Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security

Wardriving From 1500ft Up 156

Posted by timothy from the beats-an-in-flight-movie dept.
luciensims writes "Wireless networking blog e3.com.au is running a story about a few of their members flying a private aircraft 1500ft above Perth, Western Australia. They found over 90 access points. Details are here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wardriving From 1500ft Up More

Wardriving From 1500ft Up

Comments Filter:
  • How do you write with chalk at 1500ft? Must have looong arms...
  • Fly-by Hackings?

  • Good thing it's not in the USA! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Oh my god! Hackers (read as: terrorists) flying planes at low altitude over cities?

  • Link doesn't work (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just so you know
  • WLAN eletromagnetic waves & cheap plane electronics => loose control at 1500 ft
    The earth is not flat but warflyers are.

  • Helping the SYSOPS, is there a standard? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JanMark ( 547992 ) on Sunday August 18, 2002 @09:00AM (#4092352) Homepage
    > Speaking of security... I wonder how ethical it would be to code up a script that maps to printers
    > available on open/insecure WLAN netbios networks and print out "Your Wireless Network is insecure,
    > Please fix it!"?
    This might be helpful to the local sysop. This printout can be shown to his (her) /boss/. The boss will understand the problem at once! Where the usual "Let's invest in security" is less palpable.
    On the other hand, it could rase the question why the sysop didn't /do/ anything about it already.
    What is the /best/ way of letting a site know about a security hole?
  • They were able to get the necessary tools (including a private-freaking-jet) to do some wardriving/warflying..

    And they didn't have decent servers to handle a Slashdotting?

    Oh, this is Australia. Never mind.
  • Seems to be dead already. Google hasn't got a cache, anyone get a copy?
    • e3 maintenance

      e3 is currently down for maintenance. Please try again in 30 minutes.

      In other words, the server exploded into a pile of twisted wire,metal,and silicon.

      they're trying to build another one.

      no google cache available at this time. Besides, the page is served via php..

  • new found use! (Score:2, Funny)

    by garcia ( 6573 )
    are they going to mark the locations by skywriting? :)

  • Next on slashdot: (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Fbi warns of wireless (again)
     From the well-duh dept
     Fbi agents warn: If you see plane circeling you office, check your pavement for chalkmarks! [slashdot.org] If they are there, then you should check your wireless accespoint`s manual under the topic importand, must read, security!! on the first page

    Also, think of the potential of hooking radio controled helicopters/planes up with wireless, give them some ai [sourceforge.net] and a phone home by wireless+internet feature and you can send it everywhere in the western world, just let it ask for its next waypoint (any big city) by e-mail ;-)

  • Defcon (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Null_Packet ( 15946 ) <nullpacket@NoSpAM.doscher.net> on Sunday August 18, 2002 @09:06AM (#4092370)
    Rumore has it the winning team for the wardriving contest at Defcon 10 used a Las Vegas chopper tour to scan for Access points.

    check here:
    http://www.securitytribe.com/wardrive.html

    and results from the contest here:
    http://www.dis.org/wl/score.txt

  • Geez. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 18, 2002 @09:07AM (#4092372)
    Wardriving, war on drugs, war on terrorism, war this, war that.

    What an aggressive society we have become!

    • Re:Geez. (Score:3, Funny)

      by Peyna ( 14792 )
      Warcraft for me.

    • Re:Geez. (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Whoever modded the parent up as 'insightful' is a friggin idiot. Wardriving, warchalking, warflying (?), all have roots in 'wardialing'. Wardialing was simply the practice of dialing a bunch of telephone numbers in an exchange to work out which ones have a modem answering the line. This was done with a bit of software known as a wardialer that would note which numbers answered with a modem so that it could be examined later.

      I've heard it said that the term 'wardialer' is related to the film 'Wargames' - in which the lead character wardials his way into a DOD computer system. I don't know if the relationship between the movie title and the term is true, though. BTW, if you've never seen the film, don't bother; it's crap.

      That said, the parent post would get a +1 funny from me if it actually were funny. But it ain't insightful.
      • It's a pun, but it is insightful. I'm sure the poster did know that it wasn't war as in "war".

        Wardriving, however, is sort of a guerilla tactic. It's not entirely legit but it is a good thing. "Take to the routers and the warchalks." (Yeah, I've been reading that Sterling speech a lot.)

        As for the film, the way I heard it was that the practise got it's name from the film and the film got it's name from a game that's played in the movie.

        I thought the film was good, I recommend it.
    • Expect businesses to pick on this.

      A few examples:

      - WarBusiness
      - WarMac
      - WarMail
      - W2W: war-to-war
      - WarML
      - FreeWar
      - .war
      - ...

      I'm sure you can come up with yours...

      Dave
    • In other news, the first WarPost was observed on slashdot, here,, today,,, in this post.
      A new website is in the works to catalog all WarPosts and will go online next week.
      Meanwhile, here's a short description of the signatures:
      (*) WarPost with comments
      (!) WarPost to gain karma points
      (O) WarPost without any comments
      (l7) WarPost from one who wants to be cool too.
      (!=) WarPost from Perl writer.
      (<?) WarPost from PHP writer.
      (&lt;) Warpost from Windows "webmaster"

      And now for the post:
      (*)

      Done

  • Bastards.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by marcushnk ( 90744 )
    What kind of bastard /.'s a little old home (ex desktop) machine like that?!?

    heheh.. I guess your gonna get that upgrade you were talking about now aye? ;-)

  • This is stupid (Score:4, Funny)

    by stere0 ( 526823 ) <slashdotmail&stereo,lu> on Sunday August 18, 2002 @09:08AM (#4092375) Homepage
    Who puts access points at 1500 feet anyway? :)
  • So every time I fly on a commercial airliner, I'm reminded to turn off my cell phone for the duration of the flight. Yet these people are using wireless technology in the air. And there are lots of stories of people using cell phones on flights (e.g. on Sep 11). What exactly is the danger here in using wireless in the air?
    • There isn't any danger. The airlines/FAA just want you to pay attention to the attendent or pilot's instructions during takeoff/landing if there's a problem.
    • It interferes with flight navigation systems. On a small plane, probably manually guided, that doesn't matter. On a jet that's about to crash into a building, you have bigger things to worry about.
    • Here [privateline.com]'s a pretty lengthy article on the reasons - basically, it's not exactly a safety issue; it's more of a nuisance to those using it at ground-level due to the way radio waves travel.

      On the other hand, the FAA says it's dangerous [cs.net].

    • Re:wireless from the air (Score:3, Insightful)

      by garcia ( 6573 )
      no matter the fluff, I don't believe it is dangerous. it is another reason for you to have to use inflight phones and to pay attention to the captain.

      Although it would be REALLY fucking annoying if cellphones were allowed. I already have trouble sleeping on the plane as I somehow always pick the seat RIGHT in front of the "seat kicker baby". Not only is it a "seat kicker baby" it has a mother/father that is a "seat kicker baby's parent who doesn't care when the person in front of them asks them to restrain their child". Imagine 99% of the plane talking to people on the phone. Grr.
      • At more then 600km/h you would not be able to use a cell phone, as it would have to jump from cell to cell faster then can be handled by the network.

      • I am a pilot (Score:5, Informative)

        by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Sunday August 18, 2002 @10:07AM (#4092509)
        I am a pilot who flies a small, single engine aircraft and does so very, very frequently, and often for very long distances (coast to coast, etc.).

        Cell Phones can and occasionally do interfere with the NAV-COM radios, but most of the time they do not. However, I recall one time when a friend hadn't turned off his phone and I couldn't hear the tower as a result, despite the fact that I was sitting on the ramp only three hundred yards/meters away. As soon as he turned his cell off, reception was fine, so it can and does interefere rather catopstrophically at times, when conditions are right.

        I haven't measured VOR-DME deviations due to cell phones, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they didn't interfere with navigational signals as well, when conditions are right. That could potentially be catastrophic during flight in IMC (instrument) conditions, particularly if there were terrain nearby.

        In any event, alll that is rare. Most of the time cell phones will at most add a little static to the transmission or reception, and often they won't interfere noticably at all.

        That is only half the picture, however.

        The FCC has made it illegal to use cell phones in the air because one phone call can occupy a slot in several cells at the same time, vastly decreasing the call capacity of the system.

        Two hundred people on a jumbo jet using cell phones could well equal 20,000 people on the ground. It clobbers the cellular system, and is sufficiently bad that the FCC has made a regulation against using such phones in flight. The FAAs regulation is basically "obey the FCC regulation."

        Of course, if it is an emergency, FAA regulations clearly state that any (FAA) rule may be violated if the saftey of the flight requires doing so. The FCC might not be as flexible, but in a true emergency I for one wouldn't worry about it, and use the damn thing anyway if I needed to.

        • I don't know if that is true or not, however there does not seem to a problem with passenger planes installing cell phones. They run the antenna to the outside of the plane and then charge you 3 or 4 dollars a minute for using it. Some people think that they are just using the excuse of cell phones interferring with a planes electronics so that you have to use their installed phone.

          Besides if planes are really that vulnerable to outside interference it is a good indication that they should probalbly should address the issue. It is only getting to worse with more and more companies wanting to use the wireless spectrum.

          What if gets to the point that all a real terrorist needs a small electronic device that will interfer with the planes equipment. Make it look like a cell phone and they would never find it. I would assume that would be a bigger danger and easier to do than someone carrying a couple lbs of TNT with thier luggage. They really need to address the issue of interference with a planes electronics.

        • I am not a pilot :-)

          I have heard (unsubstatiated rumour here) that using a cell phone while in the air can net you free calls.

          Presumably because the handoff from cell to cell happens much quicker than the billing system can detect. Or more likely, it assumes that such short connections are failures, and errs on the side of caution.

          Please note, this is a rumour. Don't call Norway on your cell just because I said this :-) Unless you are in Norway.
        • I'm a pilot too. I have recently flown approximately 360 hours with a cel phone turned on in my pocket just a couple feet from the radio stack and have never noticed a problem. Cel phones operate on a different frequency range than the VHF communications and navigation equipment in an airplane. I am not aware of there having been any documented instances of mobile phone interfering with avionics. If anyone has any references (not anecdotes) please email me.
          • I'm a pilot too. I have recently flown approximately 360 hours with a cel phone turned on in my pocket just a couple feet from the radio stack and have never noticed a problem.

            I too have forgotten to turn my cell phone off a time or two, and it didn't cause a problem.

            Nevertheless, the "anectdote" I described is very real. If you dismiss the experience of other pilots as anectdotes you are doing yourself a real disservice ... you will learn a great deal more about safety from "hangar talk" and the experiences of others than you ever will from reading a book, no matter how 'official' the printed word may seem to your, or how comforting a reference with page number and paragraph citation may be to you.

            If you do feel the need for more technical background, I suggest you begin your studies by referencing radio harmonics, radio interference, jamming techniques, as well as basic electromagetic refraction and reflection. (HINT: radios on vastly different frequencies can and do jam one another on occasion, when conditions are right. It is a myth that, to jam a signal, the jamming signal needs to be on or near the same frequency. That is the easiest, most common scenerio, but by no means the only one).
        • I am not (yet) I pilot

          But I do work in telecoms and I'm a qualified yacht navigator (yes that is relevant, bear with me!)

          Anyone who knows anything knows that a square wave can be assumed to be a series of sine waves added together.

          Why is this important - well a digital signal is what most modern phones will be sending out has lots of nasty harmonics due to its digital nature. (I know most of the US still uses TACS or other such things, I'm talking about GSM/UMTS okay?)

          Now if you hold this next to electronics any piece of wire that is an integral number of wavelenghts to a harmonic is going to get an induced current - this is the way antenna work.

          Now I have seen this happen in yachts - I have watched a GPS right in front of my eyes reset and lock up as my own phone recieved a text message. I tested it later in port I found that it could disrupt the GPS and cause nastyness on the VHF radio.

          I expect that some of the logic circuits had tracks the right length to get a pulse big enough to be seen as a logic state / and there was break through on the anaolgue side of the radio.

          Now the stuff in aircraft aint greatly different from this. Draw your own conclusions.

          I also used to work for a large UK based aero engine manufacturer (go on, guess we only have one!) - I know how much testing the electronics in engine control systems is tested to.

          A modern airframe is a metal box - if you don't understand the term 'Faraday Cage' then go look it up now. In essence it means that any RF energy broadcast in the body essentially stays inside until it finds an area to escape. This vastly increases its chance of interfering with electronics, and also puts your phone to full power to try and overcome the 'interference'.They don't put antenna on the outside of airframes for fun, but because they have to.

          Now the aircraft manufacturer has spent a long time carefully testing and integrating the electronics in that airframe to make sure they don't interfer - this is why aircraft electronics are expensive. They have not tested, nor have any control over what electronics you bring on board.

          Now in risk management you assess two terms - the possibility of the risk happening and the consequences of that risk. The possibility that phones could interfer with radios/nav instruments/engine systems is real, but unlikely (use of computers probably negligable) Now way that up against the consequences of a systems failure on an aircraft full of people and fuel at just after its taken off. I think the world perhaps understands better the last 12 months just how dangerous that situation can be. In any other mode of transport you can stop and sort out the problem, in the air you get one chance.

          If I'm flying transatlantic and you feel making a call, or playing minesweeper is worth risking mine and 300 peoples lives for, forgive me if I don't agree with you.

          Note:

          In this story the guys involved knew what they were doing and accepted the risk - thats thier choice. Also I don't think the systems on a Grumman Tiger are vital for its flight, just navigation, so its not like they put anyone on the ground at risk. However, not being able to hear the tower is like playing in the middle of the freeway...
        • ACtually, the FCC allows you to violate many of the laws, if indeed you are actually broadcasting for emergency conditions. For example, I have heard (somone correct me if i'm wrong) that in north america, if you dial 911 your cell phone will increase it's output beyond the "Safe" requirements for non-interferance, and that it can transmit on "reserved" channels as well
        • I love climbing 10,000 ft. mountains in Oregon and pulling out my 2 meter ham rig and hitting repeaters in Oregon, Washington, California, and Nevada. It's fun watching people pull out their cell phones and not get service. I tell them to step down a few feet off the summit and then they always get service. I assume that on top you hit so many cells that the systems just can't handle hitting cells over 100 sq miles.
      • Once upon a time, aircraft flying under IFR conditions (overland) navigated mainly using VORs and ILS for final approach guidance. While they use VOR much less than days gone by, ILS is still in heavy use.

        The funny thing is that VORs and ILS systems operate at a frequency just barely above the FM broadcast band. It was discoved that the IF frequency of a cheap FM radio tuned to the upper end of the broadcast band was strong enough to disturb the ILS receiver onboard the craft and put it off course at a very critical time; namely landing, when 50 ft. of error can be fatal.

        Nowadays, the ILS/VOR recievers are better as are the average FM radio. Private pilots flying planes sporting radio equipment much crappier than your average 737 has commonly fly with portable GPS recievers and operating laptop computers with no problem.

        So yes, with the exception of devices capable of high powered transmit (old cell phones, CBs, Ham and aircraft band trancievers), the ban on electronic devices during takeoff and landing is still enforced to get the passengers to pay attention to the flight attendent. The FAA just won't admit that.

    • It is probably not dangerous. The ISM bands include the same frequencies the inflight microwave ovens use. The power level is usually below 100mW, far less than a GSM phone. GSM produces pulses, that "familiar buzzing sound" that can often be heard in the pilot's headset. If it can force its way into audio equipment, it is to be assumed it can get into navigation equipment.

      A malfunctioning mobile phone could radiate on frequencies used for navigation. Equipment uesd in aircraft is of high quality and can detect jamming. Backup systems can be used. For the confort of other passengers, it is best that the present policy to remain in force. It is bad enough on the train to have a half-dozen passengers talking about nothing!

      Using certain equipment, like an FM radio, can transmit on the VOR navigation frequencies. If the pilot is for some reason not aware his VOR is being jammed it can be disasterous on overland flights. In this same thought, it is possibly unsafe to use a laptop and many other common computer products like CD/mp3 players.
    • While it's true that wireless gear doesn't affect the avionics on most modern aircraft, and most digital networks nowdays aren't susseptible to "multiple-cell-from-altitude" degradation, you won't be able to use a wireless phone from more than about 18,000 feet. You just won't get any receptions b/c radio signals from wireless stations don't go that high up.
    • Cell phones not only would be annoying in the air for every passenger talking to their hand, but the whole design of the cell structure would be defeated. Your cell phone from the heavens would be blanketing every cell tower in the city at once, saturating the network's capacity.

      Operating your cell phone on the ground ensures distance to neighboring cells is enforced, only using the nearest neighbor. Signaling to your cell phone adjusts the power output to a reasonable level to save your batteries and airspace. This is completely defeated when you are up in the air and pretty much the same distance to *all* towers. Its like jamming the entire network. And I believe cell phone use in the air is illegal just because of this.
      • Cell providers could easily fix that problem by having their network ignore all non 911 requests by cell users who are hitting a lot of locations at one time.
    • It's too bad that there's no reasonable excuse to forbid cell-phone use on a bus. If I had a dime for every time I heard "Hi. Yeah, I'm on the bus. What? No, I just called to say that I'm on the bus" I could buy a clue for Worldcom.

  • Wireless in Perth (Score:3, Informative)

    by Large Green Mallard ( 31462 ) <lgm@theducks.org> on Sunday August 18, 2002 @09:20AM (#4092409) Homepage
    Perth has a large wireless LAN community access network. See innaloo.net [innaloo.net] for more details. They use high powered 802.11b gear to set up long range links, which would likely be visible from low flying aircraft. Also see links on that page to other Perth freenet/WLAN's.

    I'm lucky to get 30 metres (100ft) range from my Apple Airport gear..

  • Slashdotted, here's what I could recover (Score:4, Informative)

    by stere0 ( 526823 ) <slashdotmail&stereo,lu> on Sunday August 18, 2002 @09:22AM (#4092417) Homepage

    posted by Jason Jordan on Sunday August 18 2002 @ 05:14AM WST
    Projects

    [link to pictures] [pcguru.com.au]

    We did it! It's gotta be a first! We don't need no car to car WLAN's - we go WarDriving at 250km/h in an aircraft... 8-)

    Cap'n Richard, Will (Yagi), Peterh & me took "IGI" - a Grumman Tiger 4 seat aircraft [flightclub.com.au] up to 1500ft and flew around Perth picking up AP's with Netstumbler running on an Handheld Ipaq/Cantenna and Kismet on a Toshiba Tecra 9000 with built-in Antenna.

    We stopped at Rotto first for a quick run to the Bakery, but then it was on. We got 92 AP's with Kismet... and 95 with NetStumbler.

    You can check out the photos by clicking the link below. There is also an image generated by Cap'n Richard to demonstrate the track we took around Perth available on the Rogues site.

    You can check out the Kismet & NetStumbler logs for yourself:

    Note: The Kismet dump file is not included for security reasons. After reviewing it, I found IRC conversations, emails and clear netbios traffic for known local Perth users. I will follow up with them to "improve" their security.

    Speaking of security... I wonder how ethical it would be to code up a script that maps to printers available on open/insecure WLAN netbios networks and print out "Your Wireless Network is insecure, Please fix it!"?

    I know what the law says so I'd never do it... but it would give the sysadmins pause wouldn't it ... 8-)

    Reposted on Sunday August 18 2002 @ 05:14AM WST

  • Isn't this sort of thing a little irresponsible?

    Every time some thing cool comes up, it seems lke it suddenly becomes cool to find ways to misuse it under the guise of hacking.

    Wireless networks are a great innovation which will be destroyed by a bunch of geeks with pringles cans on the roof of their cars.

    • Oooh, Sponsorship! (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'll be writing to Mr. Pringle today to arrange sponsorship.

      The next time you're buyig prongles, don't be surprised to see: Original, Sour Cream & Onion, BBQ, and High Gain.
    • Who is destroying anything? These Geeks just enjoy finding these Networks and use them maybe for a bit websurfing. The real dangers are to come.

      And WLAN isnt destroyed, as much as i know, you can secure a WLAN properly.

      But there are open WLANs wich can be easily hacked by crackers. You wont change anything by keeping silent about this.
  • The e3 webserver is a Gateway (moo) PC! It's a little Celeron 400 with 192mb of RAM and a single IDE Hard Drive.

    Anyone want to send a server?
  • They had the clever idea of using plane trails as gigantic 100ft wide symbols in the sky, but forgot that trails only last for a few minutes at best.

  • Automated warflying? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mikewas ( 119762 ) <wascher.gmail@com> on Sunday August 18, 2002 @10:22AM (#4092534) Homepage

    A model plane, processor, wireless card, directional antenna and GPS. Send the drone off to scout for access ponts -- either email the data back using the access points found or download the data after the drone returns.

    This'd be great on vacations. If it's fast enough, send it ahead of you on your intended route, and leapfrog from one access point to the next. If it's too slow, send it out on reccy mission when you stop for the night. By the time you're checked in & done with dinner you'll know where to go to get on the net.

    • Hell, the army could even do this -- they already have those automated spy planes with cameras, might as well steal some free broadband from the countries you're about to bomb.
    • Alternate proposal: enjoy your vacation and don't worry about flying a drone around so you can get free net access. If you just want to use your laptop all night, stay at home or work and use the fast landline connection there.

  • Go Perth! (Score:2, Troll)

    by Radix999 ( 28549 )
    Go Perth!

    It's clear that Perth is really making great progress in the wireless community - we're ahead of the rest of Australia in terms of size of the network and interest per capita and we're really starting to link the state up.

    While the wireless communities in other states are arguing over how they're going to incorporate or how they're going to manipulate everyone politically - here in WA we're focusing on actually making it work with no one person running the show. Decisions are made by the consensus, not an individual voted in to speak on our behalf. People contribute because they're interested and keen to help out.

    It's seeing initiatives like this warflying expedition which really makes me glad to be a part of the Perth wireless community!

    Go Perth!
  • this is an extremely bad idea. Those Wi-Fi signals can interfere with an aircraft's electronics - you think playing a CD player is bad? Wait till you start bouncing round these signals. They're worse than using mobile phones!

    I recall Apple, when Airport first came out, plugging Airport for gaming - two users could sit on a plane and play a network game using a direct 802.11b connection. One of the big aeronautical manufacturers found out (apparently one of the relevant employees was perusing their site) and got on to them quick smart about it. The plug (in an interview with Apple's old head of gaming, Kathy Tafel, IIRC) was quickly pulled of the site.

    In short: using 802.11b on an aeroplane is dangerous. don't do it!

    cheers

    -- james
    • While I agree that abiding by FAA regs while flying is wise, I'm not convinced at all of the technical merit here. It seems to me that if airplane electronics were so fragile that the very low power RF from an 802.11b transmitter or cell phone could affect them in any way, they'd be dropping out of the sky everywhere.

    • Hey I've played Counter-Strike at 30,000ft before [shafted.com.au] (hmm very blurry photo...). However we just used a UTP crossover cable, no wireless.
    • Nonsense. 802.11b in a small plane is harmless. Probably harmless in an airliner also but I am less familiar with airliner systems. And FYI, I fly airplanes with CD players built into the instrument panel. Check this picture out. [plusone.org] See that box with the slot in it above the right yoke? It's a CD player. I haven't flown this particular plane in a few months but it is the only one that I have flown with a CD player I can find a picture of online. And when I am flying a plane that doesn't have the CD player built in I am flying a plane with a 3.5mm jack for portable CD player audio input.

      My opinion is that the airlines are scared to death of lawsuits. If a plane goes down and people were allowed to use 802.11 onboard they would get sued out of existance becaue "everybody knows that using portable electronics onboard aircraft is dangerous." There's not much proof of it, but "everybody knows it!"
  • It seems that it has become hip to download scriptkiddie tools *cough*netstumbler*cough* to hack networks.
    What part of "scriptkiddie" is a low-level, lifeform similar to scum that these hipsters don't get?
    The 'l33+ $ki77z d0odz behind the above unmentioned tool have been in the irc scene for a number of years. A scene not known for legal use of other folk's servers.
    Leaving the MPAA and the RIAA and their arguments out of this. This type of activity is often cited as justification for enacting the draconian laws that we all hate.
    It is primarily this activity that is being used by the Media and others (not friends of wireless) to spread FUD about how wireless is not to be trusted and is a giant security hole. Wireless is our only hope of getting out from under the thumb of the telecos. (Telecos == that ever increasing bill you have been paying every month, all of your life.)
    Want to have to submit DNA sample to your "trusted computing platform" so that you can log on? Then support this type of scriptkiddie activity.
    --
    I think, therefore, ken_i_m
  • working on my private certificate.

    I'm not sure how my instructor would respond the next time I go up if I brought my laptop and told him 'I want to fly over the city at 1,500 feet.'

  • Reminds me when the US was easedropping on Russia's first cell phones back during the cold war... How hard would it be to put somebody (or two sombodies preferably) in an ultralight or glider and just float around looking for access points? Sounds like covert ops stuff; Floating around in your black "Escape from New York" glider and crashing enemy networks from the sky.
  • The article talks about how they used Netstumbler on the Ipaq... so of course that sparked my interest. I googled around and couldn't find a PalmOS 802.11b sniffer... and I'd love to play with my Visor/Xircom Wireless combo in the same way.

    Anyone know of / developing a PalmOS 802.11b sniffer?
  • It only got about 1.3 million people which puts it a bit bigger than St Louis. Like all small Aussie towns its got no population and is spread over a huge area. Your saying 1.3 isn't small? Its got to be since Melbourne and Sydney are small towns and they only have 4 million people or so. Oh wait... only NYC and LA have more than 4 m people... That puts syd and melb as #4 and #5 as far as the worlds largest english speaking cities... I wonder if these are such small towns afterall.
  • Wardriving From 1500ft Up

    Pffft, amateurs.

    I've wardriven anywhere from 4500ft to 5000ft up. I plan to go up to about 9000ft, but I doubt I'll find many access points from that elevation.

    Huh? Planes? What? I thought we were talking about elevation. See, I live in the Reno/Tahoe area... :)

  • Gives a whole new meaning to crop circles now doesn't it?
  • If you stand on a beach in Northern France with your UK mobile phone, and do a "Network Search", it will probably see your home network back in the UK - but that doesn't mean you can use it because your phones transmitter is simply not capable of reaching the same distance.

    So doesn't the same thing happen with 802.11?
  • Oh oh! I've got a hot connection, stop the plane!

  • What do you boys want to hire the plane for??

    We're going Warflying!!!!

    Give me those keys back......

Slashdot Top Deals

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.

Close