
or
802.11i / WPA2 (AES and key management)




Anyone who tells you WLANs cannot be secured doesn't know what they're talking about. If board-members want more information, or links to technical specs and documentation, just ask.



Mr Mephisto

__________________
null

Mr Mephisto

No.

I only disagree that you think it's someone's "own damn fault" if they prevent you stealing their bandwidth. We're not talking about WLAN security (which you obviously don't understand), but about fundamental ethical issues (which you seems to understand, but about which you couldn't care less).

And people drive cars without wearing seat-belts. What's your point?


I have no idea what you're talking about here, and the link doesn't appear to work. Finally, the less you curse, the more likely you'll be taken seriously.


Mr Mephisto

__________________
null

portwineboy

That link is the password generator link that is on the links board. (can I say "link" again?)

__________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.

NeoSparky

Ok, mephisto that quote just kind of pissed me off. First off someone using someone else's wifi knowingly or not is not a hacker.
per dictionary.com
1) One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff.
2) One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file

Since getting onto an unprotected wifi network is child's play (i.e. grandma could do it) there is no programing involved.

now if the networked was locked down thru wep, and mac filtering.. and still someone got thru it. Then I would consider that person a hacker (if he or she wrote the code to do it on their own.) I'd call them a script kiddie if they downloaded some script from the net to do the work for them.


also there is no 100% effective way to lock down a wifi no matter what anyone says. The only 100% secure network is an ethernet lan with no outside network access.

JustDisGuy

Erm... a 100% secure network (WiFi, wired or otherwise) is an impossibility, if you allow people to use it. A 99.999% secure network is impractical at best, and quite difficult to accomplish without some of the bleeding edge hardware out there that has integrated TRUE random number generators.

If you believe your network to be 100% secure, you've deluded yourself, and exposed your network to exploitation.

My humble opinion only, of course. <g>

__________________
"Act as if the future of the universe depends on what you do, while laughing at yourself for thinking that your actions make any difference."

NeoSparky

I agree completly.. What I mean by a network regarding 100% secure is one composed of only computers I use and in an environment that has no outside network access. i.e. a single switch connected to said computers. no phone lines, no wifi, etc..

but honestly what would be the point of that?

Mr Mephisto

WEP with properly implemented WPA is unbroken.

Note that there is a conceptual weakness to offline "dictionary attack"-like hacking, but it would require a database with 2.9010624113146182337306275467414e+39 entries. I don't think you (or any human) has anyway comprehension of how big that number is. Then you would have to scan it looking for a match. Currently, assuming approximately 25 million fields are checked per second , scanning that database would take more years than the Universe has existed. For example, in a recent analysis my colleagues and I did into a similiar dictionary attack, it worked out that it would take 1,900,000,000 years to scan a dictionary that is 25 orders of magnitude SMALLER than the one above.

So yeah... I guess you could say that it's not 100% secure. But I doubt you're gonna hack it mate. :-) You dont' seem to undestand the fundamental underlying cryptographic concepts.


Moving on,

Because WEP is still a flawed RC4 based protocol, the 802.11i protocol was developed. This replaces WEP with 128bit AES, in CCM mode (CCM is Counter Mode for confidentiality and CBC-MAC mode for integrity). It also uses an optimized 4-way handshake to establish the PTK (Pairwise Transient Key) and distribute the GTK (Group Transient Key).

If you want more information on 802.11i, and how it prevents WLAN hacking with any tools currently available, then go to http://csrc.nist.gov/wireless/S10_80...erview-jw1.pdf - The Computer Security Resource Centre of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

802.11i, using AES instead of WEP, is unbroken.


What's the point of all these statistics and references? Basically, for all intents and purposes, it IS possible to secure a WLAN against hacking.


Mr Mephisto

__________________
null

Mr Mephisto