[wplug] On the subject of wardriving...

[Richard Farina]

My Definition:

Wardriving: The act of purposly searching for wireless networks in an area 
and noticing characteristics of those networks.  Mapping may be involved 
but is not required.

This definition does not require that wardriving be the only purpose of the 
trip, one can wardrive on the way to the store, or to work.  But accessing 
peoples networks past initial (accidental) association (in the case of 
netstumbler) is NOT wardriving.  At this point it becomes hacking/cracking 
depending on intent.  IMHO, it is only at this point that it can be 
considered against the law.  Windows XP will associtate with any network in 
range and begin a process to DHCP, thank god this is a linux users group, 
otherwise we might all be a bunch of law breakers!

-Rick Farina

PS>


Wardriving is an activity consisting of driving around with a 
<http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Laptop>laptop or a 
<http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Personal_digital_assistant>PDA in 
one's vehicle, detecting <http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Wi-Fi>Wi-Fi 
<http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Wireless_network>wireless networks. 
It is also known (as of <http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/2002>2002) as 
<http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/WiLDing>WiLDing (Wireless Lan 
Driving), originating in the USA with the Bay Area Wireless Users Group 
(BAWUG). It is similar to using a scanner for 
<http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Radio>radio. Most wardrivers will use 
<http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/GPS>GPS devices to find the exact 
location of the network found and log it on a 
<http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Website>website. For better range, 
<http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Antenna_%28electronics%29>antennas 
are built or bought, and vary from omnidirectional to fully directional. 
<http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Computer_software>Software for 
wardriving is freely available on the 
<http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Internet>internet, notably, 
<http://www.netstumbler.com>NetStumbler (http://www.netstumbler.com) for 
<http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Microsoft_Windows>Windows, 
<http://www.macstumbler.com>MacStumbler (http://www.macstumbler.com) for 
<http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Apple_Macintosh>Macintosh, and 
<http://www.kismetwireless.net>Kismet (http://www.kismetwireless.net) for 
<http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Linux>Linux.

Wardriving shares similarities to 
<http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Wardialing>Wardialing in name only.

While some wardrivers do engage in malicious activity, the average 
wardriver is typically only out to log and collect information from the 
Access Points (AP's) they find while driving. Even so, most Companies would 
not want details of their unsecured and 'open to all' WLAN posted onto the 
Internet for all to see (would you post details of your neighbours 
unsecured front door - or get upset if some-one posted details of your 
unsecured garage - and the serial number of your car ignition key ?)).

Less law-abiding 'wardrivers' search for open file servers from which to 
copy software or media files which is presumably illegal in most countries. 
In the USA, accessing the files on an open network is illegal, however it 
is not illegal to simply use the internet connection of an open wireless 
network (the law differs in other countries - for example in UK you would 
be caught by the the 'use of a computer for a purpose for which you do not 
have permission' clause). This is a commonly misunderstood concept. Most 
wardrivers do not in fact use services without authorization.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/War_driving

At 03:40 PM 3/29/2005, Teodorski, Christopher wrote:
>I would say that wardriving in its purest form is simply driving around
>and identifying and (potentially) mapping the location of wireless
>access points.
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: wplug-bounces+christopher.teodorski=ddiworld.com at wplug.org
>[mailto:wplug-bounces+christopher.teodorski=ddiworld.com at wplug.org] On
>Behalf Of Michael P. O Connor
>Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 3:34 PM
>To: General user list
>Subject: Re: [wplug] On the subject of wardriving...
>
>Bill I would say insteade of not using the term wardriving, maybe we
>should define it better. what is it
>1) driving down the streat and seeing the diffent networks?
>2) driving down the streat looking for differnt networks?
>3) driving down the streat hacking into diffent networks?
>4) other?
>what deffinition does every one on this list use??
>
> > Drew from Zhrodague <drew at zhrodague.net> wrote:
> > > > Because the laws are new and untested, wardriving is a very grey
>area.  If
> > > > you want to do it anyway and take your chances, or if you want to
>do it as
> > > > a form of social protest or whatever - that's your decision.  My
>only point
> > > > is that that the way the new laws are written, it _may_ be illegal
>- and a
> > > > criminal offense.
> > > >
> > > > It's good that this kind of discussion occurs.  These laws are
>very new, and
> > > > there's a good chance that some of them are very wrong and need to
>be fixed
> > > > up.  My only point is that you should be aware of them before you
>go flying
> > > > around town with an 802.11 receiver.
> > >
> > >     (sound of can opener)
> > >
> > >     I'll agree with everything you said above, and add that if
> > > wardriving were illegal, everytime you open up your laptop and look
>at a
> > > list of networks to connect to, you would be breaking the law for
>each of
> > > the entries that showed up in the window, unless it is your AP, or
>you're
> > > at a public hotspot.
> >
> > I just see that paragraph as a distraction.
> >
> > Wardriving is _not_ turning on your laptop and noticing that SSIDs are
> > being broadcast in your vicinity.  It is investigating those SSIDs to
>see
> > which ones are not secured and making note of that information.
> >
> > If it were only noticing, then it wouldn't be any more illegal than
>noticing
> > that someone left their door unlocked ... but as soon as you open that
>door,
> > you step in to uncertain legal territory.  Even if you don't go in, or
> > do any damage ... the fact that you opened the door puts you in a
> > questionable position.  If you don't do any damage, or cause any $$$
>loss,
> > you'll probably get away with it, but the point is that you've crossed
> > (or are standing on) the line.
> >
> > If you want to continually redefine what the term "wardriving" means,
>you're
> > going to miss the point entirely, so lets stop using that term (since
>we
> > can't seem to agree on what it means.)
> >
> > The simple fact is that using somebody's network in a manner that you
>are
> > not authorized to do is a criminal offense according to current PA
>state
> > law.  Exactly where you've crossed the line into "use" is up to the
> > lawyers to decide.
> >
> > >     Also, the manufacturers of our operating systems, and the
>wireless
> > > equipment would be condoning such network abuse by designing the
>systems
> > > to operate in such a way that it violates federal laws repeatedly,
>and at
> > > all times.
> > >
> > >     Gross overstatement? Perhaps, but the only difference is that
> > > wardriving sometimes involves a GPS.
> > >
> > >     Perhaps these things WILL be tested in court, but the only way I
>
> > > can see that happening is along the same lines of the other two
> > > wardriving-related cases: One broke into Lowe's wireless network,
>and the
> > > other was doing wireless kiddie porn in his car with no pants on.
>Both
> > > instances involved wardriving, yes, but the real problem was the
>breaking
> > > in of wireless networks -- and not wardriving.
> >
> > "breaking in" has yet to be defined as well.
> >
> > If I put a stack of $20 bills behind a locked glass door in plain
>view, and
> > you break the glass to take it, is that theft?
> > If I put the same stack of $20 bills behind an unlocked glass door in
>plain
> > view and you open the door and take them, is that theft?
> > If I put the same stack on my property, but in plain view with
>absolutely
> > no deterrent, and you take them, is that theft?
> > If I put the same stack on public property with no deterrent and you
>take
> > them, is that theft?
> >
> > And which one of those circumstances is closest to using someones
>unsecured
> > wireless network without their permission?
> >
> > --
> > Bill Moran
> > Potential Technologies
> > http://www.potentialtech.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > wplug mailing list
> > wplug at wplug.org
> > http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug
> >
> >
>
>--
>Michael P. O'Connor
>mpop at mikeoconnor.net
>http://www.mikeoconnor.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>wplug mailing list
>wplug at wplug.org
>http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>wplug mailing list
>wplug at wplug.org
>http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug