Piggybacking on Internet access is a practice of establishing a wireless Internet connection using another customer's wireless Internet access service without explicit permission or explicit knowledge from customers. This is a controversial law and ethical practice, with different laws according to jurisdictions around the world. Though banned completely or set in some places, permitted elsewhere.
Business customers who provide hotspot services, such as hotels or cafà © à ©, are generally not considered a lift, even if non-customers or those who are out of reach are easily accessible. Many such locations provide free or paid wireless Internet access to their customers or just to attract people to the area. Other people near the premises may be able to gain access.
Piggybacking is different from wardriving, which only involves logging or mapping the existence of an access point.
Video Piggybacking (Internet access)
​​â € <â €
Piggyback has become a widespread practice in the 21st century due to the emergence of wireless Internet connection and Wireless access point. Computer users who do not have their own connections or who are out of their own reach may find others with oppress or luck and use that one.
However, those living near hotspots or other residence with services have been found to have the ability to support such connections without patronizing this business, which has led to more controversy. While some may be within reach of their own home or nearby, others may be able to do so from a parking lot such as establishment, from other businesses that generally tolerate the existence of users, or from the public domain. Other people, especially those living in apartments or town houses, may find themselves able to use neighboring connections.
Wi-Fi hotspots, unsafe and secure, have been recorded to some extent with GPS coordinates. Sites like WiGLE.net, Wifimaps, NodeDB.com, and Hotspot-Locations host a searchable database or map of the location of the access point submitted by the user. The activity of locating and mapping locations has also been exploited by many smart phone apps.
Remote antennas can be connected to a laptop computer with an external antenna jack - this allows the user to pick up signals from as far as several kilometers away. Because unsafe wireless signals can be found easily in most urban areas, laptop owners can find free or open connections almost anywhere. While 2.4 and 5.8 GHz antennas are commercially available and easily purchased from many online vendors, they are also relatively easy to create. Laptops and tablets that do not have an external antenna jack can rely on an external Wi-Fi modem with radio - many require only a USB power connection or Power over Ethernet (PoE) that can be easily provided by the laptop from their own batteries.
Maps Piggybacking (Internet access)
Reason
There are many reasons why internet users want to bully other people's networks.
For some people, the cost of Internet services is a factor. Many computer owners who can not afford to pay monthly subscriptions to Internet services, who only use them occasionally, or who want to save money and do not pay, will routinely support nearby neighbors or businesses, or visit locations that provide this service without becoming customers pay. If the business is large and frequented by many people, this may be overlooked. However other piggybackers are regular customers for their own services, but away from home when they want to gain Internet access and have no connection of their own available at all or at a pleasant cost.
Often, users will access the network completely by accident, because network access points and wireless cards and computer software are designed to connect easily by default. This is common when away from home or when a user's network is not behaving correctly. Such users often do not realize that they are piggybacking, and the customer is not paying attention. Regardless, piggyback is hard to detect unless the user is visible to others using the computer in suspicious circumstances.
Less often, it is used as a means of concealing illegal activities, such as downloading child pornography or engaging in identity theft. This is one of the main reasons for the controversy.
Network owners leave their networks unsecured for various reasons. They may want to share their Internet access with their neighbors or the general public or may be intimidated by the knowledge and effort needed to secure their network while making it available for their own laptops. Some wireless network devices may not support the latest security mechanisms, and users must leave their network unsecured. For example, Nintendo DS and Nintendo DS Lite can only access wireless routers using discredited WEP standards, but Nintendo DSi and Nintendo 3DS both support WPA encryption. Given the scarcity of such cases in which the host has been held accountable for the activities of pig farmers, they may be unaware or unconcerned about the risks they face by not securing their networks, or the need for options to protect their networks.
Some jurisdictions have laws that require residential customers to secure their networks (eg, in France "n ° gligence caractÃÆ' © risà © Ã… © e" in HADOPI). Even if it is not required by law, landlords may require tenants to secure their networks as a condition of their lease.
Legality
Views
Views on the ethics of the ride vary greatly. Many support the practice, saying it is harmless, and it benefits the boar at no cost to others, while others criticize it with terms like "leech", "mooching", or "hitchhiking". Various analogies are made in public discussion to link the practice to a better known situation. Advocates compare their practice with:
- Sit behind other passengers on the train, and read their newspaper over their shoulders.
- Enjoy the music that neighbors play in their backyard.
- Use a drinking fountain.
- Sitting in a chair is put in a public place.
- Read from porch lights or streetlights.
- Accept an invitation to a party, because an unprotected wireless router can be interpreted as open to use.
- Borrow a cup of sugar
Opponents to compare compare exercises to:
- Entering the house just because the door is not locked
- Hang on the outside of the bus to get a free ride.
- Connect your own wire to your neighbor's house to get free cable TV services when your neighbors are customers.
The horse uses back connections paid by others without sharing costs. This is especially common in an apartment building where many residents live within the normal range of one wireless connection. Some residents can get free Internet access while others pay. Many ISPs charge a monthly rate, however, so there is no cost difference to the network owner. Excessive burping can slow down host connections, with the host usually unaware of the reasons for speed reduction. This is more of an issue where a large number of people are involved in this practice, such as in an apartment or near a business.
Pig farmers may engage in illegal activities such as identity theft or child pornography without much trace to their own identity, leaving the network owners to be investigated for crimes they do not know about. While the people involved in support are generally honest citizens, a small number of people violate the law in this way, avoiding identification by investigators. This in particular has led to some anti-piggybacking laws.
Some access points, when using factory default settings, are configured to provide wireless access to all who request it. Some commentators have argued that those who set up access points without enabling security measures offer their connections to the public. Many people deliberately let their networks open to allow casual access to neighbors, with some joining the wireless community network to share bandwidth freely. This has largely been a good etiquette for allowing access points open for others to use, as one expects to find an open access point while on the road.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, ethicist for the New York Times, recommends notifying network owners if they can be identified, but saying there is nothing wrong with accessing open networks and using connections. "The responsibility to decide whether others should be able to enter a given access belongs right on the shoulders of the people who set up the original connection."
Similarly, Randy Cohen, author of The Ethicist for The New York Times Magazine and National Public Radio, says that one should try to contact the commonly used network owner, and offer to contribute to cost. But he pointed out that network owners can easily protect their networks, and cite lawyer Mike Godwin, concluding that open networks are likely to represent ignorance on the part of network owners, and access them morally acceptable, if not abused.
Policy analyst Timothy B. Lee (not to be confused with Tim Berners-Lee) writes in the International Herald Tribune that wireless wireless points everywhere are something to celebrate. He says that borrowing a neighbor's Wi-Fi is like sharing a cup of sugar, and letting the open network just be a good neighbor.
Techdirt contributor article Mike Masnick recently responded to an article in Time Magazine, expressing his disagreement with why a man was arrested for riding a wireless cafe. The man was accused of violating Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47 of the United States Code, which states and includes anyone who: "intentionally access computers without authorization or exceeds legitimate access." The authors of that time are not sure what the title means or how it applies to contemporary societies, since the code was made about their computers and networks during the Cold War era.
In the technical legality of this issue, Techdirt author Mike Masnick believes that the code is not damaged because the owner of the access point does not secure their device specifically for legitimate users, therefore the device is implicitly placed into the " official". Lev Grossman, with Time Magazine , is on the side of the most specialists and consumers, who believe mistakes, if any, mostly with hosts or network owners
An analogy commonly used in this debate arena equates wireless signals by bringing in a house with open doors. Both should be equivalent but the analogy is complicated, since it does not take into account the unique differences about the two items in the reference, ultimately leaving the wrong analogy.
The key to the drawbacks in this analogy is that with unprotected access points, the default status is for all users to be authorized. An access point is an active device that initiates service announcements and if the setting safely allows or deny authorization by its visitors.
The door of the house on the other hand has a physical attribute that distinguishes access to the home as official or unauthorized by the owner. Even with the door of the house open, it is clear to know if you have been invited to the house by the owner and if the entrance will be authorized or rejected. The door of the owner of the house is passive but has owners who know the risk of leaving their doors open and the house unprotected because of the absence of their gates keeping the presence. Similarly, owners of wireless access points should be aware that security risks exist when they leave their network unprotected. In this scenario, the owner has made a decision, allowing the gatekeeper or their access point to authorize everyone who tries to connect because the gatekeeper is not informed who should not enter.
Prevention
The law lacks the physical ability to prevent such action from taking place, and piggybacking can be done with negligible detection.
The owner of any wireless connection has the ability to block access from outside parties by using wireless LAN security measures. Not all owners do, and some security measures are more effective than others. Like physical security, choice is an exchange issue that involves the value of what is being protected, the likelihood of being taken, and the cost of protection. An operator who only cares about the possibility of uninformed strangers crippling Internet access may be less willing to pay dearly in money and comfort than the one who protects valuable secrets from experienced and diligent thieves. More security-conscious network operators can choose from a variety of security measures to restrict access to their wireless networks, including:
- Hobbyists, computer professionals and others can apply Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) to multiple access points without complicated settings, but offer few practical ways of security to the same studious pigs. Cryptographically very weak, so the access key can be easily solved. Its use often does not support other stronger security measures, but many users feel that any security is better than not being there or not being aware of others. In practice this may mean that the nearest non-WEP network is a more accessible target. WEP is sometimes known to slow down network traffic in the sense that WEP implementations cause additional packets to be transmitted across the network. Some people claim that "Wired Equivalent Privacy" is a misnomer, but it is generally suitable because the cable network is also not very secure.
- Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA), and WPA2 and EAP are safer than WEP. As of May 2013, 44.3 percent of all wireless networks surveyed by WiGLE use WPA or WPA2.
- Authentication of MAC addresses in combination with DHCP discretionary server settings allows the user to set the list of "allowed MAC addresses". Under this type of security, the access point will only provide the IP Address to the computer whose MAC address is in the list. Thus, the network administrator will obtain a valid MAC address from each potential client in their network. Losses on this method include additional settings. This method does not prevent overheating traffic sent over the air (no encryption is involved). Methods for defeating this type of security include MAC address spoofing, detailed on the MAC address page, where network traffic is observed, the valid MAC is collected, and then used to obtain DHCP leases. It is also often possible to configure IP for a computer manually, ignoring DHCP, if enough information about the network is known (probably from observed network traffic).
- IP security (IPsec) can be used to encrypt traffic between network nodes, reducing or eliminating the amount of plain text information transmitted over the air. This security method overcomes the privacy issue of wireless users, as it becomes much more difficult to observe their wireless activities. Difficulty setting IPsec associated with brand access point used. Some access points may not offer IPsec at all, while others may require firmware updates before the IPsec option is available. Methods for defeating this type of security are computationally intensive as far as they are not feasible to use the available hardware, or they rely on social engineering to obtain information (keys, etc.) about IPsec installations.
- VPN options such as IPSec or OpenVPN tunnel modes may be difficult to set up, but often provide the most flexible and extensible security, and are therefore recommended for larger networks with multiple users.
- Wireless intrusion detection systems can be used to detect the presence of rogue access points that expose the network to security breaches. Such a system is very attractive to large organizations with many employees.
- 3rd party firmware Flash like OpenWrt, Tomato or DD-WRT with support for RADIUS.
- Honeypot (computing) involves setting up a computer on a network just to see who is coming and doing something in an open access point.
Disabling SSID broadcasting has been recommended in the past as a security measure, even if only superficially hides the network. The router's MAC address is still broadcast, and can be detected using special tools. But worse, devices ever connected to a hidden SSID will continue to send inquiry requests to this SSID and are vulnerable to Evil Twin attacks. Therefore, SSID hiding can no longer be considered as a security measure.
Alternative
There are several alternatives to piggyback. Internet access is available in many data packages for smartphones and PDAs. While it may have limited searches compared to Internet access from traditional Internet service providers for desktop or laptop computers, the Internet can be accessed anywhere there is a strong enough data signal. Some cell phone service providers offer mobile Internet services to other devices via a data connection from a mobile phone. Also known as tethering, one can interface to their phone either wirelessly using Bluetooth or Wi-Fi or cable through a cable that allows access to the Internet wherever there is a cellular network signal.
Many jurisdictions have experimented with wireless state-wide, province-wide, district-wide or city wide access. On September 20, 2005, Google WiFi was announced as the city's wireless mesh network in Mountain View, California. Baltimore County, Maryland provides free Wi-Fi access at government offices, libraries and regional facilities. The service was first awarded in May 2007 in the county seat's central business district, Towson, and gradually expanded throughout the county. As the service expanded into more public areas in 2014, Baltimore's chief technology officer acting, L. Jerome Mullen, commented, "Such a project is just the beginning of a steady opportunity as we reinforce and expand the City's fiber optic network." We are building infrastructure digital cities, and the possibilities are endless. "In New York City, the Department of Parks and Recreation provides free Wi-Fi in parks throughout the city. BAI Communications is contracted by municipal public transport authorities to install free Wi-Fi at subway stations in Toronto, Canada and at all Manhattan, Queens and Bronx 279 subway stations in New York City. On January 8, 2013, Google and the Chelsea Improvement Company, a local public advocacy group, announced that they will install free Wi-Fi in the New York City neighborhood of Chelsea. New York Senator Chuck Schumer told a news conference: "It's not too expensive at all - just a smidgeon of what Sandy charges.Lovely mayor and I say maybe we can finish it all over New York.We look forward to the day when all New Yorkers have Wi- Fi. "On November 17, 2014, New York City mayor Bill de Blasio announced LinkNYC, an infrastructure project to create a free, encrypted, gigabit wireless network to cover New York City by replacing the city's public phone with Wi-Fi hotspots and the web a browser kiosk where free phone calls can also be made. These pilot programs can produce similar services that are launched and interconnected nationwide.
Free Internet access hotspots have also been opened by various organizations. Companies like Free-hotspot.com sell hardware and network management services to create hotspots. Other hotspot-based efforts have been launched with the goal of providing global, cheap, or free Internet access. The font is a wireless router vendor that allows the owner of his router to share Internet access with other router Fon owners. Users who do not have Fon router can also connect with a small price. Guifi.net is a free, open, international telecommunication community network that is hosted and expanded by individuals, companies and administrations. On November 27, 2012, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a coalition of nine other groups launched OpenWireless.org, an Internet activism project that seeks to increase Internet access by encouraging individuals and organizations to configure their wireless routers to offer separate wireless wireless guest networks. or open their network completely.
See also
- Evil twinning
- Terminal issues exposed
- Fixed Wireless Data
- The hidden terminal problem
- IEEE 802.11
- Legality of a ride
- Local area network
- Alienate
- Wireless network
References
External links
Kern, Benjamin D. (December 2005). "Whacking, Joyriding and War-Driving: Roaming Wi-Fi and Legal Usage". CIPERY . 2 (4) . Obtained 2007-09-01 .Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments