Slashdot: News for Nerds


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!

Turning Network Free-Riders' Lives Upside Down

timothy posted about 8 years ago | from the shake-it-like-an-etch-a-sketch dept.


An anonymous reader writes "You discover that your neighbours are using your unsecured wireless network without your permission. Do you secure it? Or do you do something more fun? A few minutes with squid and iptables could greatly improve your neighbours' Web experience ..." Improve is a relative term, but this is certainly gentler than certain other approaches.

cancel ×


I use WEP (2, Funny)

celardore (844933) | about 8 years ago | (#15792191)

I use WEP, but this certainly looks a laugh. Might turn that off, and see if I can have some fun!

Re:I use WEP (2, Insightful)

rivaldufus (634820) | about 8 years ago | (#15792254)

Well, if you're using WEP, you should still do it. Someone's probably cracked your encryption long ago...

It makes me think about turning off WPA, though.

It could be worse... (2, Insightful)

farker haiku (883529) | about 8 years ago | (#15792192)

Every link could be tubgirl.

Re:It could be worse... (3, Funny)

andrewman327 (635952) | about 8 years ago | (#15792213)

I'll just have to turn my monitor upside down! Oh crap, I'm using a laptop.

Re:It could be worse... (1)

Ignignot (782335) | about 8 years ago | (#15792288)

You could also turn your hands upside down I suppose!

Goats (5, Funny)

ajiva (156759) | about 8 years ago | (#15792194)

I'm surprised the guy didn't send every link to goats.ex... He was being way too nice.

Re:Goats (5, Interesting)

Roody Blashes (975889) | about 8 years ago | (#15792223)

If you don't secure a wireless connection that spills onto other people's property, why shouldn't they use it until told otherwise? You could argue that you're not really encroaching, but I guarantee you that's not true. There's another network near us that was too weak to always show in the list of nearby nets, but was just strong enough to cause intermittent signal pollution until one day I happened to move the router to get at something else, and noticed it next time I connected.

If you let your signal spill over onto other people's space, too bad.

In fact, I wouldn't be mad if someone were using my connection without my approval unless they were encroaching on my space to do it. In fact, I only secured it because of bandwidth concerns and the potential for other people to use it for illicit purposes.

Re:Goats (5, Insightful)

trewornan (608722) | about 8 years ago | (#15792372)

I chose to leave my wireless network open so that if someone nearby needed a connection it would be available for them. If someone was to impose an unreasonable load on the network I might do something about it but so far (12 months) I've had about half a dozen people connect and download relatively small amounts of data - my guess is they were checking email. Why would I object to that? No . . . why would *you* object to that? The way I see it it's a chance to do something nice for other people, why not get yourself some good karma.

Re:Goats (5, Insightful)

generic-man (33649) | about 8 years ago | (#15792435)

I've lived in two places where I set up my access point with no encryption. In both places, I've fired up iTunes to see someone else sharing music on my LAN. This didn't bother me until I read the name of the share: "(name)'s LimeWire Tunes."

I don't mind if people want to check their e-mail on my WAP. I do mind when they idle on file sharing services, using lots of bandwidth and exposing me to potential legal liability.

It's a shame that I have to protect my router somehow, especially because one of my devices (a Nintendo DS) doesn't support WPA at all.

Re:Goats (5, Informative)

Starker_Kull (896770) | about 8 years ago | (#15792506)

It shouldn't be too hard to set up some fixed IP addresses for your home machines, and let "guests" use a different IP range, for which you have implemented port blocking for all but 80, 25 and a few others for https and sending email, if you wish.

Re:Goats (1)

Ulysses (27994) | about 8 years ago | (#15792274)

Even better, just swap in a random image from google images or yahoo search.

Re:Goats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15792277) would be a lot more effective...3 years ago

Re:Goats (1)

Doches (761288) | about 8 years ago | (#15792278)

Alex? Is that you?

Re:Goats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15792286)

You know that's illegal now.

Dealing with Neighbors (3, Funny)

Simonetta (207550) | about 8 years ago | (#15792297)

Go to one of the translation websites and type the following:

    Osama Bin Laden has just been killed and [your neighbor's name and address here] has just collected the $25 million reward from the Americans!

    Translate it into Arabic then cut-and-paste it into one of the Jihad web sites in the Middle East where the beheading videos always get uploaded to first.

    Check that your insurance papers are in order and then go take a couple days vacation a few hundred miles away. When you come back, no more asshat neighbors.

Re:Dealing with Neighbors (0, Flamebait)

cliveholloway (132299) | about 8 years ago | (#15792491)

Of course, the trouble with that is that Osama died in 2001. Why do you think he's no longer public enemy No. 1?

Re:Dealing with Neighbors (1)

Fordiman (689627) | about 8 years ago | (#15792501)

That's pretty wrong on a couple levels. Probably why it got modded funny.

I'm not as nice (0)

phorm (591458) | about 8 years ago | (#15792473)

I did something similar awhile back. Router was open, dhcp was normal, no WEP, and all ports but http and the VPN were closed. For http, the server would redirect to an internal page showing a rotating collection of goatse type images and the text "Please go violate somebody else's network."

To actually connect to anything useful, one would first connect to the VPN (with the valid key), giving a much better encryption than WEP and the amusement of having any leechers getting goatse'd

Liability? (4, Interesting)

lecithin (745575) | about 8 years ago | (#15792203)

What are the odds that a neighbor would use your network and then sue you for the content that your are sending to him?

Re:Liability? (4, Funny)

`Sean (15328) | about 8 years ago | (#15792261)

What are the odds that a neighbor would use your network and then sue you for the content that your are sending to him?
Yeah, ailurophobia is a bitch.

Re:Liability? (2, Funny)

krell (896769) | about 8 years ago | (#15792293)

"What are the odds that a neighbor would use your network and then sue you for the content that your are sending to him?"

From the way you spell "neighbor", I can see that you are an American, and are in an environment where frivolous lawsuits are much more of a worry than they are in the UK.

Re:Liability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15792315)

Yeah. Because there aren't any frivolous lawsuits in the UK :)

Re:Liability? (1)

needacoolnickname (716083) | about 8 years ago | (#15792302)

Check out any of the following court shows and you will get your answer.

Judge Joe Brown
Judge Hatchett
Judge Judy
Judge Alex

Re:Liability? (1)

fullphaser (939696) | about 8 years ago | (#15792330)

The same odds a criminal would sue the bank he just robbed for fake 20's sorry, but if you have someone stealing wireless they have nothing to complain about

Re:Liability? (4, Insightful)

darkonc (47285) | about 8 years ago | (#15792354)

If you redirect a minor to goatsex, you might be in trouble.

If, on the other hand, you simply mangle the images that (s)he's looking for, then you could say that you're protecting the kid from nasty content.

It's not like you have a contractual responsibility to deliver something that (s)he never asked or paid you for.

Awesome!!! (1)

SoTuA (683507) | about 8 years ago | (#15792214)

The "upside-down" stuff was great.

He could always have made a script to redirect every third or fourth or nth click to goatse...

Re:Awesome!!! (1)

Donut2099 (153459) | about 8 years ago | (#15792387)

Thats not funny, someone did that to me once at an old job I had.

It's not their fault... (5, Funny)

nick_davison (217681) | about 8 years ago | (#15792224)

How can you blame people for connecting to a wireless router with the ID "Free Porn"?

Granted, my neighbors didn't intentionally set their router up with that ID but they did leave it unsecured with the default password for the admin account. It was simply the neighborly thing to do to change their ID and resecure it with a new password (that, admittedly, they didn't know).

Re:It's not their fault... (-1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | about 8 years ago | (#15792340)

Granted, my neighbors didn't intentionally set their router up with that ID but they did leave it unsecured with the default password for the admin account. It was simply the neighborly thing to do to change their ID and resecure it with a new password (that, admittedly, they didn't know).
This is doubtful. Routers normally don't allow administrative access through the wireless interface.

Re:It's not their fault... (2, Informative)

Wonko42 (29194) | about 8 years ago | (#15792363)

Um, yes they do. At least, the consumer wireless routers I've used from Linksys and Netgear do. Some of them allow you to turn that feature off, but it's almost always enabled by default.

Re:It's not their fault... (1)

Alphager (957739) | about 8 years ago | (#15792376)

not true. Most routers do allow just that.

Re:It's not their fault... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15792390)

quote: This is doubtful. Routers normally don't allow administrative access through the wireless interface.

They most certainly do.

Re:It's not their fault... (1)

955301 (209856) | about 8 years ago | (#15792391)

I can confirm this happens. I've had it happen once in my neighborhood - I run the web site for it. Every time someone calls for a new user account, I open a browser against their IP address to see if they are doing stupid stuff. Admin access default password has occurred once. I then call them up and tell them if they don't fix it they cannot use the sight because they obviously aren't paying attention and could easily end up with a password grabber, compromising the web site.

Re:It's not their fault... (1)

Mattintosh (758112) | about 8 years ago | (#15792397)

As others have pointed out, most routers do allow administrative access through the wireless interface. What they don't allow is firmware updates to be initiated by the wireless interface, because that would probably brick the router.

Re:It's not their fault... (1)

admdrew (782761) | about 8 years ago | (#15792425)

This is doubtful. Routers normally don't allow administrative access through the wireless interface.

So every d-link or linksys router I've ever used would fall outside 'normal behavior' for routers? Your average home router is administrated from a web-based interface protected by (usually) fairly basic authentication, always involving an admin account and never (in my experience) by type of connection.

Because it *is* possible to change router settings via wireless, there's always a warning with regards to flashing the router's firmware: not a smart thing to do over a wireless connection.

Re:It's not their fault... (0, Redundant)

Matey-O (518004) | about 8 years ago | (#15792452)

This is doubtful. Routers normally don't allow administrative access through the wireless interface.
That's news to my Linksys, D-Link, and Netgear access points!

Re:It's not their fault... (1)

clr211 (796400) | about 8 years ago | (#15792455)

Actually, some do.

I have done something similiar (blocking access to various websites (*, *, *, *, etc.)) to an unsecured router with the defaut login I found using wireless (it was a Netgear router I believe). I didn't go so far as to change the password, but I'm sure it took them a while to figure out why "the Internet was broken".

An unsecured wireless router, broadcasting its SSID, and using the default admin password is just asking for trouble.

Should be legal (4, Interesting)

gilroy (155262) | about 8 years ago | (#15792231)

In our topsy-turvy legal system, it might not be. :( But it should be. The nieghbors have no right to expect anything so they should have to just accept whatever the router sends them. As allegedly was said by Truman Capote:

The trouble with living outside the law is, you put yourself beyond its protection.

Re:Should be legal (2, Insightful)

larien (5608) | about 8 years ago | (#15792279)

Pfft, what are they going to sue you for? It's your network, you can do what the hell you want with it. If they choose to use it of their own free will, what do they expect?

Re:Should be legal (3, Insightful)

edmudama (155475) | about 8 years ago | (#15792490)

IANAL, but your machine is manipulating those bytes as they go by, and therefore you're tampering with their communications which may be legally protected.

As funny as this might be, I don't see it as being worth the potential liability. If the DMCA can attempt to outlaw drawing on your CD with a sharpie, then you could get in trouble for just about anything.

Re:Should be legal (1)

_anomaly_ (127254) | about 8 years ago | (#15792483)

I'd doubt that the unauthorized user would have any legal recourse with regards to what they were getting from neighbor's router.

However, what I wonder, is if folks like or whoever's images were getting mangled (turned upside down) would have any legal recourse with regards to missrepresenting their website without permission.

Just a thought...

Re:Should be legal (3, Interesting)

kfg (145172) | about 8 years ago | (#15792487)

Well, yes. That's what the word "outlaw" originally meant. It was a sentence, as punishment for a crime the law formally expelled you from its oversight. The hangers on could stone you as you left the proceedings and this act would be invisible to the law.

This is not at all the same thing as being a criminal, because a criminal still acts under the jurisdiction of the law.

In our topsy-turvy legal system we do not have outlaws, merely criminals. You may live counter to the law, but you cannot live outside it. The law is omnipresent.

Smile for the camera.


The funnest thing (3, Funny)

Klaidas (981300) | about 8 years ago | (#15792234)

After reading the article and it's comments, I've decided that the best would be to make it allways load an upside-down goatse

Re:The funnest thing (2, Funny)

dr_dank (472072) | about 8 years ago | (#15792311)

Which end of the goatse is up?

Re:The funnest thing (1)

antarctican (301636) | about 8 years ago | (#15792326)

After reading the article and it's comments, I've decided that the best would be to make it allways load an upside-down goatse

Who could tell the difference? ;)

I once did the same thing (1)

scenestar (828656) | about 8 years ago | (#15792242)

I redirected all their dns querries to goatse.

I'm going to burn in hell =/

Re:I once did the same thing (1)

eneville (745111) | about 8 years ago | (#15792364)

ah, but that's only good if the webserver isnt virtual. That would only be of use if the webserver treats all incomming on that IP address for that virtual site. If you have ever setup multiple websites on the same IP you will know what I mean, I'm just useless at explaining it.

Re:I once did the same thing (1)

scenestar (828656) | about 8 years ago | (#15792407)

With the amount of traffic goatse receives I'm sure they went dedicated.

Trying to make others feel as stupid as you were? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15792245)

To the anonymous author who writes in the 'article'

"My neighbours are stealing my wireless internet access."

Possible, but not likely. The most likely thing is your clueless neighbors don't have their own wireless set up very well, and are connecting to your wide-open network without realizing it. Thinking they are connecting to their own setup.

If you are an idiot who set up his network wide open, I wouldn't complain about anyone 'stealing' access. Secure your network properly, or be prepared to share it if you leave it open.

By leaving it open in the first place to be stolen, you've shown your dumb. Now doing this jackass thing to an 'open' resource, shows that you are a dumb asshole.

Re:Trying to make others feel as stupid as you wer (4, Funny)

SoTuA (683507) | about 8 years ago | (#15792280)

By leaving it open in the first place to be stolen, you've shown your dumb.

Calling someone on slashdot dumb - mostly free.

Making a dumb mistake while calling someone dumb - priceless.

Re:Trying to make others feel as stupid as you wer (1)

renehollan (138013) | about 8 years ago | (#15792323)


What part of "free" implying "no warrantability of fitness for use" don't you understand?

Intercepted Intruders (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | about 8 years ago | (#15792510)

"...or be prepared to share it if you leave it open..."

I'm always amazed by the surprize of intercepted intruders. I have no pity for them. Using the property of others could become a complex choice.

Could just watch (4, Funny)

MECC (8478) | about 8 years ago | (#15792248)

Could just watch their traffic, and when they try to bid on ebay, just slow their traffic down, then out bid them. They'll rue the day they tried to outbid 'yourneighborfromhell' on ebay.

Re:Could just watch (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15792416)

...and when they try to bid on ebay, just slow their traffic down, then out bid them
The down side is that you end up buying some crap on ebay.

Missing the point, I think (3, Interesting)

truedfx (802492) | about 8 years ago | (#15792249)

You discover that your neighbours are using your unsecured wireless network without your permission.

If your wireless network is unsecured, permission to use it is implied, and there are operating systems that will automatically use such networks, are there not?

Re:Missing the point, I think (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15792337)

From a technology standpoint, an unsecure wireless that broadcasts an SSID is an open invitation. Your wireless AP is basically sitting there, shouting to the world "Hey, here I am! Anyone want a connection?"

Does this translate to implied permission in a court of law? Beats me.

Re:Missing the point, I think (2, Interesting)

Manitcor (218753) | about 8 years ago | (#15792347)

Even if it is implied there is no implied level of service, if you decide to degrade the connection or alter the data passing through your personal equipment then thats up to you.

Re:Missing the point, I think (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15792433)

Except, people have been sued for "illegally using open networks". It's a load of crap, but meh. There's so many ways of looking at it. If you left the password to your computer in plain sight, would it be wrong for your roommate to check out while you were at work? And if he accidentally clicked on your shortcut to goatse and suffered mental trama...are you responsible?

Oh, and if you're trying to break into someones' house and, while wandering through the yard you step on a rake which breaks your nose and fractures your eye socket leading to years of pain and the homeowner responsible? Yep...

How about one from real life experience. A teenage is trying to break into the high he climbs up on the roof looking for a way in. He walks on the domed plastic skylights over the guy and, amazingly, one breaks and he falls through. 30 feet later he meets up with the nice polished hardwood gym floor and breaks both his legs. The outcome? He doesn't get convicted of breaking and entering...or even tresspassing. No. Instead, he sues the school and settles for/wins some undisclosed sum.

If, however, apple and ebay were bored one day they'd sic their lawyers on this guy. Nonsense about modifying their webpages and whatnot. Even if he won, he'd lose.

Obligatory (4, Funny)

Ryan Stortz (598060) | about 8 years ago | (#15792252)

One of my all-time favorites. :)

(Mootar) morons.
(Mootar) these people who live in my apartment complex are connected to my wireless
(Mootar) they must think they're super-cool hackers by breaking into my completely unsecure network
(Mootar) unfortunatly, the connection works both ways
(Mootar) long story short, they now have loads of horse porn on their computer []

Re:Obligatory (3, Funny)

Kjella (173770) | about 8 years ago | (#15792430)

Now I don't know which channel that was said in.... but I'd be slightly concerned that he just happened to have "loads of horse porn" to upload to their computer.

Stealing? (4, Insightful)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about 8 years ago | (#15792253)

It's as much stealing as sending the signal into their home is trespassing.

I think you just shake your head at your failure to secure it in the first place, decide if you care, and if you do, lock it down.

Funny way to deal with it, though.

Can you imagine the tech support calls? (5, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | about 8 years ago | (#15792255)

Substituting everything with Goatse or Tubgirl (Goatse was already done with airpwn [] at DEFCON 12) would be funny, but Joe Sixpack would call tech support, and they'd all shrug it off saying he'd been cracked with some sort of virus.

But can you imagine Joe Sixpack trying to explain to Pradeep that all the images in his web pages were being displayed upside-down (or better yet, blurry, or upside-down and blurry!), while all the text in the very same web pages was being displayed upside-right in crystal clarity?

Joe Sixpack probably doesn't know the differences between images and text. Pradeep would hear the word "upside down" or "blurry" and immediately think it was a hardware problem.

It'd probably take any of us half an hour to convince a second-tier tech that we weren't trolling him, never mind Joe Sixpack.

I'd give my left nut to hear the support calls on this. (Particularly as I'm pretty sure that those of you in tech support have no use for my left nut. :)

Re:Can you imagine the tech support calls? (1)

renehollan (138013) | about 8 years ago | (#15792375)

I'd give my left nut to hear the support calls on this

Heh, mod the banner ads to serve offers for "free VoIP", wait until he orders the "free adapter", and then you can listen in on the tech support call, as you hurridly craft an Asterix PBX on your end. Worth the cost of the H/W, IMHO. Might need some careful legaleeze in the "VoIP service agreement" you require him to sign to allow such evesdropping, but man, what a hack that would be!

/me thinks to open up a wireless LAN and see who tries to use it...

I guess one would call such a thing a "honeyWAN".

Re:Can you imagine the tech support calls? (5, Funny)

nizo (81281) | about 8 years ago | (#15792380)

I'd give my left nut to hear the support calls on this.

Maybe you can, if your neighbor is using your network connection to fullfill all his VOIP needs.

Re:Can you imagine the tech support calls? (3, Funny)

dilvish_the_damned (167205) | about 8 years ago | (#15792465)

I just checked out tubgirl. I think they could sue you. If I were on the jury they would win. Its just too inhumane and unusual to do to someone.
I am going to go see if I can't salvage what remains of my ruined day.

getting biblical on the neighbours (3, Interesting)

spyrochaete (707033) | about 8 years ago | (#15792260)

When my neighbour mooched my wireless I had a little fun with Cain & Abel [] . I got some good recipes from their private documents. Romano cheese really is better than parmesan on spaghetti!

You can have a lot of phun with this all-in-one cracker suite. Hell, if my neighbours had a MS-SQL server or Cisco switch I could have 0wned those too!

Feh (4, Insightful)

NitsujTPU (19263) | about 8 years ago | (#15792262)

Improve is a relative term, but this is certainly gentler than certain other approaches.

I don't really see the point. It's funny as a practical joke. In terms of protecting your network... why not just secure it instead?

Fun? (1)

phorm (591458) | about 8 years ago | (#15792511)

Well, first of all then they're quite likely to just go jack somebody else's connection. It's much more fun to mess with 'em.

I wonder if you could write something that took all P2P traffic, redirected it locally, and uploaded copies of custom video files etc in the place of their kazaa/torrent downloads :-)

Funny, yes... (3, Insightful)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 8 years ago | (#15792282)

Frankly, if you don't want others to use your wireless, just encrypt it. Annoying freeloaders this way is pretty much childish. Set up WPA-PSK (which is much easier than WEP and more secure, AFAIK) and be done with it.

Re:Funny, yes... (2, Insightful)

basketbeatle (958202) | about 8 years ago | (#15792325)

All pranks are childish in some way. You seemed to have missed the point completely.

Secure? (3, Interesting)

TCM (130219) | about 8 years ago | (#15792283)

He already uses the notion of trusted and untrusted networks, yet he makes no effort at all to prevent 1) spoofing 2) non-IP protocols 3) access from the untrusted network to his trusted network.

If you plan to take on others, make sure your own stuff is secure.

Re:Secure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15792369)

Plus, if I were to abuse other people's WIFI, I'd use Tor anyway...

You can't steal unprotected Wifi. (4, Insightful)

insomniac8400 (590226) | about 8 years ago | (#15792284)

It's impossible to steal unprotected wifi. If you leave your connection unprotected, that means you are purposely sharing it. Although flipping the pictures upsidedown is pure genious.

Re:You can't steal unprotected Wifi. (5, Funny)

realmolo (574068) | about 8 years ago | (#15792367)

Hey man,

I think that someone is redirecting your requests through a proxy server that randomly inserts the letter "o" into the word genius.


Re:You can't steal unprotected Wifi. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15792423)


What's the POINT? (0)

trelayne (930715) | about 8 years ago | (#15792296)

Ok, so you don't mind keeping your network open,
and taking up resources,so long as you can
laugh at the idea that someone (who you never see)
might be seeing the internet upside down (and
will have a laugh themselves).

You're probably making their day. How nice of you.

Re:What's the POINT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15792497)

So, What you're
saying is,something
is only worth doing
if it pisses someone
else off.Got it.

Its happening... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15792310)

Elections coming in november and it seems **NOBODY** is voting republican.

Not just in california but across the board.

Nobody wants to be associated with the political party of LIES, WAR, HATE, working-class POVERTY, UNEMPLOYMENT, and record breaking oil company profits.

Repubs, you locked in all 3 branches of government and then trashed the place. You sent THOUSANDS of American troops to their death in ANOTHER unwinnable war, tossed BILLIONS out the window on it, and then tried to dismantle the constitution so that you could cement your power base. I'm not even going to talk about destabilization of the middle east, nor about how many innocent civilians of Iraq met their deaths as a result of DIRECT actions taken by George Bush Jr.

I hope that man sleeps well at night. I hope he doesn't lie there sweating each tiny detail of the war he started. All those lives lost, all the money wasted for NOTHING. I hope the blood on his hands doesn't stain the sheets too badly.

The republican party is the party of FAILURE and CYNICISM. Bitter Republicans pander and play to the worst in people. Neoconservativism is a totally bankrupt ideology that needs a constant state of war, and an environment of fear to sustain itself. But fortunately American citizens are finally waking up - talk about waking a sleeping giant. Man, I wouldn't want to be a republican when the sh*t hits the fan.

You had it all repubs. You had your chance. Boy, did you ever blow it.
You are going down the tubes, hopefully forever this time. I know die-hard republicans, many good friends of mine - who are jumping ship. Not a single one of them will vote for a republican candidate, no matter who it is, no matter who the challenger is. Mainly these people just seem ashamed and embarrassed. I don't say this to their face but they SHOULD feel that way; I would feel that way too, if I was one of them. After all, they control all 3 branches of government - who can they blame but themselves?

Anyway this is just to let you know that if - after all you have seen of republican leadership for the last 6 years - if you are still voting for any candidate of that party, you should get used to disappointment.

PS I'm not a democrat. I'm a patriot who LOVES America.

Oh! .... (1)

taniwha (70410) | about 8 years ago | (#15792313)

they are so going to find that the internet randomly gets about 10% webcam content of their house ....

append a script to replies... now we have FUN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15792320)

Hey ... why don't you do something really cool .. have a nasty script web script crudely pre/post-pended to their web response ... or even there are vbs thingo's around which create DUN connections on suitable crippled windows platforms ... make your script create a dun connection to 911 or something ... the harder bit i suppose is making it suitably inserted into the html... (or it can call yourself with their callerid number if they are unknown)

Not very likely (2, Insightful)

LoonyMike (917095) | about 8 years ago | (#15792327)

You discover that your neighbours are using your unsecured wireless network without your permission.

This seems to suggest a scenario where it was not the owner's intention to have an open network, and at some point in time he discovers it's being used.
If we're talking about someone smart enough to play this trick on the neighbours, the network would likely be secure in the first place.

have to get more creative (1)

Surt (22457) | about 8 years ago | (#15792332)

The problem is, they'll give up when you apply any of these techniques, because the results are too severely wrong for them to put up with.

A better design would be to replace every 100th image or so with a randomly chosen one from google image search.

Understanding the Approach to this (5, Informative)

blantonl (784786) | about 8 years ago | (#15792349)

For those that are struggling to understand how the author of this article is accomplishing his approach, here is some further information.

The author obviously has a Linux server in his house, that is running DHCPD []

To selectively send some clients to some locations, and others to the normal internet, he assigns an IP address on a different network to clients that don't have MAC Addresses [] that he knows about.

Forwarding on to sites of his choice is done by using IPTables [] , which is a utility that allows you to configure the packet filtering components of the Linux TCP/IP Stack. In this instance, the Linux box is just functioning as a firewall, and he is selectively sending requests from certain IP addresses to different hosts of his chosing.

Finally, the Up-side-down and blurry-image conversions is accomplished by sending page requests from those before-mentioned IP addresses to a proxy server, which in this case is Squid [] - and then allowing the proxy server to run a script which calls an ImageMagick [] command called mogrify [] which allows you to resize an image, blur, crop, despeckle, dither, draw on, flip, join, re-sample, and much more.

And that folks, is the rest of the story.

Wow (0, Troll)

Zebra_X (13249) | about 8 years ago | (#15792357)

You discover that your neighbours are using your unsecured wireless network without your permission.

RIIIGHT. With free hot spots all over the place how is one supposed to distinguish, free from not-free, or even not to be used. There is really no way to know, unless you can't connect.

Shame on anyone for leaving an access point open and exepecting that no one will use it. Furthermore, it's not very nice to leave it open and then mess with the connection.

Goatse? (1)

bigattichouse (527527) | about 8 years ago | (#15792358)

Why not just send em Goatse/Tubgirl/SomethingAweful pics at random. Then use image magick to over write "I am a thief, stealing Wireless acess"

Other ideas (3, Funny)

necro2607 (771790) | about 8 years ago | (#15792368)

This is hilarious! My coworker and I just sat here laughing and coming up with other great ideas for having fun with hijackers' browsing experience:

-Occasionaly replace images with random google-image-searched images
-Translate any text on a web page on the fly into some very English-like language but different enough to make the pages impossible to understand
-Translate text on the fly into languages with non-arabic characters
-The obligatory replacing all images with random porn images
-Keep the first/last letters of every word the same, but jumble the letters in between. You have seen this site [] , haven't you? ;)
-Invert the colors of all images on the web pages
-Convert all graphics to grayscale, or 16-color

etc. etc.

The possibilities are obviously pretty extensive... I think after hearing about this I'll be a little more careful with my usage of other peoples' wireless networks! ;)

Mess with their mail (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about 8 years ago | (#15792371)

Remove or replace the body of all emails. Inject masses of spam.

Dumb HOWTO Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15792381)

I realize that Slashdot is not a HOWTO forum, but here goes: if you have a DSL modem with built-in wireless, how could you do this? Would you redirect all traffic from the wireless to a Linux proxy box first?

This is what SSH tunnels are for (3, Informative)

tdvaughan (582870) | about 8 years ago | (#15792392)

I just moved into a new flat and as it took a while to get internet access, I had to "steal" someone else's wireless (although I take the position that if they want to beam radition through my property, I can do what I want with it). I took the strongest unsecured signal but because (being a sneaky bastard) I know what I would do if I ran an unsecured wireless access point I just tunnelled everything through an SSH tunnel to a proxy at work.

Assign invalid address or route to localhost (3, Insightful)

MImeKillEr (445828) | about 8 years ago | (#15792404)

If you're so intent on leaving it open, I'd suggest just getting their mac address and assign it back to 169.254.x.x or That way, if they actually do anything illegal, its not tracked to you.

You're just flipping webpages, right? What's to stop them from getting on a P2P network and sharing/downloading files? What's to stop them from visiting illegal porn sites?

Doing this to them will just make their internet useless. Not as funny, but safer IMO.

Another thought: Is there some way to randomly route their requests to a totally different webpage? Say they want to go to Google, etc. Is there some way to redirect their request to a randomly-generated (but real) URL? I'd suggest something in a foreign country.

Easy solution (1)

JediTrainer (314273) | about 8 years ago | (#15792410)

This would be why anytime I need an access point I use SSH to connect to my home machine and use my own proxy. The added encryption is a plus.

Funny technique though.

Innocents? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15792411)

What about the poor non-technical girl who is trying to get her wireless working and selects the wrong wireless network (the keep trying different stuff until it works method)?

I guess they were right when they said power corrupts - even when you're just some dork with nothing better to do than torture your own neighbors.

Get neighbors to share the Wifi and maybe the cost (1)

drgreening (594381) | about 8 years ago | (#15792418)

I don't really care if neighbors use my Wifi. In fact, if the alternative is they get one of their own, I would MUCH rather my neighbors use MY wifi. Reason: Wifi spectrum overlaps somewhat due to harmonics, so even if you and your neighbors use different channels, the interference between nearby channel numbers slows things down.

How about showing a splash-screen with referencing a Paypal account, and ask them to send you $10 a month?

On an unrelated note, I once had a consulting gig in Salt Lake City living at the Brigham Young Apartments, and my husband, bless his gay soul, marked our open SSID as "Nice Gay Married Couple".

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15792420)


sniffing can go around this reverse images crap.. (1)

alfarid (932950) | about 8 years ago | (#15792421)

i think neighbour will be able to sniff the traffic on your network, so he would be able to reverse whatever changes are made to packets. i'm far from expert on the subject, but if you are on the same subnet , sniffing should be trivial.

Open Networks (5, Interesting)

Elektroschock (659467) | about 8 years ago | (#15792422)

sorry, I am a supporter of open networks. I think the freifunk olsr-protocol approach of open wireless networks [] is best. We don't need internet providers and we don't need internet provider which leak our communication data to the governments and endanger the freedom of the net. The net should be a net and wireless technology is great for the creation of a real P2P internet.

I cannot support any action against people who use your network. It is against my understanding of hacker ethics. When you don't like it then close your network. But no childish games please.

I may even say that I find it unethical to exclude your neighbours from using your network but I respect your opinions. When your network is open it means: Be free to use it. Not: You can use it but I will fuck up or intercept your communication.

Re:Open Networks (2, Insightful)

qsqueeq (586979) | about 8 years ago | (#15792494)

I may even say that I find it unethical to exclude your neighbours from using your network but I respect your opinions.

You are an idiot. He paid for the connection, and he can do whatever he wants with the people using it. In fact, this practice of 'borrowing' your neighBOR's wireless is becoming illegal in some areas.

free wifi spot (1)

digitaldc (879047) | about 8 years ago | (#15792441)

I redirect everyone to their free wifi here. []

No Tresspassing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15792493)

My plan for when it becomes useful to have wireless at home.

First put the wireless subnet in a DMZ. Firewall off everything in the DMZ but an IPsec VPN. Change to a non default SSID, but otherwise don't secure it (false sense of security for authorized users).

Redirect anything to port 80 in the DMZ to a local httpd. httpd always returns a page consisting of an image of the business end of a double barreled 12 guage shotgun with "State your business." One link for "I was invited" returns instructions for legitimate guests on setting up VPN needing a verbally supplied password. Another link for "I made a wrong turn somewhere" leads to some wireless configuration help. Probably come up with a third link for cracker wannabes. Suggestions welcome.

httpd will claim to be IIS 3.0 on DOS 5.1.

LOL (1)

RichJacot (897435) | about 8 years ago | (#15792508)

This is Great. It makes me think about turning off my WPK with mac address lockdown...LOL
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account