Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Wi-Fi Hacking Neighbor From Hell

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the internet-equivalent-to-road-rage dept.

Crime 584

Hugh Pickens writes "Barry Ardolf, a Minnesota hacker prosecutors described as a 'depraved criminal,' has been handed an 18-year prison term for unleashing a vendetta of cyberterror that turned his neighbors' lives into a living nightmare. Ardolf hacked into his next-door neighbors' Wi-Fi network and used it to try and frame them for child pornography, sexual harassment, various kinds of professional misconduct, and to send threatening e-mail to politicians, including Vice President Joe Biden. The bizarre tale began in 2009 when Matt and Bethany Kostolnik moved into the house next door to Ardolf. On their first day at their new home, the Kostolnik's then-4-year-old son wandered near Ardolf's house. While carrying him back next door, Ardolf allegedly kissed the boy on the lips. 'We've just moved next door to a pedophile,' Mrs. Kostolnik told her husband. The couple reported Ardolf to the police, angering their creepy new neighbor (PDF). 'I decided to "get even" by launching computer attacks against him,' said Ardolf, who downloaded Wi-Fi hacking software and spent two weeks cracking the Kostolnik's WEP encryption. Then he used their own Wi-Fi network to create a fake MySpace page for the husband, where he posted a picture of a pubescent girl having sex with two young boys. Ardolf turned down a 2-year plea agreement last year to charges related to the Biden e-mail. After that, the authorities piled on more charges, including identity theft and two kiddie-porn accusations carrying lifetime sex-offender registration requirements."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

2 weeks for a WEP? (5, Insightful)

LordAzuzu (1701760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746838)

Noob! :)

Re:2 weeks for a WEP? (0)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746912)

This.

Even 2 years ago he should have been able to crack a WEP password in matter of minutes.

Re:2 weeks for a WEP? (1)

trum4n (982031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747096)

My router (netgear recertified 20$ 802.11N unit) blocks you for 5 minutes if you fail 10 times to get the key. That will set you back a few days. I still run WEP 64bit. Never had a problem. Don't rightly care.

Re:2 weeks for a WEP? (1)

DJLuc1d (1010987) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747116)

Wouldn't matter, WEP attacks can be performed offline.

Re:2 weeks for a WEP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747212)

Is that -really- what you took away from this story? THAT is what you comment on?

Re:2 weeks for a WEP? (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747008)

He obviously is, encase there is anyone on this site who knows little about wireless security it only takes a few minutes to crack WEP and it is extremely easy to do.

Re:2 weeks for a WEP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747194)

He obviously is. [In case] there is anyone on this site who knows little about wireless security, it only takes a few minutes to crack WEP and it is extremely easy to do.

Apparently easier than English.

Re:2 weeks for a WEP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747214)

That was my first thought on the article too. Two weeks to crack WEP? I can usually get them in about 5 minutes in multicast.

I'm not sure if I'd prefer the above, or this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746840)

I'm not sure if I'd prefer the above, or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZqPQPhsuX4

the good old days (1)

nopainogain (1091795) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746866)

remember the good old days when you would borrow your neighbors wifi, and like picking up litter at a playground you just used, you would run a virus scan on their drives as a courtesy?

It's OK! (1)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746868)

They had nothing to hide anyway...

Would MAC address filtering counter this problem? (2)

Yold (473518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746876)

What additional security measures can be taken to thwart script kiddies like this guy? Is MAC address filtering + WEP/WPA encryption (or one of those) sufficient security. At this point I want to shut the fucking WiFi off, but there are others in the household who wouldn't go for that.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (1, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746894)

What additional security measures can be taken to thwart script kiddies like this guy?

Well, there's always physical security. You catch someone doing something like this, and you put them under arrest yourself and then hope they resist, at which point you may use necessary force to subdue them. In California, anyway. Bring a witness with a camera.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (1)

Doodlesmcpooh (1981178) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747230)

Although it can have security issues itself HomePlug is a good option. I live in an old granite 3 storey house so I can't get a decent wireless signal throughout my house so HomePlug works great for me. I doubt many hackers check to see if they can access homeplug in their neighbours house via the electrical sockets in their own house.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Subratik (1747672) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746910)

What additional security measures can be taken to thwart script kiddies like this guy? Is MAC address filtering + WEP/WPA encryption (or one of those) sufficient security. At this point I want to shut the fucking WiFi off, but there are others in the household who wouldn't go for that.

Well, if he was an uber skilled script kiddie, he could just spoof one of the allowed IP's which isn't hard to do at all considering 'script-kiddies' have been hacking into government affiliates as of late... :) got something to hide?

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747002)

1. spoofing an IP will not get you past MAC address filtering
2. i'm not sure what script kiddies hacking into government affiliates has anything to do with a Wi-Fi
3. you can always backtrace the internets. consequences will never be the same!!

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747120)

1. spoofing an IP will not get you past MAC address filtering

So you just spoof your MAC address as well. It's not as if this was rocket science (... as anybody would know who ever sat in a boring airport lounge..)

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746918)

Yes, MAC address filtering would help. For him to then connect to your Wi-Fi he would need to sniff your MAC address then spoof his to match yours. Being that it took him 2 weeks to crack a WEP encryption, I'm sure he wouldnt be able to do this.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (1)

mybeat (1516477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746950)

Actually, you can see MAC addresses without even cracking WEP/WPA...

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746920)

Some nodes can change their MAC address, so you just need to monitor the network for a while and spoof a good MAC address which is not in use.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (1)

mistralol (987952) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747114)

Why? It does not actually matter if the mac address is in use or not.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (1)

LordAzuzu (1701760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746924)

Mac filtering + WEP is useless.
Go for WPA2, and you are not 100% safe anyway. But better than WEP for sure...

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (5, Funny)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747090)

Yeah, Mac filtering is pretty useless. I mean, what's the chances of a leet hacker using a Mac?

Steven Seagal's Apple Newton notwithstanding.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746928)

use WPA2. trivial to crack WEP and then spoof the MAC

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746946)

No. Mac filtering is useless once you start spoofing traffic.

WPA-PSK, long non-dictionary PSK, non-standard SSID. Done.

There are options which are more secure, but for a home user, that's your best bet.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (1)

grumling (94709) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747032)

http://www.random.org/passwords/ [random.org] has a fairly good pw generator. Make a bunch and pick 2 strung together.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (1)

Rashkae (59673) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746956)

Consider the Wifi network as "open" and use it only to connect VPN nodes (such as OpenVPN, for example.) This does require that you use a PC as the Internet gateway/NAT/VPN server.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747176)

And that would have protected against what happened here how?

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747238)

And that would have protected against what happened here how?

The neighbor would have been able to use him as a source address for traffic -- but *not* to steal his usernames and passwords out of the air.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747232)

This does require that you use a PC as the Internet gateway/NAT/VPN server.

Not necessarily. If your router is supported by OpenWRT [openwrt.org] you can install OpenVPN [openwrt.org] on it.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746960)

The guy took two weeks to crack WEP? He must have been doing something wrong then.
WEP is known to be insecure - So use WPA2 with a decent passphrase and you're OK!
Mac filtering is not foolproof but may help.
Keep calm and carry on.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (1)

grumling (94709) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747048)

Or it could be the author of the article has his head up his ass and just calls all wireless security WEP.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746964)

Use wpa2 with a strong password that won't get hit by a dictionary attack and you're pretty much set. It's not that wpa2 is completely invulnerable, but as far as I know there aren't any one click solutions for breaking it.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (1)

FlashBIOS (665492) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746970)

MAC address filtering is very loose security. MAC addresses arent private things, and aren't hidden when a computer is communicating. To build a list of MAC addresses that are allowed on the network (by simply seeing the machines that are on the network), and then change your machine's MAC to match is fairly trivial.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746982)

I shut it off anyway. If you don't have a wire, you don't connect to my network.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (4, Insightful)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746984)

Most NICs support either intentional or "back-door" MAC address cloning. Cloud-computing resources can crack your WEP (trivial), WPA (harder/slower), and WPA2 (much harder and slower, but still doable, unless you rotate them daily).

Then, if you have implemented some reasonable level of security, when the jackboots kick in your door, you'll have a much harder time defending yourself during the pre-trial investigation, and, then, assuming you live long enough, in court, due to the security you put into place, obviously trying to hide your evil actions.

At best, you can discourage casual (mis-)use of your WiFi, but that wouldn't help against a long-term attack like this one.

If you're worried about it, shut it off, and run the cable, as I have.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746994)

Just make them work for it.

WPA2
Don't broadcast SSID
MAC filtering
Put your router in an interior room of your house/apartment (not a shelf by a window!)

Log activity
Rotate passphrases
Hard to guess passphrases

None of this is insurmountable (according to what I read, I doubt I could penetrate the above but I am not a cracker in any sense of the word). At the very least make the intruder know what they are doing.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747000)

The moral of this story? DON'T USE WEP! It has been broken for years. It can be cracked in seconds.

WPA2-PSK is a secure algorithm, and will keep your network safe as long as you use a decent key (as in 32 characters long, alpha numeric, symbols, upper case, lower case, just general good password security).

If you do not use a decent key then it can be brute forced due to an insecure key.

Key rotation is a good idea if you are REALLY paranoid.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747004)

Well, if you only need to use the WiFi indoors, you could build a Faraday cage into the external walls of your house. That's a little extreme, though.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747020)

It sounds like he "cracked" the WEP encryption with brute force. Surely there should be a way to tell that someone is attempting to log into your wireless router hundreds of times a minute? Ideally the router would send an email or otherwise issue an alert to a known address. Are there any routers that support this kind of thing out of the box? If not, any easy to use software? (On Windows in my case, but feel free to name software of any variety, in the aid of spreading knowledge...)

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747094)

Brute forcing WEP is done by saving a dump of the encrypted data you receive, then brute forcing that until you have the correct key, so there's no connection to the router made until you know what the key is

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747030)

Wpa2 encryption is still considered secure If you use a strong enough password. Wep and Mac address filtering are worthless. Wep was compromised almost immediatly upon release and Mac address filtering can easily be circumvented by spoofing one of the mac addresses of a computer already on the network which is easy to do.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747078)

WPA2 + MAC filtering + Don't broadcast your SSID

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (1)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747150)

WPA2 is probably adequate, MAC address filtering would probably stop only very incompetent hackers, it's pretty useless in my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong)

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747234)

Indeed it is. All you need to do to bypass it is to capture packets from someone using the network to get their MAC and then set your own MAC to match. You then have a valid MAC that lets you onto the network.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747156)

What additional security measures can be taken to thwart script kiddies like this guy?.

This security device [centerfireguns.com] works every time, particularly with pedophiles.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (1)

rhook (943951) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747164)

If you use WPA2 and a strong WPA password that is 18+ characters long you don't have much to worry about. MAC filtering is easy to bypass and WEP is a joke.

Re:What additional security measures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747200)

WPA2 with a strong password (20 random characters or 7 diceware words) should stop such attacks.

Re:Would MAC address filtering counter this proble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747202)

Use WPA2 instead of WEP, because WEP is known to be totally open to begin with. Choose a very long password, such as "Apparently, my router has a long WPA2-password now." That's enough.

Good riddance (1, Insightful)

nharmon (97591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746878)

I often balk at the sentences our judicial system hands down (too much punishment for minor offenses, too little for major offenses), but in this case I think the punishment fits the crime.

Re:Good riddance (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746942)

the only fitting punishment for a pedophile is execution, for me

Re:Good riddance (2)

grumling (94709) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747068)

Assuming there is NO DOUBT at all, like the accused actually performed the act in the courtroom.

I'm against the death penalty, only because I see how the rest of government performs and can't believe the judicial system is any better.

Re:Good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747100)

the only fitting punishment for a pedophile is execution, for me

What would be the point of executing you though?

Re:Good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747162)

That's a bold confession...

Re:Good riddance (1)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747196)

I agree, but I think the standard for conviction in capitol punishment cases needs to be stronger than "Reasonable Doubt" because you can't take back execution.

Re:Good riddance (0)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747242)

My Aunt kissed me on the lips once. Should she be executed as well? I mean, come on- it's a kiss.

I'm pulling this out of my arse, but I'd be willing to bet that there are entire cultures where kissing is a form of farewell or a friendly greeting. Unless he slipped the kid the tongue or something, kiss = death penalty is a touch extreme.

are the police extra sure he did it? (0)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746882)

i mean it could have been anyone else in the city?

Re:are the police extra sure he did it? (3, Informative)

sjpadbury (169729) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746936)

From the summary:

'I decided to "get even" by launching computer attacks against him,' said Ardolf

Sounds like he confessed, so, um, yeah?

Re:are the police extra sure he did it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747132)

No, "get even" by also launching baseless attacks. I wouldn't like anyone kissing my son either, but I would not report it to the police...

Re:are the police extra sure he did it? (1)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747228)

Tell that to the Norfolk Four [wikipedia.org] , watch the PBS documentary [pbs.org] .

While I'm not suggesting that's what happened here, I am saying that a confession isn't necessarily definitive evidence that anyone has done what they confessed too. The methods used to solicit the confession, the motivations of those involved, and the persons mental capacity (either at the time, or in general), need to be taken into account.

Hopefully they have substantially more evidence than just a confession. Especially if this person is "creepy", weird, or similar, as he might be the kind of person who would fall prey to this sort of coercion.

Just something to keep in mind when they say "he confessed".

Re:are the police extra sure he did it? (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747154)

if you read TFsentencingmemo, there's no doubt he did.

Re:are the police extra sure he did it? (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747188)

If you read that whole pdf you would see that the evidence against him is overwhelming. He'd be better off claiming he had an evil twin.

perceived sleights (3, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746896)

turned into byzantine obsession is a sign of a person who will do nothing but bring grief to anyone who ever touches his or her life

if you ever meet this type, back off slowly smiling, then run like hell

their feeling of disempowerment and helplessness (self-learned) and the eternal fight against that (fruitlessly projected outwards) is all they know, it defines their entire existence

Re:perceived sleights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36746990)

And if they come after you, what can be done short of death? I've had a stalker like this and would love to know.

Re:perceived sleights (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747014)

that is the grim calculus isn't it?

there is no easy answer here

Re:perceived sleights (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747080)

If they come after you, make sure you're living in a state with a good castle doctrine, and have a firearm?

Oh, wait, that's death.

Why the sex offenders registration? (4, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746940)

The guy didn't download the CP for sexual purposes. He's not a paedophile, just a warped anti-social individual.

That register is for people who have a proven (and acted upon) attraction to minors; Those who are a danger to children. Adding him to the list dilutes it and mitigates its usefulness. What he did should be covered by libel / defamation laws. He deserves to be taken out of society for what he did to that family, but there's nothing in there which supports the idea that he's dangerous sexual offender.

Re:Why the sex offenders registration? (1)

funkify (749441) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747010)

Um, actually, by most accounts he IS a pedophile. RTFS. He expressed physical intimacy to the victim family's 4-year-old son. They called the cops on his pedo ass, and his continued acts were in retaliation.

I assure you it is far, far from normal for a grown man to go around planting smooches on 4-year-old boys.

Re:Why the sex offenders registration? (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747082)

While carrying him back next door, Ardolf allegedly kissed the boy on the lips.

You know what that word means, right?

Re:Why the sex offenders registration? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747012)

Except for kissing his new neighbor's child full on the lips. If I had a new neighbor whom I'd only recently met do that to my child, I'd be ready and willing to have them on that list.

Re:Why the sex offenders registration? (0)

Toam (1134401) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747018)

Mod parent up

Re:Why the sex offenders registration? (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747044)

Yes but... that is "justice" for you. He committed the worst, most heinous crime in our court system... he refused the plea deal.

Seriously... 2 years to 18... he is quite litterally getting 16 more years and a lifelong sex offender registration... because the prosecutor was insulted and wanted to become the persecutor.

That said, no defense of this guys actions, he is clearly off his rocker. That still doesn't make this response appropriate

Re:Why the sex offenders registration? (3, Informative)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747064)

but there's nothing in there which supports the idea that he's dangerous sexual offender.

uh, so kissing their ten year old son on the lips against his will doesn't qualify?

Re:Why the sex offenders registration? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747142)

I can see I'm going to have to explain the word "allegedly" to a lot of Slashdotters today.

Read the PDF document linked in the stub. There's no mention of a conviction. It'd be classed as "soft evidence" on any Enhanced CRB check in the UK (which is essentially another word for hearsay).

By the way, you should consider what I say in my sig when I comment on subjects like this.

Re:Why the sex offenders registration? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747072)

Actually, that registration list is useless. I know in my state (not sure if its a federal or state law) you have to register for 10 years on the sex offender list if you get caught urinating on a tree in the woods. Hardly a person who has a "proven and acted upon attraction to minors".

Re:Why the sex offenders registration? (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747074)

It doesn't matter. He was in possession of, and *distributed* child pornography. It is against the law to be in possession of, and to distribute, child pornography, and if you break that law, you are a sexual offender.

This person sexually exploited children (indirectly) by obtaining child pornography. Everyone who seeks out child pornography is participating in the exploitation of children. It doesn't matter what his reason for exploiting them is - he still exploited them.

Plus, by making possession of child pornography illegal, with the threat of lifetime sex offender status, it gives police and prosecutors an additional tool, potentially, to help bust child pornography rings: by having the ability to charge those who possess child porn, they may be able to get them to give them information about where/who they got the child porn from, which may lead the police back, link by link, to the original person(s) who exploited those children.

If he's truly guilty (I always do give anyone the presumption of innocence - it's quite possible the police are wrong about this - that's what juries are for, and hopefully they get it right), then I feel no sympathy for this guy - in that case, he *chose* to seek out child pornography *knowing* it was illegal, and if he had been successful, his *neighbors* would have been registered as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.

Re:Why the sex offenders registration? (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747076)

The guy didn't download the CP for sexual purposes. He's not a paedophile, just a warped anti-social individual.

That register is for people who have a proven (and acted upon) attraction to minors;...

All of this supposedly started because the parents claimed he kissed their child on the lips. If the kid acknowledged that happened, then combined with all of the picture / net stuff he did then getting on the registration isn't exactly "out there."

Heck, a minor can be charged with a sex crime for taking a naked photo of themselves and texting it to their other minor friends... ridiculous but it still happens.

An adult male doing stuff with pictures of minors will land him in hot water... whether it was for his pleasure or some other means.

Re:Why the sex offenders registration? (1)

Hoover,L Ron (610796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747092)

Umm kissing a underage boy on the lips while not a "dangerous" sexual offense certainly qualifies as sexual assault on a minor nonetheless. Besides that, this was not the first time he's been accused of fooling around with kids. I wonder if this clown was a USENET KOOK? If so the Feds killed 2 birds with one stone.

Re:Why the sex offenders registration? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747098)

You know how I know you didn't even read the summary...?

Re:Why the sex offenders registration? (1, Insightful)

nharmon (97591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747106)

I think you are mistaken about the purpose of the sex offender registry. It is not for people with a proven attraction to minors (which is not a crime by the way, just saying). It is for criminals whose crime is sexual in nature, regardless of whether the victims were minors or not. So you will find everyone from rapists to flashers on the registry.

Claims he is not a "dangerous sexual offender" does reconcile with his behavior. In this case, the individual attempted to frame his neighbors as child pornographers. In doing so, he victimized the children depicted in those photographs as well as the neighbors.

Re:Why the sex offenders registration? (1)

nharmon (97591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747124)

Err: does NOT reconcile with his behavior.

Re:Why the sex offenders registration? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747184)

"On their first day at their new home, the Kostolnik's then-4-year-old son wandered near Ardolf's house. While carrying him back next door, Ardolf allegedly kissed the boy on the lips. 'We've just moved next door to a pedophile,' Mrs. Kostolnik told her husband. The couple reported Ardolf to the police, angering their creepy new neighbor (PDF)."

WEP (4, Informative)

david.given (6740) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746954)

This seems totally bogus to me. How could someone possibly crack WEP in two weeks? I suppose if you didn't read the instructions [lifehacker.com] you might be able to stretch it to a few hours, but two weeks? What was he doing all that time?

Re:WEP (5, Funny)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747022)

What was he doing all that time?

Reading the man pages for aircrack-ng?

Re:WEP (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747110)

He probably wasn't using injection. He just listened until he had enough IVs.

Re:WEP (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747158)

perhaps he only said 2 weeks,.. its possible he sat there for 2 weeks sniffing all their traffic and planning his little "attack". I wouldnt be suprised if they found personal photos of the family in this guys possesion..

Re:WEP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747224)

Downloading child porn?

So how do you monitor your home wifi? (1)

Fahrvergnuugen (700293) | more than 3 years ago | (#36746974)

So how would you monitor your network to see if someone is brute forcing their way in? The options on a lot of these consumer grade wireless base stations are fairly limited, but there must be some reasonable way to monitor for brute force attacks.

Re:So how do you monitor your home wifi? (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747180)

most WLAN routers are used also as DHCP hosts. a simple solution would be a script that gets regularly the DHCP leases page and generates a warning when a new MAC/address combination is found.

Re:So how do you monitor your home wifi? (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747222)

Well, the Airport Extreme I use logs all of its various activities, including connection attempts (successful or otherwise) as well as access to the disk that is hooked up to it and I view it on the device itself or export the logs for more thorough review. I'm sure it's far from the only consumer grade AP to do this.

Now, I don't think it can go beyond simply letting me know that someone is trying to get in (beyond MAC filtering which is like trying to block a burglar by putting up a sign that says "do not rob this house if you are wearing red shoes") and having a strong WPA/WPA2 password, but if I was seeing large numbers of failed attempts on my AP I'd at least start doing some investigating.

MAC address spoofing (1)

Phoenix666 (184391) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747046)

It must have taken them a long time to figure out what happened unless he wasn't spoofing MAC addresses. It wouldn't occur to most people that their wifi was hacked. Most would assume someone had hacked their individual machines. Wonder if the target was technical, in which case the hacker would have been stupid to do what he did (not to mention evil).

Re:MAC address spoofing (1)

Tangential (266113) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747108)

It could have been MAC addresses or it could have been something as simple as the time that a hack occurred. The homeowners may have been able to prove that they were not home at that time and couldn't have done it.

Based on the 2 weeks to hack WEP, this guy wasn't too bright. It may never have occurred to him to make sure that they were home whenever he did something.

The REAL WTF... (3, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747052)

Is that prosecutors are allowed to offer plea deals.

If the prosecutor believes crimes were committed, then file charges. If not, don't.

If people are cowed into pleaing guilty (or no contest) to charges to which they believe they're innocent due to legal costs or fears of false conviction, the solution is radical reform of the legal system. NOT to create a gray area of semi-crime, semi-guilt, and semi-punishement. That is *not* innocence until proven guilty.

Re:The REAL WTF... (1)

HBI (604924) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747112)

Absent plea deals, the entire system would break down due to lack of enforcement. Just how many trials can the state run? How many courtrooms are really available for said trials? Logistics...

That said, the prosecutorial fiat involved in plea deals is quite scary. Particularly on the receiving end. I just can't think of a good way around it.

Re:The REAL WTF... (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747118)

There is already a huge backlog of cases and trying a case is a huge cost to society. Without plea agreements it could take decades for some of these cases to come to trial.

With a name like Ardolf... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747058)

no wonder he was a bit of a Narzi...

Re:With a name like Ardolf... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747208)

Way to Gordwin the thread.

How times have changed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36747102)

When I was four, my mom caught a teen neighbor doing something innapropriate with me. She ordered him out of our backyard where he had no business being. That night, she told my dad about it.

Dad paid a visit that night to the family of the 17-year old in question and spoke for a while with his parents.

That family moved out of the neighborhood the next weekend.

Things were simpler then.

I've got it! (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747122)

The obvious solution is to not piss off the creepy neighbor.

And if some stranger I just met kissed my kid on the lips I'd be doing a little hacking of my own, involving a Extra Heavy Duty Glad Bag and a large surgical skiving knife.

See, the trick is to cut the bags open so you can cover the furniture. It makes cleanup a snap.

Plea Deal (1)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36747138)

He went from a 2-year plea bargain to an 18-year sentence? They raked him over the coals for not cooperating with the prosecution.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?