RE: Wireless Security (Part 2)

["Ebeling, Jr., Herman Frederick" <hfebelingjr () lycos com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- ----Original Message----
From: Ian Scott [mailto:ian () pairowoodies com]
Sent: Saturday, 20 May, 2006 23:19
To: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: Re: Wireless Security (Part 2)

: On May 17, 2006 06:14 pm, Craig Wright wrote:
: : In common law jurisdictions (and the US is a common law country,
: : not civil law - other than in Louisiana) you have rights. In the
: : US there are also constitutional rights.
: 
: In the US, constitutional rights are those rights recognized as
: "natural rights" by the founding fathers.
: 
: : You have every right to stop the attack or remove a host from
your
: : network, but never any right to attack back. Two wrongs and all
: : that. Committing a trespass of your own can not be defended by a
: : defense of they did it first.
: 
: I have every right to find out what exactly is on my network.  I
: may begin with less intrusive methods which may escalate until I am
: satisfied.

        I agree with ya 110%, that the person who owns both the system
itself, as well as the hardware that makes up said system has the
right to find out just WHO has connected to their system.

: 
: I do not know what you mean by "trespass" in this context.  Most
: definitely if someone trespasses on my real property, if there has
: been notice posted, I have every right to make an arrest and
: determine the identity of that person, even if they attempt to
flee.

        The state of Fl, has recently expanded the "castle doctrine" to
include NOT only the use of deadly force in defending their home, but
also their car, boat, motorcycle, bicycle.  Or themselves or others
IF they're walking down the street and are threatened.

: 
: If my property is not posted, I begin with low intrusive methods,
: i.e..  telling them to leave but have every right to get into a
full
: blown fight, if they refuse to surrender to me peacefully when I
: advise them they are under arrest.  Some may refer to this as an
: "attack" on the trespasser.  But that is semantics.

        One's property is "posted" by default, one does NOT need to go the
extra step of actually posting a sign.  And in some cases such as IF
one already has a fence going around their home, further posting of a
sign that says "no trespassing" could make it in the eyes of the law
an "attractive nuisance."

: 
: I am course, NOT talking, in my message below, about machines that
: are attacking machines on my network from another network.  I am
: talking about any device using MY network.

        Exactly, as am I.  And I have done everything that I can think of to
secure my network.  I'm asking/talking about those who THINK that
they know what they are doing, or presume that various pieces of
hardware are "secure" out of the box. . .

        And/or the legal ramifications IF they don't secure their system and
someone connects to it with intent to break the law such as using
said connection to d/l kiddy porn, or to attack the computer
infrastructure of say a nuclear power plant, or a hospital.  Thus
causing the loss of life.

: 
: Regards,
: 
: Ian

Ian,

- -----
Herman
Live Long and Prosper
 ___________________          _-_
 \==============_=_/ ____.---'---`---.____
             \_ \    \----._________.----/
               \ \   /  /    `-_-'
           __,--`.`-'..'-_
          /____          ||-
               `--.____,-'

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3
Comment: Space the Final Frontier

iQA/AwUBRHNJuB/i52nbE9vTEQL6fgCfcF5BBxKxsQqOXU573796I5irEx8AnjQ9
VfbDmNPYNALab+vBxNn55W2T
=QGQ9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----