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

Wed Jun 12 10:27:44 EDT 2013

To provide further clarification, everything in your region is the "same"
network. That's what is meant by the distinction between leased lines and
commodity providers. Leased lines provide guaranteed bandwidth and
performance because they are (a) synchronous and (b) private lines between
you and the upstream network provider.

Commodity lines are shared, however, at the "last mile". Cable lines are a
broadcast medium like Ethernet, and time sharing/multiplexing of the medium
is done both by frequency division and time division. This is why you are
sold speed rated service in terms of peak possible, not minimum guaranteed.
A side effect is that the broadcast network and it's adapter can not, as a
whole, be trusted.
On Jun 12, 2013 10:18 AM, "Michael Trausch" <mbt at naunetcorp.com> wrote:

> The common point is the layer 1/2/3 connections to the CMTS. The two are
> separate nets and can be treated as such, just the same way as your next
> door neighbor's network is separate. Treat your router as your demarcation
> and you're good; never trust past the demarcation.
>
> As I said, nothing changes.
> On Jun 12, 2013 10:15 AM, "Pete Hardie" <pete.hardie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So the "guest" wifi has no possible path to my network before the CMTS?
>> If so, then all I'm gonna bitch about is the use of my electricity and
>> congestion in my wifi space.  But if the cable modem has any weak spot that
>> would allow easier access to my internal net, then they've got some
>> 'splainin to do.
>>
>>
>> Pete Hardie
>> --------
>> Better Living Through Bitmaps
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Chris Ricker <chris.ricker at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>  No more so than they are for any other public attack on one of your
>>> machines which reached you over their wires. You are talking about two
>>> separate unbridged networks. The first common point between them is the CMTS
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/12/13 9:02 AM, Pete Hardie wrote:
>>>
>>>  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 <%28770%29%20446-9606> | M (678) 587-8649<%28678%29%20587-8649>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ale mailing listAle at ale.orghttp://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists athttp://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130612/5d52910a/attachment-0001.html>