If one installs a wireless access point and fails to secure it with encryption, can hackers or drive-bys actually enter the home network within the private side?  Or can they just steal service and monitor traffic?

What is the threat to the home?

Thanks,

Ken
 

Anyone can connect to it and be on your home network just as if they came in your house and plugged in to the network.

MCSE CCNA CCDA

Also just to add any criminal activity done by a person who connects will be seen coming from the public IP of your home router. So the law enforcement agency investigating the crime will stop by your house to ask you a few question.

Just something to think about.

Yes, I clearly understand both comments.  My issues is can they access files, connect to shares, print within the home network?

Something like what a hacker would do to someones corporate network; steal stuff, spy on files, destroy data.

Can they do that?

They would be able to connect to any network resources.
This is especally dangerous if you have open shares, network printers, NAS devices, etc.

In any case, they can certainly see some network traffic and use tools widely available to hack usernames and passwords.
 

MCSE CCNA CCDA

As dearingkr suggests, with open shares, network printers, NAS devices, etc., you should take into account the admin shares if you are using Windows. These admin shares look like c$ and IPC$. Depending how you have "locked" down windows, you can actually connect to those shares with a "null" user account. Once connected, you can actually gleem a lot of information from the computer, such as passwords and usernames, file information, and pretty much anything you have stored on the hard drive. There are several utilities to help resolve these "open" issues, and I believe a lot of them are currently available from MS, but not sure where.

Note that this might also apply to any Bluetooth devices you have.  If they are able to get close enough to be on your Bluetooth PAN (like in the apartment downstairs), they might could use the Bluetooth support for networking to do similar things.

I know people who are more paranoid than I am, and have disabled all wireless devices they own, and only run wired.

Chip H.
 

____________________________________________________________________
www.chipholland.com

I run a wireless network at my home and I am pretty paranoid. What I did is run my wireless secured and on a DMZ I can go from my internal network to the DMZ but no traffic is allowed back to the internal. I guess if you wanted to run your wireless open without the worry of anyone getting at your files, that might be the way to do it.

Although I still don't recommend an open wireless connection. Only takes one idiot to download 100 songs from Kazaa and have the RIAA police send you a court order. Your wireless connection, your responsibility for the traffic on it.

Cheers
Rob

The answer is always "PEBKAC!"

wireless network without any security?

cant think why you would do that.....

Quote:

Although I still don't recommend an open wireless connection. Only takes one idiot to download 100 songs from Kazaa and have the RIAA police send you a court order. Your wireless connection, your responsibility for the traffic on it.

Actually no.  This is becoming talked about on the Net in places I've looked as a possible deliberate strategy against an RIAA lawsuit.  Run an unsecured network that anybody can access and nobody can prove who downloaded what, making lawsuits problematic.  Several suits have been dismissed on the basis of not being able to prove exactly who did what, apparently.

Notice I didn't say I endorsed this idea or that it was even a good idea, just that "unregulated anonymity" for lack of a better phrase is one approach that seems to have worked for some.



  

The only thing I have to say to BigRed1212 is to read your agreement with your ISP - clearly that outlines your liability for what is done on YOUR internet connection, even if it's done by complete strangers that you don't know.

As for Ken's original question, I would like to also add to what others have already said and remind you that there is no such thing as 100% secure in the IT world.  There are vulnerabilities even if you DO turn on the encryption.  Yes it makes it harder to get at your network and your data, but not impossible.

I recommend to my friends that they use WEP or WPA encryption, as WELL as use MAC address filtering to secure their home networks.  Using both reduces your risk enough to let me sleep at night <grin>

Good luck,

There are differences between the ISP and criminal and civil actions. Sure the ISP will shut you down if a a DOS attack is coming from your home network. Civil and crimal legal actions are different, since I'm not a Lawyer I'm not going to go further in saying what is and what isn't. I look at what is occuring, follow the current court cases. People in general have been charged with something and are then found inocent. The question is would you want to risk being charged with something illegal regardless of being found innocent later.

my 2 cents

Quote:

The question is would you want to risk being charged with something illegal regardless of being found innocent later.

Oh, I agree.  The whole bit about somebody using my connection to download child porn to their laptop while they are parked on the street outside my house scares the bejeezes out of me.

I personally run WPA2, I was just noting that there is a school of thought that says if the RIAA or whoever can't prove it was definitely you who did an alleged bad deed, even if it was done on the IP you paid to access because anybody could access the unsecured IP, they can't win a judgement against you.   


 

Obviously some grey area with regards to liability - better safe than sorry I always say though.  I'd rather not become the "test case" for the rest of you so I'm going to lock down my network.  <smile>

As perilous as it is for homeowners to host unencrypted wireless networks, there is even a case of a class-action lawsuit against a company that used the inferior WEP protocol between their database and the world.  

I live in a relatively rural neighborhood (1/2 acre lots) and I still get 3 or 4 "available networks" in my network list.  I can't imagine what it would be like in an apartment building.

The point is you are responsible for securing your home and your network from outsiders; WPA or WPA2 take only minutes to set up and there is NO excuse not to offer your home. family, and network the most security that you can.

Tony

Users helping Users...

On my home wireless network I use WPA, Mac Address filtering, and I do not broadcast my ssid.  With those three things in place a hacker will most likely choose an easier target.  Just by not broadcasting my ssid makes it a lot safer, it stops just anyone from being able to find my network.

hercj,
Although I do agree that not broadcasting you SSID is probably one of the best things to do, you have done something else that makes it even tougher. You do MAC filtering. You should be aware that using all 3 methods is a great idea, but can still be circumvented. You are correct in assuming that a hacker will choose an easier target.

However, sometimes, this creates more of a challenge. Not all hackers are out there to steal, they are out there to "see if I can do it". Besides, the really good hackers are the ones you will never know about, and the ones who like the challenges.  

Not broadcasting the SSID will only help if the "hacker" isn't very knowlegable and only using a base wireless laptop with XP/vista. If they are more knowledgeable and have tools ie airsnort, they will still be able to view SSID's. The beacon's that you AP broadcasts out in order for PC/laptop to connect contain the SSID in it and airsnort captures these.

Yes not broadcasting, useing WPA and mac-address is better then not. I just wanted to mention that by not broadcasting your SSID doesn't make you safer against "hacker" useing tools, ie airsnort.

just my 2cents

Found this tutorial on youtube for cracking wpa encrypted AP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KPqTrY8wAo  

tfg13,
I also segment my wireless from the rest of my network using my Linux router and firewall.  My web server has about 100 hacking attempts a day and it has been up for about five years.  None of them have made it through, I use multiple layers of security and IDS. You can crack WPA if they use a common word, but if you use a complex password it could take them so long that most hackers even ones that want to "see if I can do it" are going to give up.  As the video on youtube points out that you will only crack the password if you have it in your dictionary.  Anything that is invented by man can be broken by man.

Also,

If the WPA passphrase is long and strong enough...it can take billions of years to crack using brute strength...

I don't think the protocol will exist by then!

Peter.

Remember- It's nice to be important,
but it's important to be nice :)

hercj, sounds to me like you aren't your average user, and have done a little research. I wish more home users took that stance, then again, I'd be out of a job.....

Quote:

I live in a relatively rural neighborhood (1/2 acre lots) and I still get 3 or 4 "available networks" in my network list.  I can't imagine what it would be like in an apartment building.

I live in an apartment complex, and I probably see about 10-20 "available networks", the vast majority of which (80-90%) are secured.

Also, even though I see many of them, very few have any usable level of signal strength.  Although there are many wireless networks, the walls, plumbing, electical infrastructure, etc. all provide interference making it difficult to actually use a network other than my own.  (Although I found 2 of reasonable signal strength and reliablity that are unsecured that I used while waiting for my connection issues to be resolved.)

KornGeek,
 
I live in an apartment building, too, with more buildings and some private houses nearby, and I see less then 10 (5-8) available networks, with only  2 of reasonable signal strength, and only 1 of them is nearly always consistently on and never secured.