Printable View
Paranoid I say paranoid. This place is becoming worse everyday. Always putting people down. I for one share my bandwidth it is not stealing because my ISP has no problem with me having a wireless router for the purpose of sharing my bandwidth with some computers. Some of you guys here are getting too anal about stuff.
hahaha... take a pic of that desktop in the car, that i HAVE to see ;)
as for the rant... much appreciated. as i said in an earlier posts, the white hats need to keep up with the black hats, and the only way to do it is to think like a black hat (in a sense).
thought it was blue hats...lol....i must be missinformed....very nice post HTRegz, I couldn't agree with you more.
P.S. I'd love to see a picture of that desktop in that car :D
White Hats --> out to inform people, the good guys :thumbsup:
Grey Hats --> your pranksters... lil script kiddies and such, doing more annoying things than anything :2pick:
Black Hats --> the bad guys... out for system destruction, taking full advantage of exploits, etc. etc. etc. :lildevil:
Pics of the car will be posted as soon as the storm stops ;) I'll just be posting links to my server (car, stereo and who knows what else) haha...
Hi, I have read through this thread and would like to comment as follows:
1. I think that it is an excellent tutorial insofar as it demonstrates the vulnerabilities of wireless networking. I have never trusted this technology completely (the kit is still in its box by my desk!) I also remember that big fuss in New Zealand about 18 months ago.
2. The style is perhaps a little uncomfortable to some, but in NO way came across as boastful or malicious to me. It seemed to be what we call "tongue in cheek", or slightly ironical. In fact, it reminded me of William Shakespear's play "Julius Caesar" and the speech by Cassius 'I come to bury Caesar not to praise him............." followed by numerous interjections of "for Brutus is an honourable man".
3. I have re-read it and do not feel that there is sufficient technical detail for me to get in the car tomorrow and go out wardriving. Hey, I could write stuff on Tempest and Nonstop that would get me in big trouble over here, but it would still be true, and would demonstrate the security vulnerabilities involved. It would also be way outside the budgets of even the "black hats" who did not have government intelligence agency funding. Anyone can afford wi-fi, ALL who do are at risk...............I think that this was a well-intentioned tutorial.
4. Plastic warned about encryption levels and default passwords...........good points....."white hat" stuff I suppose?.......a bad guy/kiddie would not have bothered?
I guess that my feelings are "don't shoot the messenger just because the news is bad"
Just my personal views of course
Cheers
nihil.... thanks for the support my friend
I know I said I'd take this to PM but I need to post this to demonstrate that The3ntropy is _not_ the only person holding his view .Quote:
Originally posted here by Plastic
Personally, The3ntropy, I think you need to have a little bit more of an open mind on things... and step aside from the one-sided view you have on this.
I for one agree with most of his points.
[edit] missed out The3ntropy's name in the above bit - fixed now[/edit]
Since I was the first to neg him on his first tut on this subject, I guess I should say something.
First, and I don't believe I am doing this, but I have to take exception to what thehorse13 said
Poor analogy. Unfortunately this forum is not closed to just those interested in protecting their systems but is also available to crackers and cracker wanna-bes.Quote:
We don't put police in jail for sharing this knowledge between different agencies even though the information is highly detailed and describes exactly how to carry out the con.
But I do agree with his sentiments.
For the tutorial itself, I personally have these opinions:
1) I think it could have gone even further in depth
2) I think you should read steve.milner's first post again before writing another tutorial.
3) It wasn't that bad at all
As far as the subject, I think that WANs are one of the biggest mistakes and evils of the computer age. It grew out of not only the extreme greed of corporate executives who manufacture these devices and the arrogance of the developers of them, but of the lazy self-centered nature of the our current society which demanded them, all without a forethought or afterthought of the consequences.
ANYTHING that brings the problems into the public eye is welcome in my book.
And as far as the laws in the U.S. go, I think there is still much confusion and double standards; it is not legal for me to intercept tv satellite broadcast radio waves that enter my house without paying the broadcaster, but I can war drive?
[RANT]
Raise your hands everyone who thinks we don't have a large number of script kiddies visiting this site to see what they can find.......
While the content of this Tutorial may not have been news to many of us I can assure you that there are several that come here to whom this would have been, (remember Joe and Josephine)? They may have just installed a WLAN to connect their new laptop to their network, (they live in an apartment and they aren't allowed to drill holes in the walls), and they heard a friend say that these WLANs are really insecure.... So they come here to find out how they are insecure. This may then spur them on to find out how they can secure the WLAN..... and that, girls and boys, is why AO is here........ :eek:
As to the legality of wardriving.... It is legal in the US.... And what are you going to do about it anyway. If a cop stops me he has no clue what the laptop is doing and if he asks I can simply tell him it's my navigation system.... there's lots out there that work with a laptop. What happens if I am wardriving my own network and pick up my neighbors? Am I a bad person.... Hell no.....
Moving on..... If you install an unsecured WLAN and I detect it and utilize some of your bandwidth for non-illegal purposes will someone please explain what I did wrong!!!! The network is providing me with an address and connecting me to the Internet. I did nothing to make that connection except be in the right place when the network is up and running. So I go ahead and check my email..... Jeez, lighten up..... If you don't want "piggy-backers" then force the wardriver to take a positive action to get onto your network. If you _really_ don't want them then MAC filter and WEP the damn thing. Ya, I know... easy to crack.... But at least you know that the person using your bandwidth is likely to be using it for bad purposes and you can log all traffic on the WLAN to CYA.
It is the responsibility of those who utilize technology to ensure that their technology is safe and secure for the use of those it is intended for. It is not my responsibility to hold their hand nor to shy away if they provide me access at a time that I desire it. If they truly don't want a "piggybacker" they can do what I did when I started playing with high tech gadgetry.... I learned about it..... Simple as that......
AO is here for us all to use as a reference and a forum for discussion about computer security related issues. I've said it before and I'm going to say it again so those of you who yawn at repetition yawn away......... The art of security is the understanding of the threat.... Understand the threat and you understand the techniques to mitigate said threat..... Be unaware of the threat or mis-understand it and you are a disaster waiting to happen. Thus, Plastic's "this is how to wardrive" tutorial is a benefit to this community. Is it going to teach some little packet monkey how to wardrive your precious network? Probably..... But if you read the tutorial and understood it then you will have already secured the WLAN against him.... If you didn't then it is no fault but your own if you leave a totally unsecured WLAN swinging out there in the breeze......
If you holier than thou security guru's out there think that the censorship of information that may be critical to someone one day will benefit anyone you are severely mislead. I bet most of you don't cry so hard about Linux being Open Source Software..... Ah, but you are getting something for free there aren't you...... The principle is _exactly_ the same..... You all rave about the benefits of OSS...... Newflash: Security _has_ to be OS too or we all lose.
[/RANT]
Thank you for your time......
Amen Tiger.
-Maestr0
It is not illegal for you to intercept tv/radio waves...much like wifi they are sent out to the public for you to use (this is why you don't have to pay to use your tv or radio.). As for satellite you can "intercept" the signal all you want and that is legal, but it would be illegal to descramble it. The difference here is that the satellite company is taking steps to secure their communication channel, the WAP providers are not.Quote:
Originally posted here by IKnowNot
And as far as the laws in the U.S. go, I think there is still much confusion and double standards; it is not legal for me to intercept tv satellite broadcast radio waves that enter my house without paying the broadcaster, but I can war drive?
[Rant]
For those of you that don't like the fact that the airwaves (and whatever we can pull off of them) are free in America...leave there are plenty of other countries where every bit of broadcast bandwidth is governmentally controlled. As it is most of our airwaves are cooperate controlled, luckily for all of us 802.11 works over the public channels (this has to do with who can broadcast, any one can receive any channel they want.) as such it is a public resource. If you have an office building with a courtyard in front, any body is free to sit and utilize that courtyard, WAP's are the same thing...don't like it, then build a wall. And yes as an old school HAM geek I am very familiar with these laws and the implementations.
[/Rant]
yea... to make an analogy on that:
it's legal to intercept sattelite transmissions, but the second you decrypt them, you've crossed the line... the EXACT same way it's perfectly legal to detect the networks, but the second you connect to that network, you've crossed the line
Under Canadian laws, everything lies on the expectation of confidentiality. If you crypts the com line, you expect that no one will be able to listen (except the intended recipient). If someone break that expectation (unauthorized decryption), he break the law. If you speak out loud in a restaurant, you can't expect privacy... And if someone uses what you said in that restaurant, he didn't break the law.
The same apply to wireless (802.11 in our case), cellular, radio or satellite tv.
Why some of you are angry about security full disclosure? We have the right to know. Ok, script kiddies can use the information, but if I know how they proceed I will be able to stop them and/or detect them. When I detect misuse, I can report it. Sometime legal action can be taken against intruders. But... If I don't know how to stop and detect them, how I can report misuse and protect against? How IDS will work?
I don’t want to start a debate on full disclosure. Just let the information flow and chill.
Plus this tutorial can easily serve as a wake up call to anyone running a wireless network out there who hasn't considered the points raised by the author. Of course, if you don't change your router's default Network name, you're just asking for trouble
I found this useful information at-http://www.duntemann.com/wifi/wardrivingfaq.htm
Given that this is taken from a published book. I would assume that they took the time to have an editor check their facts. Noting where networks exist is not illegal. If at any point you get an IP from that WAP and send 1 packet of data, you have broken the law.
"The legality of wardriving hasn't been tested, but few people think that wardriving itself is illegal. What is certainly illegal is connecting to and using networks without the network owner's permission (which is what most people call "breaking into a network") and wardriving has taken some hits in the press because network crackers will sometimes use wardriving tools to locate networks to break into. It's the ancient conundrum of the uses to which tools are put: A crowbar is handy for taking apart pallets for use as firewood, but a crowbar can also be used to break into buildings. Should crowbars then be illegal? Hardly. The gotcha is that this is a very new phenomenon, and the law hasn't entirely caught up with networking as a whole, much less the peripheral issues that emerge with regularity from the seething cauldron of technology innovation.
To keep wardriving legal, it's important to 1) obey the law as it exists today, and 2) do our best to encourage journalists to draw the distinction between wardriving tools and their abuse by crackers. Public perception is extremely important. If you connect to other people's networks illegally, it's your butt in a sling and nobody else's, but if you brag about it and the press picks it up, you hurt us all."
just to point out how AO and its members have changed try taking a look at -> http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=155714
I just noticed it at the bottom of this thread in the similar threads section - heh even I am guilty of the 1 line reply in it and I never got neg'd lol
now if I dont slabber on at least 5xtimes what is neccessary you can be assurd there is something wrong ;)
v_Ln
Radio waves travel at the speed of light they are also easy to pick up. If you have a wireless network and you don't secure it you must expect other people to be able to listen in. Thats a fact of life. No law is going to protect you. If you have a wireless network unincrypted and someone el's is using your bandwith thats your fault.
You have the option to secure your wireless network, if you don't, well thats your fault.
First of all - it's a good thing it took me a while to register (just so I could post to this topic), as it took me just enough time to cool down :D
There are some serious panties in a twist over this, and that saddens me. First of all, I have become curious about wardriving for a couple of reasons. The suspicion, sarcasm, and vitriol on this board toward Plastic is not warranted. For anyone that has a modicum of knowledge about law (in the USA at least) and the public airwaves, this does not even remotely fall into the realm of illegal behavior. No one is advocating stealing bandwidth or breaking into networks and stealing information.
Not only are there plenty of legit uses for this knowledge, but the tutoral is a great service to anyone not aware of how vulnerable he or she may be from someone inclined to abuse it.
I was curious to know how easy it would be to camp out in front of my house and surf the net at my expense, as well as many of my friends. Secondly, there are plenty of public access spots in the cities I visit, and I thought it would be a simple way to find them once I got in the vicinity.
OK - so, it just so happens that a guy in my office saw a mention of "Network Stumbler" on TechTV (if you want to rant, you might as well start there?) - and I pretty much executed the central theme of this tutorial three days before I saw this thread.
Now - for all of you guys that think Plastic was blowing his horn and puffing out his chest - let me first say that, what I got out of it, was merely that this is a rather easy thing to do, and that Plastic was just being conversational to keep a potentially dry subject interesting.
Now - Network Stumbler is a little piece of freeware that is a full blown Windows application. It's maybe a 190k? file that takes mere seconds to download, and another ten to install. When you launch the application, it instantly finds all the wireless access points within range of your device, lists them, and provides a variety of information to differentiate one network from another. When you close the session or the program, it asks you if you want to save the session list. I have done this merely to see if what I was picking up the second time around was the same network I picked up the first time (it was me I was detecting). Trust me, this is not genius at work. If any of you have more than two synapses connected in series, you'll be able to do this. Having already done it, you would realize just how laughable bragging about your war driving prowess really is. Next, having tried it out in my neighborhood, I figured the 60 MPH comment was just for laughs (same with the mention of the destop in the car - lighten up!).
I'm sure Plastic is a bright guy, - but this was not an endeavor that requires anyone to tax their abilities. As a matter of fact, from his tone, he's probably a fairly witty, unassuming, and friendly person. Some of the critiques on his tutorial acted like he was flaunting his mensa certificate.
As I drove around (with the laptop shielded by my car, no external antenna) it was obvious that I would have to slow down when I got a "hit" so that I didn't lose the signal. This is common sense. I think that the tutorial was merely being descriptive in what goes on when someone is war driving. Plastic is not aiding or abetting theft by merely making simple comments on intuitive behavior, and this is not the place where thieves are lurking to get their information - there are much better sources for this kind of thing - on the 'net, Barnes and Noble, the hallway at school, etc. Pesronally, I have become much more inclined to defend myself against this sort of thing reading articles like the one Plastic offered because it sensitizes the average person to relate to how easy it is, and how vulnerable one is. To that point, see Steve Gibson's article on his experience with Denial of Service attacks on GRC.com. Do you think Steve is promoting DoS attacks just because he wrote an interesting story on how his site was brought down?
As to Plastic's motivation - what in the world???? Some people on here need to read a newspaper once in a while. If this were a highly technical discussion on how to hack - that could be a concern. It's not like we were flies on the wall, reading conversations between script kiddies in a chatroom, and learning "all the tricks." It takes a lot of cynicism and anger to see Plastic as a criminal. It's the old argument of seeing the potential for abusing a legal activity as the equivalent actually being a criminal.
As to learning what to do to prevent this... I realize some people on this board may not have done any more than plug in your router and go. I know for a fact the simple, "one pager" my router came with to get me up and running mentioned how to give the system a SSID, set up the WEP, and how to access the router's parameters from a simple set up screen in my browser where all of this info was kept. Not that it wouldn't help folks intimidated by computers to get a nice "step by step" on how to protect yourself. That would be welcome. Not all quick start guides are all that well written.
I think, by reading Plastic's tutorial, one must have discovered that, at least you need to enable WEP on your router. Jeez - quit worrying about whether the "perspective" was written from the user's point of view, or the hacker's! Believe me, this was not even written at the level of hacker 101. (I am a sales guy, certainly no system admin or engineer, and it was obvious to me that this was for the non-network literate).
Simply put, if Plastic doesn't tell you how, check your network gear vendor web site. They all have 24x7 free tech support, and will talk you through it.
Plastic gave you more than enough clues to fix your systems, and made it relevant to you by demonstrating how easy it is. Face it, a real nefarous wardriver would laugh at this tutorial. I am no computer techie, and I figured it out (not a lot of figuring, really!) almost blindly. If I can do it, anyone motivated to War Drive, possessing the knowlege to use Google and read at an 8th grade level can figure this out.
Lastly - Plastic - you had one fallacy in your tutorial. Paraphrasing, you stated that more than 75% of the networks out there are set at "out of the box" defaults. This is not true from my experience. In driving around my neighborhood, I found 40 networks (5 in my driveway walking out to the car). Of those, 12 were encrypted, which means 70% were not. You were 5% off :p You are such an alarmist!
well... at least in all the places in san antonio and tulsa where I've wardriven, about 75% of the networks were "out of the box" defaults. I can't vouch for your location, but either way, even 5% is still WAY to much.
Texas law seems pretty clear about it...
33A.04. Theft of Telecommunications Service
(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly obtains or attempts to obtain telecommunications service to avoid or cause another person to avoid a lawful charge for that service by using:
(1) a telecommunications access device without the authority or consent of the subscriber or lawful holder of the device or pursuant to an agreement for an exchange of value with the subscriber or lawful holder of the device to allow another person to use the device;
I think Plastic did a good job it is one of his first posts, and I think you all should cut him some slack he is trying which is what it takes to become something great. Without a start there can be no journey.....
I guess I am a wardriver and didn't even know it. I use a belkin WIFI card @ 802.11 for connecting to the various Flying J networks that I am a subscriber to. The Belkin software lists any network that it receives and the signal strenghs available. In some locations, it shows several other networks that are also received in that area. In one such location, the strongest signal was from a local buisness that I connected to automatically, and actually had to change my parking location to be able to connect to the Flying J network. Since then, the Flying J corp has had to complain to the local buisness and force them to encrypt their wireless network, so that the Flying J customers could connect to their system in certain areas of their parking lot.
Now, was I breaking the law, when I connected to this buisness's network, even if it overroad the system I am legally intitled to connect to??
I can understand the views of the legality of wardriving. I can understand people being upset that such a tutorial was placed publicly. I agree that this tutorial will teach script kiddies and others who want to act malicously how to wardrive.
But I'm happy such tutorials are out there for myself and other "admins" to read. So that we can learn the mind set of these individuals and how they perform such acts. So that we can better secure our networks.
Look you can learn to do just about every illegal thing that there is to do to a computer or network at AO. Just beacuse Plastic dos'nt sugar coat it he should'nt be negged ...
I'am right and you know it. This is a place to learn, don't forget that.....now you all know how simple it is to wardrive maybe we can take it upon our selfs to learn how to stop this agaist our own nw.
There is at least one legit use for wardriving: detecting an unauthorized WAP on your system. Suppose you're the admin for a large system at a large facility. You may have policies against wireless networking (for security purposes), but dollars to donuts some yahoo will try to install a WAP on his own. While there are ways of preventing this, and other ways of detecting it, doing a bit of wardriving within your facility can be useful.
Ok kool tutorial told me some intresting stuff. Ok I have a wireless network and the in your tutorial it talk about router well I have got an object called Wireless Acess Point/Router, and i want to know hoe do i configure the login for this thing. so not everyone can get it. and i know how to add passowrd to shared folders are their any other problems that i could have with security of my network.
There were some posts where people were saying that if you post stuff like plastic did that it will attract script kiddies/crackers. So?? You think there are none that read here ?? If they dont read it here they will just find it somewhere else. How about www.wardriving.com ?? That site and its links will tell you way more than plastics article, WAY MORE. I just dont see the reason of complaining about what he posted. All information about security will be pretty much the same whether its coming from the crackers or from the CS professionals. There will also be differences but then thats why its good to read from both sources so you can get a full picture.
People seem to be confusing wardriving with hacking, when in fact it is neither. Wardriving is basically driving around to find signals that report they are open. That's right, these networks are already being broadcasted out. Wardriving is similar to walking down the neighehborhood looking for people who have wooden signs in their front yard that says "I HAVE A NETWORK" and then jotting down which house has what according to their sign. Wireless networks and WAP's operate in the exact same fashion. By continually boradcasting their network information they are putting a sign up. Wardriving is looking for signs, not breaking into, taking advantage of, nor any such nonsense.
People may also confuse wardriving with cracking, and thus call it illegal. No, even under Texas law (stated on an bove post) where it is illegal to attempt to gain service, it is not illegal to *discover* a service. By attempting to gain access to that network )ie. logging in) the law is broken, but not by just knocking on the door (in which case, those who wardrive already know we just filter the packets they are already sending out, we don't send any back). And no, the excuse "knocking on a door only leads to one thing" is also nonsense because you can not preassume everyone is a script kiddie that cracks everything they come across. I repeat. Wardriving is not illegal because it is watching, looking, and knocking on doors, never trying to gain access. Hell, wardriiving works (repeated) because they are already sending out the "do you want to join? this is my network name!" packets, with the programs we run merely sniffing the air. Once finding a network through wardriving and then trying to access by logging in, then you are attempting to have a service, which is illegal.
I've begun to notice there are far too many overly zealous computer nerds here, who assume that anything not done in a computer class must be illegal. But this is generally not the case, especially when you can compare something like wardriving to trying to find a random nickle on the ground.
What kind of wireless card would you need to weardrive whats the difference between PCMCIA and a PC Card .
everyones getting wrapped in up morals. this tutorial doesnt apply to non windows users, netstumbler only works with winblows.. someone mentioned linksys? netstumbler isnt compatible.
I am just after reading the tutorial and all the posts that came with it. Seeing the date of the first post I know this might be a bit late to post. In any case I just wanted to give my humble opinion on the subject.
Firstly while the tutorial is written in a tongue in cheek style the most important information is present. It is true I would have preferred a more detailed tutorial. There are some important points missing from the original post but they are, in most cases, treated in the following posts. One point I didn¡¦t and I know it was quite common before is when wardrivers tag the networks they find. That is they chalk a symbol on the side of the building where they found the wan. I used to have an article, written in the general press, which gave the list of symbols and their meaning. This can be useful for the network admin as that new graffiti on the wall the building might just be giving out some important information about his network. Plastic is probably lucky he didn¡¦t include this information as he probably would then have been negged right of the planetƒ¼. I am sure that this information is readily available on all the other sites out there.
Now to the debate. Is the thread valid? Even though it doesn¡¦t conform to my personnel tastes I would have to say yes. I feel that the problem arises more from form rather than content. Even in the short time I have been a member it has been made clear that this is not a forum for lamers, script kiddies, etc. Anyone one who takes the time to prepare a tutorial does so with this in mind. They know that the people reading their work are looking for a serious and mature post. Tooting your own horn just doesn¡¦t cut it. The members of antionline are multinational, multicultural and to make matters worst most even have their own personality. I suppose this isn¡¦t the first time and wont be the last time there is such a problem.
Hello, I didn't read ALL the replys so i hope i don't repeat something...
First, there's nothing wrong with the tutorial.
Second: for securing the wireless: wep's 64bit key is ridiculous, 128bit key is breakable in a couple of hours (or in a day if very low traffic)
Third: ever heard about warchalking?
Sure it is... I have a Linksys Instant Wireless Network Card, and a Linksys wireless router. Netstumbler works fine with the Linksys card, and has no problems picking up the router.Quote:
Originally posted by drunkenmath
everyones getting wrapped in up morals. this tutorial doesnt apply to non windows users, netstumbler only works with winblows.. someone mentioned linksys? netstumbler isnt compatible.
Is it not best to have the Computer that your using for your war driving project to be set up as a DHCP server and adding a spot of DNS Highjacking so you can snoop?
"okay... I'm sorry that you guys don't understand that wardriving is the DETECTION of networks, not stealing bandwith. It's NOT illegal until you connect."
Question is though, why miss out the fun bit?
Why would you want to park beside a building, you know full well that signals are going to spill outside the building, so why would you want to just find it?
why would you not set up your portable, as DHCP running netstumbler or whatever attempt to highjack the DNS and snoop the network its only if you destroy or alter data on the network that you are breaking the law is it not?
I don't understand the law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wasn't me it was spoofed
i feel this tut is written from a crackers point of view and therefor could be more usefull with a "how to protect" section but i found it very usefull. I am about to setup a wireless network and this post made me do the research. If plastic hadnt brought this subject up then im sure many people on AO may not have heard of it.
Thanks paranoid_sonic
thats the term I was looking for Warchalking. The pratice of chalking symbols that give information on your wireless network on the outiside of your building. For more information try this site http://www.warchalking.org/
You don't break the law by searching networks, but you do if you sniff the network, log in unauthorized, do damage, make it temporarly unavailable (Denial-of-Servic), etc...Quote:
Why would you want to park beside a building, you know full well that signals are going to spill outside the building, so why would you want to just find it?
why would you not set up your portable, as DHCP running netstumbler or whatever attempt to highjack the DNS and snoop the network its only if you destroy or alter data on the network that you are breaking the law is it not?
And for everyone who's planning to set up a wireless:
I think i heard something about the wep2 protocol to secure the waves. The key would be (i think) twice as long as the wep 128bit key and would be unbreakable for a lat's say 15 years...
Except if you can CIA-computers :D
This is an excellent tutorial on Wardriving http://mryowler.cyberarmy.com/wirele...TDGTW-WarXing/