[nycwireless] warchalking
please dont do this unless its your access point and you are sharing it publicly Joe Plotkin heyjoe at bway.net Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:32:27 -0400 I guess we can add this to the meeting agenda -- for discussion at the bar: http://www.blackbeltjones.com/warchalking/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] warchalking
Anthony, I think what Joe posted is merely a piece of information about creating hobo-language for free wireless networking. That's all what the URL is about as far as I can understand. I think it may be something interesting for at least some members of NYCwireless. Also I wonder whether "public" you meant below is the same as "free", and what audience you are referring to. Obviously one can create a free networking just for himself/herself but it is not "public". Or one can create a "public" group but insisted on stringent membership requirement so that practically it is not free for everyone or a community. Bon On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Anthony Townsend wrote: > please dont do this unless its your access point and you are sharing it > publicly > > > > Joe Plotkin heyjoe at bway.net > Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:32:27 -0400 > > I guess we can add this to the meeting agenda -- for discussion at the > bar: > > http://www.blackbeltjones.com/warchalking/ > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] warchalking
Really guys, I just thought it was amusing. I guess my sarcasm doesn't always come thru in digital space the same. -> Joe At 10:59 AM -0400 6/26/02, Bon sy wrote: >Anthony, > > I think what Joe posted is merely a piece of information about >creating hobo-language for free wireless networking. That's all what the >URL is about as far as I can understand. I think it may be >something interesting for at least some members of NYCwireless. > > Also I wonder whether "public" you meant below is the same as >"free", and what audience you are referring to. Obviously one can create a >free networking just for himself/herself but it is not "public". Or one >can create a "public" group but insisted on stringent membership >requirement so that practically it is not free for everyone or a >community. > >Bon > > > >On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Anthony Townsend wrote: > >> please dont do this unless its your access point and you are sharing it >> publicly >> >> >> >> Joe Plotkin heyjoe at bway.net >> Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:32:27 -0400 >> >> I guess we can add this to the meeting agenda -- for discussion at the >> bar: >> >> http://www.blackbeltjones.com/warchalking/ >> >> -- >> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ >> Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ >> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ >> > >-- >NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ >Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ >Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- === Joe Plotkin DSL/Marketing Bway.net - NYC's Best Internet === Bway.net 459 Broadway, 2nd floor New York, NY 10013 vox: 212.982.9800 fax: 212.982.5499 efax: 561.365.5877 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] xDSL info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.bway.net === Fight the Monopoly! http://www.TeleTruth.org === -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] warchalking
it was interesteing and thanks for posting it. i just wanted to raise people's awareness that doing this is not good practice for wireless networkers and particularly NYCwireless volunteers Anthony -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] security business
I'm putting together a business plan for a WLAN security and services business. Anyone interested in doing this, people already, thoughts, reactions? Josh -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] TWC - Cease & Desist...
Just thought I'd mention that I got a letter from TWC about an open wireless network... And asking that it be closed up or I'll have my account suspended... It never actually says Cease & Desist- Always wanted one of those :-) I guess I'll have to live w/ this one. I don't know where they got the info, but I'd imagine that it'd have to be the maps server. My POP isn't really meant for street level access, due to geography.. In any case, since no one else really uses it, I'm closing it up, instead of switching ISP's... Now- The other side of this is that this does not affect cloud issues.. It just means RR types can't be routing data into the main internet from the cloud. Oh well.. Now to contact the security guys there and tell them opps! it was only for personal routing! Matthew ___ Matthew Barr mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: MBarr1244ICQ: 22130424 Hm: (212) 961-1083M:(646) 765-6878 PGP Key Fingerprint = 35DC DC87 4F38 2E80 F327 2B50 FD82 A2CB CB80 80F3 -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Re: security business
Boingo, WiFiMetro, Wayport, iPass, T-Mobile (just to name the big ones). At 01:03 PM 6/26/02 -0700, you wrote: >I'm putting together a business plan for a WLAN security and services >business. Anyone interested in doing this, people already, thoughts, reactions? > >Josh > >-- >NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ >Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ >Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Greetings everyone!!
I would like to introduce myself. My name is Dean Stathos and I recently purchased a Linksys 4 port Cable/DSL Router with AP. My original purpose was to use it in order for me to use my Sharp Zaurus anywhere in my building. But, I have done some research and found organizations like yours that are looking to create a truly public wireless Internet network. I live in the Englewood NJ area and I have posted my location on the website. I look forward to seeing everyone at one of the meetings in the near future and invite anyone in the Englewood area (basically across from the hospital) to feel free and use my wireless AP (if they are within one hundred feet--in the near future, I will be looking to increase the power). = Dean Stathos __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Re: security business
* plawler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >Boingo, WiFiMetro, Wayport, iPass, T-Mobile (just to name the big ones). they may do wireless, but those aren't security companies -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] TWC - Cease & Desist...
> Just thought I'd mention that I got a letter from TWC about an open wireless > network... And asking that it be closed up or I'll have my account > suspended... It never actually says Cease & Desist- Always wanted one of > those :-) I guess I'll have to live w/ this one. > Sorry to hear this happen. Umm...Can you tell me where the AP used to be so I can take it off my list? -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] TWC - Cease & Desist...
Perhaps all those Time Warner users with open nodes should turn on 40 bit WEP with a password very similar to our standard ssid (or password otherwise decided upon off-list). A private open node is better than a completely closed one and may (I'd have to look at the TOS) be more legally compliant - it's just you and your "houseguests" on the connection. - Original Message - From: "Matthew Barr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "NYC Wireless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:47 PM Subject: [nycwireless] TWC - Cease & Desist... > Just thought I'd mention that I got a letter from TWC about an open wireless > network... And asking that it be closed up or I'll have my account > suspended... It never actually says Cease & Desist- Always wanted one of > those :-) I guess I'll have to live w/ this one. > > I don't know where they got the info, but I'd imagine that it'd have to be > the maps server. My POP isn't really meant for street level access, due to > geography.. In any case, since no one else really uses it, I'm closing it > up, instead of switching ISP's... > > Now- The other side of this is that this does not affect cloud issues.. It > just means RR types can't be routing data into the main internet from the > cloud. > > Oh well.. > > Now to contact the security guys there and tell them opps! it was only for > personal routing! > > > Matthew > > > ___ > Matthew Barr mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > AIM: MBarr1244ICQ: 22130424 > Hm: (212) 961-1083M:(646) 765-6878 > PGP Key Fingerprint = 35DC DC87 4F38 2E80 F327 2B50 FD82 A2CB CB80 80F3 > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Re: security business
I think that a security business is an interesting idea, overall. However, there are two concerns: * Is the wireless industry, or the major players, knowing that security is their achilles ankle, going to effectively plug existing holes? Effectively may only mean in terms of conventional wisdom - if you use the new Orinoco SuperWEP, of course yer safe! * Is this a feature, or a product, so to speak. In other words, is this something that a general security company should be focusing on as one part of their value proposition, or will people actually look in the phone book for a wireless security company? Or an 802.11b security company? I'd be happy to discuss further offline. jonathan hirschman On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Paul C. Lawler wrote: > Boingo, WiFiMetro, Wayport, iPass, T-Mobile (just to name the big ones). > > At 01:03 PM 6/26/02 -0700, you wrote: > >I'm putting together a business plan for a WLAN security and services > >business. Anyone interested in doing this, people already, thoughts, reactions? > > > >Josh > > > >-- > >NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > >Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > >Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Fwd: FC: NYC Time Warner Cable sending nastygrams to free802.11 points?
from Politech... --- Begin Message --- --- From: "rick tait" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: NYC Time Warner Cable sending nasty letters to subscribers who use 802.11 and offer "free" access Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:22:31 -0400 Declan, I've not seen anything on Politech regarding this specific issue before, but my roommate just called me and let me know that Time Warner Cable of NYC has just sent me a snotty letter basically telling me to shut off my public access point immediately - PERIOD - as its not allowed according to the contract I signed to get their cable service. I don't have the letter in front of me, but if you're interested, I can get it to you this evening. I plan on calling/writing to TWCNYC and asking them if they consider an access-protected 802.11 network is still an infringement of their contract, meaning if I only allow MYSELF access, and no-one else. Is the fact that its just "there" (admittedly unusable by anyone without the access key) an exception to the contract? Now I have to shield my apartment in lead because I can't "advertise" my own private 802.11 network because the backend of the network is TWCNYC's? I don't like where this is going. RMT. - POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ - Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ - --- End Message ---
Re: [nycwireless] TWC - Cease & Desist...
Hello Everyone, Nothing wrong with the last post, but just a reminder this is an open mailing list, so use judgement before you post. This will definitely be a hot topic tonight @ the meeting. Another reason to switch ISPs and go with a NYCwireless recommended one (AceDSL and Bway.net). -Ben - Original Message - From: "Jon Russek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "NYC Wireless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [nycwireless] TWC - Cease & Desist... > Perhaps all those Time Warner users with open nodes should turn on 40 bit > WEP with a password very similar to our standard ssid (or password otherwise > decided upon off-list). A private open node is better than a completely > closed one and may (I'd have to look at the TOS) be more legally compliant - > it's just you and your "houseguests" on the connection. > > - Original Message - > From: "Matthew Barr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "NYC Wireless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:47 PM > Subject: [nycwireless] TWC - Cease & Desist... > > > > Just thought I'd mention that I got a letter from TWC about an open > wireless > > network... And asking that it be closed up or I'll have my account > > suspended... It never actually says Cease & Desist- Always wanted one of > > those :-) I guess I'll have to live w/ this one. > > > > I don't know where they got the info, but I'd imagine that it'd have to be > > the maps server. My POP isn't really meant for street level access, due > to > > geography.. In any case, since no one else really uses it, I'm closing it > > up, instead of switching ISP's... > > > > Now- The other side of this is that this does not affect cloud issues.. > It > > just means RR types can't be routing data into the main internet from the > > cloud. > > > > Oh well.. > > > > Now to contact the security guys there and tell them opps! it was only for > > personal routing! > > > > > > Matthew > > > > > > ___ > > Matthew Barr mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > AIM: MBarr1244ICQ: 22130424 > > Hm: (212) 961-1083M:(646) 765-6878 > > PGP Key Fingerprint = 35DC DC87 4F38 2E80 F327 2B50 FD82 A2CB CB80 80F3 > > > > -- > > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Wireless LANs on the LIRR or MN ROWs?
Hmmm...I read with interest a while ago that some of the list members are interested in adding wireless capabilities to the Subway, but since adding repeaters to the 24 hour underground sections would be difficult it was not deemed practical. However, I am just curious to the prospects of adding Wireless LAN capabilties to the Long Island Railroad or Metro North Right-of-ways (ROWs). These tend to be on specialized embarkments or on flat ground, and they tend to go through relatively prosperous and educated communities where notebooks and handhelds are widely used, and most LIRR coaches (The M1s and M2s) have at least one power outlet on each car. a) Is it technically feasible to use APs to access networking resources on a train traveling at 60mph traveling aboveground? b) Are there people with access to broadband and APs who happens to be living near the tracks and are willing to make their nodes available? c) Are there any legal problems with putting up APs near these ROWs? -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Re: security business
i'm a security consultant, so this subject is relevant. i think most security players in the assessment business are including 802.11 in their assessments just as they now include dialup modems. there is some value in suggesting policies and procedures, as well as solutions for doing this sort of thing within an enterprise. (i'm not sure this would a company make.) i have personally detected rogue access points in assessments i have done recently. all of my clients were in denial (having never looked for them). i'll bet in most cases these are installed without the knowledge of the IT organization. imo, it's treading a fine ethical line when you war-drive for one of these and then try to use that fact to sell your services. (particularly it's often hard to find out just by sniffing whether the access points with WEP turned on are authorized by the enterprise or just some employee's own enterprising idea, and i wouldn't want to crack wep until i have a client authorizing it.) so i'm well-acquainted with problems, but maybe not as well-aware of good commercial solutions. i don't know of a company that has a turnkey "secure 802.11" solution (both the access points, the client, and the server side) with a sizeable number of the following properties: - that they're able to deploy quickly in an enterprise - has limited client-side impact (plug and play) - makes strong claims about transport level security - authenticates down to the level of an individual user (not just an individual machine). - conforms to standards or draft standards - has been validated by an independent credible third party or uses open source components that have understood properties. - is compatible with existing deployed hardware at the moment i've been copping out (somewhat) by suggesting that my clients just regard 802.11 access points as equivalent in security level to pools of dialup modems, and imagine anyone can find one and connect to it. many clients already have such "untrusted" nets in conference rooms and in public and visitor areas. so if they put them outside their firewalls, and require a vpn client talking to a their perimeter vpn server over the insecure transport that 802.11 provides. (if they turn on shared-key wep, they'll prevent outsiders from surfing the web on the their nickel). On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 04:05:31PM -0400, jonathan wrote: > I think that a security business is an interesting idea, overall. However, > there are two concerns: > > * Is the wireless industry, or the major players, knowing that security is > their achilles ankle, going to effectively plug existing holes? > Effectively may only mean in terms of conventional wisdom - if you use the > new Orinoco SuperWEP, of course yer safe! > > * Is this a feature, or a product, so to speak. In other words, is this > something that a general security company should be focusing on as one > part of their value proposition, or will people actually look in the phone > book for a wireless security company? Or an 802.11b security company? > > I'd be happy to discuss further offline. > > jonathan hirschman > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Paul C. Lawler wrote: > > > Boingo, WiFiMetro, Wayport, iPass, T-Mobile (just to name the big ones). > > > > At 01:03 PM 6/26/02 -0700, you wrote: > > >I'm putting together a business plan for a WLAN security and services > > >business. Anyone interested in doing this, people already, thoughts, reactions? > > > > > >Josh > > > > > >-- > > >NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > > >Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > > >Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > > > -- > > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Re: security business
I know that at least 4 of them offer additional security (read, more than WEP) on top of wireless. As you probably know, WEP (wired equivalency protocol) was only designed to make 802.11 "as" secure as a wired connection, which is of course, not very secure. WEP works "as designed," but most wireless providers understand the need for "real" security in addition to WEP. At 12:48 PM 6/26/02 -0700, you wrote: >* plawler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >Boingo, WiFiMetro, Wayport, iPass, T-Mobile (just to name the big ones). > >they may do wireless, but those aren't security companies > >-- >NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ >Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ >Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Re: NYC Time Warner Cable sending nastygrams to free 802.11points?
It is my understanding that the Time Warner Cable contract does not even allow you to set up a "private" LAN (wired or wireless) which shares your connection, since they want to charge you per IP address. My contract states that I may not configure any connection with 2 NICs in a PC. Not that any of this has stopped me... but if Time Warner is monitoring this newsgroup, I am not an attorney and this does not constitute legal advice, and I am not suitable for any purpose, including the one for which I was intended. >From: "rick tait" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:22:31 -0400 > >Declan, > >I've not seen anything on Politech regarding this specific issue before, but >my roommate just called me and let me know that Time Warner Cable of NYC has >just sent me a snotty letter basically telling me to shut off my public >access point immediately - PERIOD - as its not allowed according to the >contract I signed to get their cable service. > >I don't have the letter in front of me, but if you're interested, I can get >it to you this evening. > >I plan on calling/writing to TWCNYC and asking them if they consider an >access-protected 802.11 network is still an infringement of their contract, >meaning if I only allow MYSELF access, and no-one else. Is the fact that its >just "there" (admittedly unusable by anyone without the access key) an >exception to the contract? > >Now I have to shield my apartment in lead because I can't "advertise" my own >private 802.11 network because the backend of the network is TWCNYC's? > >I don't like where this is going. > >RMT. > > > >- >POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list >You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. >To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html >This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ >Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ >- >Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ >- -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] CNET coverage of Bryant Park
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-939497.html ".Meanwhile, Intel and NYCwireless, a volunteer organization that works to establish free wireless Internet access in the New York metropolitan area, have fitted Manhattan's Bryant Park with wireless hardware, creating a free hot spot there. " our name was hotlinked as well! -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] TWC - Cease & Desist...
I agree entirely. I am emailing this from the PC-Expo. Toshiba looks like that it is going to take a position to provide fee-based wireless solution to open space. That means anythings get into the way of anyone lookinng from the business angle could potentially get harassed. I think NYCwireless should look into possible mechanism to protect its members from being harassed. Question is: supposed one turned on the WEP and password, would that be sufficient to fend off the legal harassment. If so, how do we do that for NYCwireless? If not, whatelese needs to be done? Any lwayers out ther? BON On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Jon Russek wrote: > Perhaps all those Time Warner users with open nodes should turn on 40 bit > WEP with a password very similar to our standard ssid (or password otherwise > decided upon off-list). A private open node is better than a completely > closed one and may (I'd have to look at the TOS) be more legally compliant - > it's just you and your "houseguests" on the connection. > > - Original Message - > From: "Matthew Barr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "NYC Wireless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:47 PM > Subject: [nycwireless] TWC - Cease & Desist... > > > > Just thought I'd mention that I got a letter from TWC about an open > wireless > > network... And asking that it be closed up or I'll have my account > > suspended... It never actually says Cease & Desist- Always wanted one of > > those :-) I guess I'll have to live w/ this one. > > > > I don't know where they got the info, but I'd imagine that it'd have to be > > the maps server. My POP isn't really meant for street level access, due > to > > geography.. In any case, since no one else really uses it, I'm closing it > > up, instead of switching ISP's... > > > > Now- The other side of this is that this does not affect cloud issues.. > It > > just means RR types can't be routing data into the main internet from the > > cloud. > > > > Oh well.. > > > > Now to contact the security guys there and tell them opps! it was only for > > personal routing! > > > > > > Matthew > > > > > > ___ > > Matthew Barr mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > AIM: MBarr1244ICQ: 22130424 > > Hm: (212) 961-1083M:(646) 765-6878 > > PGP Key Fingerprint = 35DC DC87 4F38 2E80 F327 2B50 FD82 A2CB CB80 80F3 > > > > -- > > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] TWC - Cease & Desist...
Instead of breaking your AUP, choose an ISP that is friendly to wireless sharing, AceDSL (for the Verizon CLEC), and Bway.Net (for the Covad CLEC) are recommmend. We have talked with both of them, and they are fine with DSL connections being used in the NYCwireless sharing fashion. NYCwireless recommends that you read and abide by your AUP/TOS. Having WEP, even simple WEP on a node kind of defeats the purpose of having an easy to access node. TWC probably got the information to send out these letters from the maps database, from people who specified they were using RoadRunner as the connection method. Instead of specifying their exact ISP some other users specify, "Cable", "For me to know and you to find out ;)", "Own Built". --Terry -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
RE: [nycwireless] TWC - Cease & Desist...
I think I'll just switch to a provider who's TOS allows me to freely provide access with or without WEP enabled. This has the added benefit of internalizing some of the economic externalities that companies like TWC are producing. Does anyone have experience with Bway.net or AceDSL? Thanks, Matt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bon sy Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:51 PM To: Jon Russek Cc: NYC Wireless Subject: Re: [nycwireless] TWC - Cease & Desist... I agree entirely. I am emailing this from the PC-Expo. Toshiba looks like that it is going to take a position to provide fee-based wireless solution to open space. That means anythings get into the way of anyone lookinng from the business angle could potentially get harassed. I think NYCwireless should look into possible mechanism to protect its members from being harassed. Question is: supposed one turned on the WEP and password, would that be sufficient to fend off the legal harassment. If so, how do we do that for NYCwireless? If not, whatelese needs to be done? Any lwayers out ther? BON On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Jon Russek wrote: > Perhaps all those Time Warner users with open nodes should turn on 40 bit > WEP with a password very similar to our standard ssid (or password otherwise > decided upon off-list). A private open node is better than a completely > closed one and may (I'd have to look at the TOS) be more legally compliant - > it's just you and your "houseguests" on the connection. > > - Original Message - > From: "Matthew Barr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "NYC Wireless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:47 PM > Subject: [nycwireless] TWC - Cease & Desist... > > > > Just thought I'd mention that I got a letter from TWC about an open > wireless > > network... And asking that it be closed up or I'll have my account > > suspended... It never actually says Cease & Desist- Always wanted one of > > those :-) I guess I'll have to live w/ this one. > > > > I don't know where they got the info, but I'd imagine that it'd have to be > > the maps server. My POP isn't really meant for street level access, due > to > > geography.. In any case, since no one else really uses it, I'm closing it > > up, instead of switching ISP's... > > > > Now- The other side of this is that this does not affect cloud issues.. > It > > just means RR types can't be routing data into the main internet from the > > cloud. > > > > Oh well.. > > > > Now to contact the security guys there and tell them opps! it was only for > > personal routing! > > > > > > Matthew > > > > > > ___ > > Matthew Barr mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > AIM: MBarr1244ICQ: 22130424 > > Hm: (212) 961-1083M:(646) 765-6878 > > PGP Key Fingerprint = 35DC DC87 4F38 2E80 F327 2B50 FD82 A2CB CB80 80F3 > > > > -- > > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Re: security business
pardon me, but wep does not work "as designed", unless you are claiming its design goal was to not provide any real security over non-wep. wep is a better example of "the failure of the standards process" than of "works as designed". wep's inexcusable flaw is that 40 bit wep provides the same level of security as 128 bit wep due to the reuse of the rapid reuse of the keystream of a stream cipher. i entirely expect that manufacturers who made claims that 128 bit wep provided enhanced or additional security will be the subject of class actions in the next few years. (at first they were wrong, but at some point, they were just lying to consumers.) On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 10:42:24AM -1000, Paul C. Lawler wrote: > I know that at least 4 of them offer additional security (read, more than > WEP) on top of wireless. > > As you probably know, WEP (wired equivalency protocol) was only designed > to make 802.11 "as" secure as a wired connection, which is of course, not > very secure. > > WEP works "as designed," but most wireless providers understand the need > for "real" security in addition to WEP. > > At 12:48 PM 6/26/02 -0700, you wrote: > >* plawler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >>Boingo, WiFiMetro, Wayport, iPass, T-Mobile (just to name the big ones). > > > >they may do wireless, but those aren't security companies > > > >-- > >NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > >Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > >Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] TWC - Cease & Desist...
Im sorry this has happened. It was inevitable sooner or later. Hopefuly we can find a way to get alternate Free bandwidth to you one day soon. BTW better luck with your next Cease and Desist letter. robin-david hammond kb3ien On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Matthew Barr wrote: > Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:47:26 -0400 > From: Matthew Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: NYC Wireless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [nycwireless] TWC - Cease & Desist... > > Just thought I'd mention that I got a letter from TWC about an open wireless > network... And asking that it be closed up or I'll have my account > suspended... It never actually says Cease & Desist- Always wanted one of > those :-) I guess I'll have to live w/ this one. > > I don't know where they got the info, but I'd imagine that it'd have to be > the maps server. My POP isn't really meant for street level access, due to > geography.. In any case, since no one else really uses it, I'm closing it > up, instead of switching ISP's... > > Now- The other side of this is that this does not affect cloud issues.. It > just means RR types can't be routing data into the main internet from the > cloud. > > Oh well.. > > Now to contact the security guys there and tell them opps! it was only for > personal routing! > > > Matthew > > > ___ > Matthew Barr mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > AIM: MBarr1244ICQ: 22130424 > Hm: (212) 961-1083M:(646) 765-6878 > PGP Key Fingerprint = 35DC DC87 4F38 2E80 F327 2B50 FD82 A2CB CB80 80F3 > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Re: security business
That is correct. It's design goal was to provide security equivalent to a unsecured "wired" line. Nothing more than that. No enhanced or additional security exists in the original IEEE specs for WEP. At 02:56 PM 6/26/02 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >pardon me, but wep does not work "as designed", unless you are >claiming its design goal was to not provide any real security over >non-wep. > >wep is a better example of "the failure of the standards process" >than of "works as designed". > >wep's inexcusable flaw is that 40 bit wep provides the same level of >security as 128 bit wep due to the reuse of the rapid reuse of the >keystream of a stream cipher. > >i entirely expect that manufacturers who made claims that 128 bit wep >provided enhanced or additional security will be the subject of class >actions in the next few years. (at first they were wrong, but at some >point, they were just lying to consumers.) > > >On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 10:42:24AM -1000, Paul C. Lawler wrote: > > I know that at least 4 of them offer additional security (read, more than > > WEP) on top of wireless. > > > > As you probably know, WEP (wired equivalency protocol) was only designed > > to make 802.11 "as" secure as a wired connection, which is of course, not > > very secure. > > > > WEP works "as designed," but most wireless providers understand the need > > for "real" security in addition to WEP. > > > > At 12:48 PM 6/26/02 -0700, you wrote: > > >* plawler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > >>Boingo, WiFiMetro, Wayport, iPass, T-Mobile (just to name the big ones). > > > > > >they may do wireless, but those aren't security companies > > > > > >-- > > >NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > > >Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > > >Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > > > -- > > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Re: NYC Time Warner Cable sending nastygrams tofree 802.11 points?
In Response to "Paul C. Lawler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, from 6/26/02 4:49 PM: > It is my understanding that the Time Warner Cable contract does not even > allow you to set up a "private" LAN (wired or wireless) which shares your > connection, since they want to charge you per IP address. My contract > states that I may not configure any connection with 2 NICs in a PC. I suppose you've had service for a long time? I just recently moved to a new apartment where TWC was the best option for service and while their new literature doesn't condone the use of a router, they do make specific mention of the fact that you to set up your own LAN. They will not, however, support you unless you unplug your LAN and connect a single computer to the cable modem (which is essentially the same as using a router). > Not that any of this has stopped me... but if Time Warner is monitoring > this newsgroup, I am not an attorney and this does not constitute legal > advice, and I am not suitable for any purpose, including the one for which > I was intended. Nor am I a lawyer, but I know enough about legal theory to reason that the worst they can do to you is turn off your pipe. That, admittedly, sucks, but there's plenty of competition in the consumer ISP market that if they start shutting people off for connecting more than one PC through a router, smart folks like us will simply stop buying from them. My problem with this whole debacle is that if they say you're allowed to share your connection in a LAN configuration, and I pay for the extra IP addresses, why can't my LAN have a publicly accessible wireless access point? By my logic, a public AP is no different than if a friend came over and wanted to plug their laptop into my LAN to check their email. I would double check the RoadRunner AUP to see if a) any specific mention of wireless is made, and b) what their current LAN policies are. Remember that AUPs can evolve and the contract you initially signed may not be in force anymore. - AB -- Aaron Stanley, CISSP Information Security Consultant Computer Horizons Corporation ** Company name provided for identification ** purposes only. Opinions reflected in this message ** are those of the sender and not the affiliated ** organization(s) -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] RE: nycwireless digest, Vol 1 #452 - 15 msgs
In response to the posting below, I am interested in teaming up with others in offering WLAN and other services. Any other people that are interested, please drop me a line and lets talk. Thanks. -Alberto public email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: nycwireless digest, Vol 1 #452 - 15 msgs Send nycwireless mailing list submissions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of nycwireless digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: warchalking (Bon sy) 2. Re: warchalking (Joe Plotkin) 3. Re: warchalking (Anthony Townsend) 4. security business (Josh McCormack) 5. TWC - Cease & Desist... (Matthew Barr) 6. Re: security business (Paul C. Lawler) 7. Greetings everyone!! (Dean Stathos) 8. Re: Re: security business (e) 9. Re: TWC - Cease & Desist... (Kev) 10. Re: TWC - Cease & Desist... (Jon Russek) 11. Re: Re: security business (jonathan) 12. Fwd: FC: NYC Time Warner Cable sending nastygrams to free 802.11 points? (Andrew Raff) 13. Re: TWC - Cease & Desist... (Ben Serebin) 14. Wireless LANs on the LIRR or MN ROWs? (Kev) --__--__-- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:59:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Bon sy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Anthony Townsend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: "'nycwireless lists.spack.org'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] warchalking Anthony, I think what Joe posted is merely a piece of information about creating hobo-language for free wireless networking. That's all what the URL is about as far as I can understand. I think it may be something interesting for at least some members of NYCwireless. Also I wonder whether "public" you meant below is the same as "free", and what audience you are referring to. Obviously one can create a free networking just for himself/herself but it is not "public". Or one can create a "public" group but insisted on stringent membership requirement so that practically it is not free for everyone or a community. Bon On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Anthony Townsend wrote: > please dont do this unless its your access point and you are sharing it > publicly > > > > Joe Plotkin heyjoe at bway.net > Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:32:27 -0400 > > I guess we can add this to the meeting agenda -- for discussion at the > bar: > > http://www.blackbeltjones.com/warchalking/ > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:39:26 -0400 To: Bon sy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Joe Plotkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] warchalking Cc: Anthony Townsend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'nycwireless lists.spack.org'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Really guys, I just thought it was amusing. I guess my sarcasm doesn't always come thru in digital space the same. -> Joe At 10:59 AM -0400 6/26/02, Bon sy wrote: >Anthony, > > I think what Joe posted is merely a piece of information about >creating hobo-language for free wireless networking. That's all what the >URL is about as far as I can understand. I think it may be >something interesting for at least some members of NYCwireless. > > Also I wonder whether "public" you meant below is the same as >"free", and what audience you are referring to. Obviously one can create a >free networking just for himself/herself but it is not "public". Or one >can create a "public" group but insisted on stringent membership >requirement so that practically it is not free for everyone or a >community. > >Bon > > > >On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Anthony Townsend wrote: > >> please dont do this unless its your access point and you are sharing it >> publicly >> >> >> >> Joe Plotkin heyjoe at bway.net >> Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:32:27 -0400 >> >> I guess we can add this to the meeting agenda -- for discussion at the >> bar: >> >> http://www.blackbeltjones.com/warchalking/ >> >> -- >> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ >> Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ >> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ >> > >-- >NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ >Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ >Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- === Joe Plotkin DSL/Marketing Bway.net - NYC's Best I
Re: [nycwireless] Re: security business
Alas, wired lans can be physically secured (more so if they're on a "high fiber" diet), and to the extent that they are, the data in them is afforded a resulting level of security. This is not true of 802.11 with WEP. i don't think you're right about this, and i've looked into the history of 802.11 quite a bit. there is some revisionism going on, and i don't buy it. the original document describing WEP, by Kerry Lynn, P802.11-94/22, "IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN Medium Access Control and Physical Layer Specifications, The RT Data Confidentiality Algorithm", 7 March1994, cites IEEE P802.11-94/9, "Radio Equipment and Systems (RES); HIPERLAN Security Information (input for STAG)", 14 December 1993 as defining "security comparable to that of a wired LAN" as at least protecting authorized users of a wireless LAN from casual eavesdropping and data injection. WEP is weak enought that it at *most* protects against casual eavesdropping and not against data injection (if memory serves based on the Borisov findings), and that's only if you define "casual" as something like "unwilling to install software and having only the patience of 2 year old". Moreover, the original Lynn paper claims the confidentiality provided is Strong: The security afforded by the algorithm should rely on the difficulty of discovering the secret key through a brute-force attack. This in turn is related to the length of the secret key (usually expressed in bits) and the frequency of changing keys. However, it may be an easier problem to discover k through statistical methods if the key sequence remains fixed and significant quantities of ciphertext are available to the attacker. RT avoids this by frequently changing the IV and hence k. As it turns out, he was wrong. It's weak, independent of the security of the secret key, simply due to the IV reuse. Although the author seemed aware of known plaintext attacks, he was unaware of the IV reuse issue, which my cryptographer friends tell me is a widely-known and fundamental property of stream ciphers, and was so in 1994. The last sentence of the paper says what the true agenda was of the proposal: "This submission proposes a canditate algorithm that strikes a balance between the conflicting contstraints of strength, efficiency, and exportability" [sic] So my interpretation is: They wanted something guaranteed exportable, and they didn't get adequate cryptographic review. On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:17:10PM -1000, Paul C. Lawler wrote: > That is correct. It's design goal was to provide security equivalent to > a unsecured "wired" line. Nothing more than that. No enhanced or > additional security exists in the original IEEE specs for WEP. > > At 02:56 PM 6/26/02 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >pardon me, but wep does not work "as designed", unless you are > >claiming its design goal was to not provide any real security over > >non-wep. > > > >wep is a better example of "the failure of the standards process" > >than of "works as designed". > > > >wep's inexcusable flaw is that 40 bit wep provides the same level of > >security as 128 bit wep due to the reuse of the rapid reuse of the > >keystream of a stream cipher. > > > >i entirely expect that manufacturers who made claims that 128 bit wep > >provided enhanced or additional security will be the subject of class > >actions in the next few years. (at first they were wrong, but at some > >point, they were just lying to consumers.) > > > > > >On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 10:42:24AM -1000, Paul C. Lawler wrote: > >> I know that at least 4 of them offer additional security (read, more > >than > >> WEP) on top of wireless. > >> > >> As you probably know, WEP (wired equivalency protocol) was only > >designed > >> to make 802.11 "as" secure as a wired connection, which is of course, > >not > >> very secure. > >> > >> WEP works "as designed," but most wireless providers understand the > >need > >> for "real" security in addition to WEP. > >> > >> At 12:48 PM 6/26/02 -0700, you wrote: > >> >* plawler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> >>Boingo, WiFiMetro, Wayport, iPass, T-Mobile (just to name the big > >ones). > >> > > >> >they may do wireless, but those aren't security companies > >> > > >> >-- > >> >NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > >> >Un/Subscribe: > >http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > >> >Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > >> > >> -- > >> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > >> Un/Subscribe: > >http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > >> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwire
[nycwireless] configure Cisco Aironet 350
Hi I installed the Cisco Aironet 350 wireless card in Redhat 7.2, and can start the 'acu' utility, but it could not communicate with the base, saying "is not associated" My administrator gave me SSID: 'students' A key: XX:XX:XX:XX:XX. and told me to enable HPDC I only used the ACU to configure, and used thei key and WEP key Thanks wanghong -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] TWC - Cease & Desist...
Thanks for the kind wishes- but I'm really not that surprised about the whole thing. As an aside- I did specify Cable, not RR. I could probably switch to Earthlink, who I expect wouldn't care as much.. We really should look into that, as an aside. Thankfully, my apt is in a terrible position to actually be used by anyone other than my apt, or next door. I didn't invest much in equipment, so I don't mind giving up the ghost, since they really are within their rights to ask it. I can't justify the expense, bandwidth hit, and trouble of switching ISP's, when no one was using it. I have already modified the node entry in the maps server, and fired off a reply to them, saying basically that sorry it was open, SSID has been changed, and WEP is enabled, and that only I have the password now. And no, I don¹t trust wep for squat. It just means that the password isn't sitting on the maps server, so that they can scream at me, and send me letters. Matthew On 6/26/02 6:05 PM, "R.D. Hammond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Im sorry this has happened. It was inevitable sooner or later. > > Hopefuly we can find a way to get alternate Free bandwidth to you one day > soon. > > BTW better luck with your next Cease and Desist letter. > > robin-david hammond > > kb3ien > ___ Matthew Barr mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: MBarr1244ICQ: 22130424 Hm: (212) 961-1083M:(646) 765-6878 PGP Key Fingerprint = 35DC DC87 4F38 2E80 F327 2B50 FD82 A2CB CB80 80F3 -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Some further info...
This is the letter I sent off to Politech.. It has a lot more detail, and quotes some of the letter.. I'll see about getting a copy of the letter to the list eventually ;-) Matthew ___ Matthew Barr mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: MBarr1244ICQ: 22130424 Hm: (212) 961-1083M:(646) 765-6878 PGP Key Fingerprint = 35DC DC87 4F38 2E80 F327 2B50 FD82 A2CB CB80 80F3 -- Forwarded Message > From: Matthew Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:21:09 -0400 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: FYI... > > Just thought I'd tell you that I got a letter from TWC about an open > wireless network... And asking that it be closed up or I'll have my account > suspended... Always wanted a cease & desist :-) > > I don't know where they got the info, but I'd imagine that it'd have to be > the maps.nycwireless.net server. My POP isn't really meant for street level > access, due to geography.. In any case, since no one else really uses it, > I'm closing it up, instead of switching ISP's... > > Oh well.. > > It sounds like they are going on the basis of an open wireless node being a > problem, such that anyone with a wireless nic can access RR. They are > pinning it on the "reselling or redistributing the service", whether for a > for a fee, or otherwise". (Paragraph 5(d) of AUP) > > > They go on to mention that it violates a number of federal & state laws, > including 47 USC 553. > > They also kindly inform me that they don¹t want to sue me.. And that they > "assume it is not my desire to allow unknown users to anonymously plan > criminal acts through [my] account" > > I am a member of NYC Wireless, but since the node is in a terrible location, > and I like the speed of cable, I'm just closing it up.. I don't think I have > a leg to stand on to fight, so.. The node is now closed. > > Just thought you might like to know... > -- End of Forwarded Message -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] RE: nycwireless digest, Vol 1 #454 - 4 msgs
Hi gang; Like many of you, I recieved a Cease and Desist letter from TWC/RR as well. The problem I have though, is that I was never running a node. Ever. Indeed, I do not own, nor have I ever owned, a single piece of wireless networking equipment. No cards, no WAPs, no nothing. All I did was express interest in the project, and sign on to the maps as a *possible* *cloud* node. I have never attended a NYCWireless meeting. I havn't participated in the listservs in months. I am annoyed that I am being accused of breaking their agreement when I never did at any point. I'm kinda bothered by the thought-police aspect of this. Any thoughts? -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Wireless LANs on the LIRR or MN ROWs?
Just for the record. I am the one, if not the only one (in case someone raising the concept before I just the list two months ago) mentioning the wireless capabilities to the Subway. There are quite a number of above-ground subway stations in Queens, Brooklyn, and Bronx. If I try to answer your questions for subways but not LIRR, here is my answer: 1. I do not know enough the networking technology whether it's feasible to access networking resources from a train running at a high speed. 2. I am actually looking into an antenna setup to beam the signal to an above-ground subway station in my neighborhood; where the station is less than 200 feet from my house. I am using my own premise but not MTA (OK, this time not MTR). So, I can do whatever I want on my roof. 3. About legal issue on opening the node, I do not know yet. But I certainly need to know enough before I reach the comfort level of opening it up. Mostly likely I will look closely into the model of a private group public access. Bon On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Kev wrote: > Hmmm...I read with interest a while ago that some of the list members are > interested in adding wireless capabilities to the Subway, but since adding > repeaters to the 24 hour underground sections would be difficult it was > not deemed practical. However, I am just curious to the prospects of > adding Wireless LAN capabilties to the Long Island Railroad > or Metro North Right-of-ways (ROWs). These tend to be on specialized > embarkments or on flat ground, and they tend to go through relatively > prosperous and educated communities where notebooks and handhelds are > widely used, and most LIRR coaches (The M1s and M2s) have at least one > power outlet on each car. > > a) Is it technically feasible to use APs to access networking resources on > a train traveling at 60mph traveling aboveground? > b) Are there people with access to broadband and APs who happens to be > living near the tracks and are willing to make their nodes available? > c) Are there any legal problems with putting up APs near these ROWs? > > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
