The media’s ability to turn a cute idea into a raging hype feedback loop has crossed with the post Sept 11th paranoia factor yet again as an FBI field office in Pittsburgh warns businesses of the pernicious new pastime of “Warchalking.” See this Computerworld story. Warchalking is the latest non-trend to sweep the internet, and it involves scrawling information about close-by wireless networks on the streets in chalk. Despite the fact that nobody is actually doing it, just about every media outlet in the world has reported on it.Unlike hamsterdance or Mahir, it’s actually a pretty neat idea on the surface, but mostly because being able to access the internet from various random places is a pretty neat idea. The article mentions online databases of open wireless access points and other attempts to map the back doors to the wireless web. Certainly, companies that leave insecure back doors into their networks have a serous problem, and having those back doors pointed out on the sidewalks or on the internet is a bad thing for them, but trotting out the threat of terrorism is just a little silly. Frankly, I think “all your base are belong to us” poses a greater risk to national security.
As a wireless user, I’m concerned about this issue as well. I’ve taken as many precautions as I can to avoid this problem:
1. Requiring an access key to access the hub actively
2. All data passed with the above 128-bit encryption key is encrypted
3. Locking the range of IP addresses to a band just large enough to connect all of my house PC’s (both wireless and wired).
However, nothing stops data snooping correct? All of my precautions makes wall chalking my house a moot point, because they can’t actively use the internet, correct? I’m hoping that all the precautions also makes passive network snooping a moot point, without the encryption key, but I’ve heard that there are security problems with the current wireless standard’s encryptions.
Can anyone knowledgeable about this confirm or deny my above points?
Just replace WEP with IPSec.
I’m serious, even MS’s PPTP is not secure enough.
The government just wants to keep people in control. As soon as it’s population is out of control, it stops being a government. That’s why the gun control laws are so bad. With the so-called terririst threat, the government can label anyone a terrorist and have absolute power. Just like in the 50’s, the “Red Scare”.
“All your base are belong to us”
What the heck does this mean?! I mean, it’s not the first time I’ve seen it, but I have no clue what it’s trying to say.
Sorry, I know this is OT, but it’s for a good cause
http://www.planettribes.com/allyourbase
All the information you’ll ever need about All Your Base Are Belong To Us.
enjoy.
My understanding is that having a wireless hub in your house is exactly like having a RJ-45 jack on your curb. Essentially, the wireless hub now gives someone “physical” access to your network.
You can harden your network well, but if someone can spoof a relevant “authentic” IP, then they can actually connect into the wireless hub. You can not do anything at this time to prevent that, as that information is broadcast either in the clear, or through a very minor bit of encryption.
In practice, I don’t think this is a problem.
If I were a company, and I wanted to use this kind of wireless technology, I’d place it on its own little segment and have a nice firewall between the wireless part and the rest of the network.
Warchalking reminds me of the little marks for Vampires in the movie “Blade”.
“All your base are belong to us”
I believe this is a quote from a japanese anime cartoon that was about some weird dude invading a planet or something. sorry to be so vague, but thats all i really know. its from an old anime cartoon.
I want my addtron wireless hub to have GREATER rage. I would be happy sharing my connection with my neighbors.
Anyone know of antennas for this model ? AWS100 http://www.addtron.com/
>this is a quote from a japanese anime cartoon
no, it’s a quote from a video game called “Zero Wing”
here is the original clip for the thing: http://www.planettribes.com/allyourbase/AYB2.swf
Good, now all those companies who have open network nodes and don’t know it will be motivated to take the proper precautions. Assuming they don’t want to be serving as a free ISP, of course…
if your interested in reselling your bandwidth check out http://www.joltage.com …
Another move by the Federal government to kill off the basic human instinct that allows people to form groups: trust.
I’ve never seen a terrorist. Until the World Trade Center was allegedly destroyed by terrorists (there’s still no proof, no one caught, etc.), no one in this country even had the concept of a terrorist being in the US.
Any now the country is overflowing with them? I think not.
If anything, the Global 500 are the world’s terrorists, coming in and raping the environment everywhere, including the United States.
What a wonderful distraction to allow the largest Big Money/Big Govt power grab in the history of this country.
Oh yeah, I better lock up my network… because what? Because the government will put me in prison if I don’t? Because I’ll be presumed to be helping some sort of mystery enemy? Sounds like a bungled Hollywood movie script.
I suppose we should use the Internet as much as possible while it is still open. I would be surprised to see an open Internet still accessible to mainstream people in 3-4 years.
#m
“no one in this country even had the concept of a terrorist being in the US.”
That is such a stupid comment. Plenty of people knew there were terrorists in the US. Even if you spent only an hour each day watching the news, you would have known this.
“I suppose we should use the Internet as much as possible while it is still open. I would be surprised to see an open Internet still accessible to mainstream people in 3-4 years.”
Anohter really stupid one. You cant just shutdown the internet or make huge changes to it. Even if you could, you would need an agreement between many countries in the world because they would also be effected… and I doubt they would want the US to have absolute power. If you mean “open” as in no spying by the government… too late, they’ve been doing that since the 90’s.
– Kelly
You cant just shutdown the internet or make huge changes to it. Even if you could, you would need an agreement between many countries in the world because they would also be effected…
The Internet is controlled in China. And in Singapore. And in many countries that do not support freedom.
Did they have to make huge changes to it? Nope.
Plenty of people knew there were terrorists in the US.
You mean all the people in the US govt that did nothing?
Or do you mean the people in the US govt that shelter terrorists that the govt has supported in the past?
#m
Placing company secrets on billboards considered a risk.
Driving blindfold considered harmful.
Keep matches away from children.
I’ve never seen a terrorist. Until the World Trade Center was allegedly destroyed by terrorists (there’s still no proof, no one caught, etc.), no one in this country even had the concept of a terrorist being in the US.
This is wrong on so many levels. The only probably true statement is the first one. I’ve never personally seen a terrorist that was involved in any activities so far, however who knows how many times you or I may have passed on on the street in your daily travels is not verifiable. The rest is conspiracy theory rhetoric and propaganda.
The proof that terrorists destroyed the WTC can be found not only from the information discovered by the US press, foreign press, the US government and world governments but by the al Qaeda terrorist network itself. Direct translations from al Jazeera-authenticated broadcasts clearly show the high level al Qaeda members not only gloating about WTC (understandable for them) but then claiming that it was more successful than they had ever hoped it could be. Documents acquired post-Taliban in Afghanistan further document both past successful and future plans of the al Qaeda terrorist organization. If that isn’t a smoking gun I don’t know what is. Of course video evidence and documents have been ignored before, just look at what DC mayor Marion Barry has gotten away with.
The last statement is prehaps the most distorted of them all. US citizens certainly haven’t had to deal with terrorism on a daily basis like people of Ireland or many middle east countries, but that doesn’t mean that we didn’t have a concept of terrorism before 9/11. We have had our own boughts of high profile domestic terrorim: Oklahoma City, Olympics, PanAm Flight 103, abortion clinic bombings, et cetera. We have never delt with terrorism on this scale before, but neither has anyone else. To say that a lack of daily bombardment removes the possibility of a citizen having a concept of terrorism or terrorists is therefore not true. What it has given is a clearer picture of terrorists in general. In Ireland, terrorists are seen as IRA members. In Israel terrorists are seen as Palestinians. In Palestine terrorists are seen as Israel troops and citizens. In the US we see all hooligans who exact violent acts on innocent people as terrorists, which is probably the more accurate picture.
I can’t agree with everything the US government does in its effort to route out terrorism, but their overall operations have been both successful and measured. The chicken little prophecy of a completely closed internet is completely laughable. The government would rather have it open and snoopable by themselves, than to box it off into a corner. Furthermore, the internet is not US-based, although it is US centric right now. It is impossible for the US government to successfully pass any legislation or digitally do anything without the support of the majority of the other governments involved. China is a great example of how poorly internet censorship actually works. With all their efforts, they still can only close down the public internet cafes et cetera, and have been able to do nothing to stop the general dissemination of knowledge. In the US, a country who’s very history is based on the concept of individual determinism and freedom, things won’t be able to get that way for a long time, if ever.
Kelly:Plenty of people knew there were terrorists in the US.
Michael:You mean all the people in the US govt that did nothing? Or do you mean the people in the US govt that shelter terrorists that the govt has supported in the past?
Unfortunately two problems plagued the US government’s terrorist deterence efforts before 9/11. The first is a concept of constitutionally protected freedoms (a good thing). That means our law enforcement can’t simply go into people’s houses rough them up and extract whatever information they please. When this illegal activity has taken place in the past, the perpetrators in the government have rightfully been come down hard on. So they had to work within the framework of the constitution. THere is nothing they could do about that.
The second problem was a lack of will on the part of the people to address this issue domestically and internationally. Fiscal constraints placed great strain on the FBI in the 90’s during their ridiculous fight against the drug movement in the US. They were overworked before, but on other topics. Now they are concentrating their efforts on the fight against terrorism.
I won’t directly address the obvious baiting by the last comment. People in government may do stupid things like what you’ve stated above, but it has never been a matter of policy by the US government. When this type of activity is found out, again it is dealt with swiftly and harshly.
I should have read your whole post first. Jeez this is a ridiculous leftist propaganda piece:
If anything, the Global 500 are the world’s terrorists, coming in and raping the environment everywhere, including the United States.
Now that sounds like a hollywood movie script! “Evil corporations throughout the world are plotting to destroy the environmend and seek to grab all the money in the world for their own malicious purposes, mwho-ha-ha-ha…”
Yes these horrible organizations have provided such destructive capabilities to society as: computers, cars, airplanes, pharmaceuticals. Are these the most moral organizsations? I would put them at the same level as any union or government organization. That means they are filled with the same amount of corruption. Raping the environment is a matter of perspective too. All people throughout the world must seek to limit their environmental impact, but it is impossible to eliminate it. These large corporations which work in the agricultural industry have done wonders with eliminating top soil erosion and increasing crop density. They make it so that the US has a food production capability that could feed the entire world population (no means of distribution is the limitation there).
Furthermore, look at the areas hardest hit by environmental calamaties. Are they the US or their other capitalist-based friends, or is it the former Soviet bloc and communist Asia? If the big bad Global 500 companies were so bad, wouldn’t the west be the most affected by polution, and not the former/current communist countries?
I agree with you on the premise however, humans as a race aren’t doing enough to minimize our environmental impact. This is hardly isolated to a group of 500 companies, it is a fact of the human condition which must be addressed in general.
That the fbi is concerned about this is understandable. Those types of wi-fi networks can make tracking and controlling terrorists quite difficult. They also provide a valid point and anonymous entry point for hackers of all kinds.
When you perform security you are trained to see places where there is a lack there of and to fix it.
Of course the larger problem is that the US is an open and relatively free society. YOu can’t patch all the security concerns without ending all of our personal freedoms.
In the end i’d agree that personal freedoms are already being encroached upon. I’d also agree that the fortune 500 are by far the worlds worst terrorists.
Nonetheless, it can’t hurt to bring this issue to the attention of IT managers so that they will put into place greater security measures into their network. That is probably the only thing that will come out of this.
so they might start controlling and regulating wireless LANs. Did they gain anything by that move? nope. if everything else fails a terrorist could just go back to writing a letter. or does the FBI want to screen every ordinary letter which is sent in and out of the US and around inside the US? have fun…
I’d also agree that the fortune 500 are by far the worlds worst terrorists.
Care to elaborate? I don’t dispute that there is a lot of corruption throughout these corporations, but to call them terrorists goes way too far.
I really don’t consider Worldcom to be that big of a deal. They are really in dishonest but legally grey area. but Corporate interests have indeed inflicted an enormous amount of suffering upon people throughout the world.
They have polluted, controlled governments (including that of the United corporation (i mean states) of america), subjected workers to horrible working conditions, promoted social injustice,etc.
if you want to know who are the terrorists, and other stuff:
http://www.sparko.com/war
They have polluted, controlled governments (including that of the United corporation (i mean states) of america), subjected workers to horrible working conditions, promoted social injustice,etc.
Most governments throughout history, even into the present day, are guilty of this too? Furthermore smaller businesses are also guilty of this as well, not just the corporate giants. Why are we just demonizing the big companies? If we look at the alternative to the capitalist system, we had the same corruption, the same injustices et cetera, we just had an unchangeable government exacting that toll instead of a bunch of censurable companies.
Hank,
No one ever suggested turning into sweden, china or russia i at least just suggest accountability, some honesty and bit of respect for the rights of others.
The free market works best in my opinion. However, the ability of large corporations to unduly influence policies needs to be ended.
I would concur with that 100%. I only pointed the poor performance of alternatives to suggest that it isn’t a problem inherent in the corporations or a capitalist system, but instead a problem with human nature in general.
Since this thread seems to have went totally off topic (it was about wireless networks), I guess I will enter the current topic…
As much as I despise corporations as the terrorist entities that they are, we can only blame The People for buying their products. Corporations get their power from The People who buy their products. It is the job of the people to better inform themselves; it is the job of the corporations to market their products. The corporations only sell what The People will buy. If The People don’t buy a product, it gets removed from the market. This is the Great Free Market at work folks, not some big terrorist conspiracy theory.
To address Hank: I have yet to see any *real* proof that 9/11 was perpetrated by al Qaeda. If you are calling the mass media, governments, and above all al Qaeda’s own media reliable information, I am tempted to label you as an agent of terror. All of these sources are known for their dissemination of false information whether they originated it or dumb-wittedly passed it along. To say that these sources are reliable as proof of 9/11 is to support whoever the real terrorists are. Hank, please present some *real* proof of the crime if you are going to present any proof at all. Otherwise you are just perpetuating the problem.
Finally to get back to the original topic. If any one is so worried about their dirty little secrets on their computers, they will be able to afford to hardwire a network and not rely on wireless nodes, and also beef up and better *maintain* their firewalls. This is the best way to elevate security on a network, if you are to listen to most security experts. This would also eliminate this Warchalking “threat”, if you really consider it a threat.
If you are calling the mass media, governments, and above all al Qaeda’s own media reliable information, I am tempted to label you as an agent of terror.
Your basis for this label is what exactly? I unfortunately fell for the flame bait. You’re asking for proof is along the same lines of those still asking for proof of the moon landing. Many different independently verifiable sources, including members of those organizations own comments, aren’t enough for you I guess. In that case nothing will be, and I don’t care on wasting any more of my time with you.
You are the weakest link, goodbye…
OK, my point was that you were using the supposed enemy’s own media outlet as your main example of proof that they did it.
“The proof that terrorists destroyed the WTC can be found not only from the information discovered by the US press,
foreign press, the US government and world governments but by the al Qaeda terrorist network itself.”
I quite frankly do not trust any of these sources and have been raised that way. Most people I know are the same way. The mass media tells you only *what they think you want to hear*. That is how they make their money.
I was only *tempted* to call you an agent of terror, hoping that you would actually see the folly of what you were saying. I would have changed my mind, but you seem to trust the enemy more than you trust yourself. I have not yet labeled you as an agent of terror. You should read the sentence that you quoted a little further. Being tempted to do something and doing something are two different things. I did not mean for you to take that so personally.
I only ask that you provide some solid proof if you are going to present something as solid proof. I am not saying that al Qaeda did or did not commit the 9/11 terrorism because I have not seen any solid evidence for or against. I very much doubt that you have either although you seem to believe that you have.
You seem to have been threatened by my *temptation* to call you an agent of terror. Is there something you should be telling us?
If I am the weakest link, I must be part of one strong chain.
Trust nobody but yourself…
Fear nobody but yourself…
I quite frankly do not trust any of these sources and have been raised that way. Most people I know are the same way. The mass media tells you only *what they think you want to hear*. That is how they make their money.
But look at which media outlets are broadcasting the information. You are correctly that we must critically analyze the data at hand. Are we seeing all the reports coming from one media slant, or one media organization? We are seeing a consistent story told by media organizations sympathetic to both sides. The absence of a dissenting voice on the matter, in both the international Islamic press as well as western press, lends very strongly to the credibility of the information.
The “hard” evidence has come out of video interviews with the al Qaeda members, broadcast by both CNN and al Jazeera. Once again, two media organizations on opposite poles of the spectrum on this issue. There have also been released transcripts and documents that consistently point to the same thing. I don’t have access to classified information, so getting transcripts of interviews or the recovered documents from the Taliban won’t be happening. What other kind of “hard” evidence do you want? My question to you is how much “circumstantial” evidence would you have ignored in the early 40’s about the concentration camps in Germany? There was no proof of it. No photos, no German broadcast of the locations across radio transmissions. However in hind sight, it is clear that the early messages getting back from both sides during the war painted an accurate picture. Groups were warning the government in the US about their existence, yet nothing was ever done about it until after the war because it was dismissed as story telling. Let’s not repeat this lesson over and over again.
Furthermore your darn right I’m going take offense to being labeled a terrorist. Throwing that term around as lightly as it has been here is an outrage. It has nothing to do with me hiding anything, it has to do with you using the term too liberally to incite an emotional reaction.
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/
It’s time for another Revolution.
You painted a clearer picture of what you were saying. I apologize for being *tempted* to call you an agent of terror, if being tempted to do something can be offensive. Still, I never called you a terrorist, it was only my stance on the subject pushing my opinion in that direction. As I already stated, I did not mean to “incite an emotional reaction” as you put it. I know it gets me into trouble sometimes, but my serious tone naturally carries a sarcastic note. Or was it that my sarcastic tone carries a serious note? 8^)
“The absence of a dissenting voice on the
matter, in both the international Islamic press as well as western press, lends very strongly to the credibility of the
information.”
This fact makes me wonder why there was no dissenting voice, as I would assume there would be in such a matter. Why would two supposed enemies release non-contradicting statements? One side has to be leading the other on. Right? This is why I am weary of believing either side at the moment.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it turned out to be run by Joey Skaggs, or one of his PISSofF colleagues. This is such an obvious prank it practically screams, “Fake!”. It is clearly meant as a commentary on ‘Net fads, and the growing paranoia of the industry and government.
Of course, I may be hoaxing you right now, by claining to be debunking this… who can you trust? (answer: nobody).
I get worked up over political issues a little too easily. I’m glad that the message board debate is ending on a civil note. If I became a little over zealous myself, I apologize.
This fact makes me wonder why there was no dissenting voice, as I would assume there would be in such a matter. Why would two supposed enemies release non-contradicting statements? One side has to be leading the other on. Right? This is why I am weary of believing either side at the moment.
Certainly in terms of editorials and opinion pieces, there are many points of view on the issue of blame. The uniformity I was speaking of was in terms of the discovered evidence, even by sources who’s editorial/opinion sections are filled with articles more sympathetic to bin Laden’s cause. Hopefully in 20 years we’ll be able to look back on this era with the same clear picture that we have from the Watergate era.