[ale] heads up - warning - you could be sharing comcast wifi without knowing it

Wed Jun 12 09:02:01 EDT 2013

So if someone uses this free wifi access to hack one of my machines, is
Comcast liable?

Pete Hardie
--------
Better Living Through Bitmaps

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Edward Holcroft <eholcroft at mkainc.com>wrote:

> <snip>
> Don't see how it would be against the law.  They're going to replace a
> device they own connected to a service they own with another device
> they own connected to a service they own?
>
>
> This may be true, but I certainly felt my discomfort level rise when I saw
> this article. Not so much on the threat level, but more on the "Comcast are
> cheeky bastards" level. They may own the device and the service, but they
> do not own my house nor my electrical supply. The way Comcast nickels and
> dimes one, I'd want to return the favor and charge them an exorbitant
> rental for housing and powering their public wifi device on private
> property. I could throw in (without even asking them if they want it) an
> unexpected $3.95 monthly fee for preventative dusting of the device "to
> ensure maximum operating efficiency". Or how about a fee to ensure that
> their public wifi device is not tampered with, since they are now
> effectively regarding people's homes as public spaces, and you know,
> anything can go wrong in a public space.
>
> Actually, now that I think about it, to heck with them on this one. I'd
> share my wifi with the neighbors for free, but as long as it's Comcast, or
> any private company behind it, they can forget about profiting with my
> cooperation. I'm sure this list can come up with multiple ways to make this
> atrocious idea fail.
>
> ed
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:45 PM, David Tomaschik <david at systemoverlord.com
> > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Ron Frazier (ALE)
>> <atllinuxenthinfo at techstarship.com> wrote:
>> > Hi guys,
>> >
>> > I thought you'd like to know about this.  I heard the host on the Tech
>> News
>> > Today podcast ( http://twit.tv/tnt ) say something similar to the
>> following:
>> > Comcast will be expanding its wifi network by putting wifi gateways in
>> > Xfinity users homes. ... Comcast users will get free access. ... Guests
>> get
>> > two free accesses. ... If you don't want to participate, you have to opt
>> > out.
>> >
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > Supposedly, they replace your cable modem with this new wifi gateway
>> device.
>> > It broadcasts two wifi signals.  You log into one of them and use YOUR
>> > service as normal.  Guests login into the other, for free if they are
>> > Comcast Xfinity customers, and get two free accesses if they're not
>> Xfinity
>> > customers.  SUPPOSEDLY, the 2nd connection is independent of the main
>> one,
>> > and it doesn't reduce your bandwidth.  Yeah, I believe that.  The
>> APPARENT
>> > plan is to replace all the gateways and enable this internet sharing
>> without
>> > the customer's knowledge.  That's got to be against the law somehow.
>>
>> Don't see how it would be against the law.  They're going to replace a
>> device they own connected to a service they own with another device
>> they own connected to a service they own?
>>
>> > Now, I know some people willingly share their wifi.  I'm not one of
>> them.  I
>> > have my wfi encrypted with long ugly passwords.  There are 3 main
>> reasons.
>> > 1) Any other user on my modem is a potential security risk.
>>
>> I don't know how they have implemented this, but it would be trivial
>> to assign a 2nd public IP (or even NAT through a single
>> neighborhood-wifi-network IP) for the 2nd hotspot and route all
>> traffic over that.  In that case, a user connected to that has the
>> same amount of access as anyone else on the internet.
>>
>> > 2) It does
>> > reduce my bandwidth and performance.
>>
>> Citation needed.  The biggest limitation to your bandwidth is the
>> traffic shaping comcast performs at their head end unit.  If the
>> "public" hotspot is shaped separately, then I don't see how it would
>> impact your bandwidth.  *Maybe* you could make an argument regarding
>> wifi interference, but a 2nd hotspot on your device won't be any
>> different from a 2nd device somewhere nearby.
>>
>> > 3)  If someone else does something
>> > illegal while connected to your wifi, the police can ( and HAVE )
>> showed up
>> > at your door and arrest you.  You then have to prove you didn't do it
>> and
>> > it's a royal mess.
>>
>> Actually, no, the prosecution still has to prove you did it (at least,
>> legally), but yes, I suppose it could cause some headaches, unless
>> they can look at wifi hotspot vs private network.  Not sure how that
>> would work.
>>
>> > Regardless, no ISP should be able to enable this type of access without
>> the
>> > user's knowledge and consent.
>>
>> On this, I agree.  This should be with the user's consent, but I don't
>> see it as a big bad threat.
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Tomaschik
>> OpenPGP: 0x5DEA789B
>> http://systemoverlord.com
>> david at systemoverlord.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Edward Holcroft | Madsen Kneppers & Associates Inc.
> 3020 Holcomb Bridge Rd. NW | Norcross, GA 30071
> O (770) 446-9606 | M (678) 587-8649
>
> MADSEN, KNEPPERS & ASSOCIATES USA, MKA Canada Inc. WARNING/CONFIDENTIALITY
> NOTICE: This message may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately then delete it
> - you should not copy or use it for any purpose or disclose its content to
> any other person. Internet communications are not secure. You should scan
> this message and any attachments for viruses. Any unauthorized use or
> interception of this e-mail is illegal.
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20130612/4f0fd0c1/attachment-0001.html>