[MLB-WIRELESS] short wireless security new blerb.... or is that blurb?

[Justin]

hehehe,

 send me $50 Adrian, or i'll dob you in to the feds ;)

 The way I read it was using a sniffer to work out a static IP address that
will allow you to gain access is "malice" whereas just accepting a DHCP
assigned address is not, or more 'accidental' than deliberate.

 I'd be interested to know how that all stood up legally if you were doing
this from inside your house as opposed to driving by and looking for it.
"you are transmitting into my property" type argument. Any lawers on the
list? hahahaha.

Regards,
Gaz.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au
[mailto:owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au]On Behalf Of Adrian Close
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2002 4:24 PM
To: melbwireless at wireless.org.au
Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] short wireless security new blerb.


On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Justin wrote:

> A bit of a boring read, apart from a few things mentioned at the end about
> using a sniffer to obtain a static IP and get onto a network and thus
making

Wow.  So using a packet sniffer is "demonstrating malice".  I hope that
was just some editorialising on the part of the writer and not the guy
from Netsec, 'cause the latter should know better.

If you don't want people to know something, don't broadcast it in the
clear!  Argh!  (Or at least if you do, know what you're doing - curious
people should think about "wheat and chaff".)

I can see some situations where _acting_ on information you find might be
at least questionable or pose a moral dilemma, but that's about it.

Simply _knowing_ something can't be a crime, right?  Or is thought crime a
indictable offence thesedays?

Adrian (who is clearly a criminal with malicious intent).


To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message




To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message