Volume 29 : Issue 71 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
Re: Smartphones will make mobile security a challenge
Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone?
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:13:50 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
Subject: Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
On 3/10/2010 8:34 PM, Bruce L.Bergman wrote:
> If the original clueless party was being honest, she would have
> offered to locate the system owner and "Buy In" to the WiFi access,
> trade the System Password for a portion of the bill, and agree to play
> nice and not over-utilize it. (See Below) But we can see where that
I disagree: it's hard to find a WiFi hotspot with just a laptop for
guidance, and she might have been using a desktop anyway. Dense areas of
apartments or office buildings can bounce signals every which way: we
don't know if she was just willing-but-unable.
> There are a few serious wrinkles in the issue of sharing WiFi -
> First, data security. If you allow strangers access to your internal
> network, they have just bypassed your firewall - and have access to
> all the computers on your network and all the data stored on them.
> For a good hacker, once they have breached the firewall and are
> inside the network, the rest is childs play. Now it IS possible to
> set it up where the guests on the unsecured WiFi node are outside the
> LAN firewall and can only access the Internet, but the average user
> isn't going to figure that one out, or spend extra for the gear
That's understood at the start: you're making a straw man here. Nobody
ever said sharing was risk-free, and if someone chooses to give
non-vetted machines or people access to a private LAN, then they choose
to take the risks. The use of any shared resource is subject to the
Tragedy of the Commons, but the issue is whether J. Random User is
entitled to assume that an unsecured hotspot is open to all.
> Second, you might think "That's all right, I have 'Unlimited'
> Internet service, I can share" - but that's Unlimited in name only.
> They DO run a usage meter on you at the Telco or CableCo internet
> headend, you can find it hidden in the fine print of your contract. If
> you use more than they consider 'normal usage' (the trigger point
> figure I usually hear is ~5 GB a month) they can force you to buy
> 'Business Grade' service or just disconnect you for abuse.
"They" can't force anyone to do anything: that's another straw man. You
are assuming that Internet access is essential to life, and that users
will have to do whatever their ISP demands. That's not true.
While there might, or might not, be bandwidth limits on use (please cite
specific instances, with references, of times that such limits were
actually applied), I doubt that casual use of a shared hotspot, for
email or homework or checking messages at the office or whatever, would
trigger any bandwidth cap.
>> Telecom Digest Moderator writes:
>>> Well, I've made my position clear already. Using a resource that
>>> the owner chooses not to safeguard is, to my mind, "acceptable
> Just because it is unsecured does NOT mean they can't come after you
> for using it - IIRC, it was Lowe's Home Improvement who had someone
> successfully prosecuted for hacking their internal network through an
> *open and unencrypted* WiFi connection at several of their stores.
> Yes, 2004, it's Googlable.
> And another in November 2003 at a medical office. And again,
> Nicholas Tombros busted for Wardriving to find open WiFi, and sending
> spam runs out on the victim's internet connection. And hundreds
That's a third straw men argument. OF _COURSE_ "they" can come after
you if you're careless: that's a truism of the modern age, and not the
subject of this debate. You may as well postulate that Lowe's didn't
install fingerprint-id circuits in the ignitions of their delivery
trucks, and so should be blamed when someone used one to smash through
the front window.
It's routine for businesses to make an open Access Point available for
visitors: after all, business is about efficiency, and keeping employees
efficient while they're visiting other businesses means making the
Internet available to the employees of other businesses in turn. Those
who share a resource are entitled to expect civility and good will from
the users, because that's what keeps the resource usable for everyone.
BTW, the headlines may be "Googlable" (so are claims that the Holocaust
never happened and that the Hale-Bopp comet signaled the apocalypse),
but the actual result is likely to be a lot different. Again, please
provide specific references to the descriptions of the result that
came after the headlines: has a court of law found that Lowe's acted
Using a shared resource for illegal or foolish ends doesn't demean or
compromise those who share: I may regret having loaned my motorcycle to
my cousin back in 1978, but I don't begrudge my son the use of the
family station wagon because of it.
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:07:18 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Smartphones will make mobile security a challenge
On 3/9/2010 4:33 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
> The increasing use of smart phones in the workplace opens
> new vulnerabilities as the smart phones become hacked and
> run malware. Think of the smart phones as open conduits
> to the company/corporate LANs and other infrastructure per:
> " [...]
> " ... mentioned SexyView.D, what he described as the first
> " iPhone worm targeting an English-speaking audience. The
> " virus, which only affected "jail-broken" iPhones (devices
> " modified to work with other phone service providers),
> " spreads through text messages containing malicious links
> " and re-sends itself to the victim's list of contacts once
> " inside.
> " In November, F-Secure found in the Netherlands another
> " iPhone virus called Duh, which substituted a bank's log-in
> " Web site for a fake one designed by criminals to steal the
> " victims' credentials. The scam was not easy to detect with
> " the naked eye since Internet addresses often don't show in
> " their entirety in mobile devices.
> " [...]
> Complete story here:
And today on Slashdot we find:
" Apple Blocking iPhone Security Software
" Speaking exclusively to PC Pro, Eugene Kaspersky has claimed
" Apple has repeatedly refused to deliver the software development
" kit necessary to design security software for the phone. 'We
" have been in contact for two years with Apple to develop our
" anti-theft software, [but] still we do not have permission,'
" said Kaspersky. Although he admits the risk of viruses
" infecting the iPhone is 'almost zero,' he claims that securing
" the data on the handset is critical, especially as iPhones are
" increasingly being used for business purposes. 'I don't want
" to say Apple's is the wrong way of behaving, or the right
" way,' Kaspersky added. 'It's just a corporate culture — it
" wants to control everything.
Kapersky already offers security solutions for Symbian and
Windows Mobile and soon for Blackberry and Android. More from
Eugene Kapersky here:
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:41:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone?
Adam H. Kerman <email@example.com> wrote:
>My question was, Does a specialized filter exist for cordless phones
>that use 43-60 MHz range. It must not be old enough to use 1.7 MHz, as
>it has 10 channels.
Finally found the manual:
The cordless phone in question is Sony SPP-2000, manufactured in 1994.
It uses 10 channels at 46MHz and another 10 channels at 49MHz. With the
ADSL2 modem plugged in, sound quality on the cordless phone is dreadful.
Sorry about my earlier confusion. No, it's not old enough to have been a
1.7 Mhz cordless phone.
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: firstname.lastname@example.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: email@example.com?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
End of The Telecom digest (3 messages)