[LINK] The Degree of Peril in an Insecure Wifi Network

[Roger Clarke]

Good points, thanks Paul.

But:

(1)  I have my firewalls configured on the individual devices within 
the subnet,
      which reduces the risk.  But, agreed, this means more is visible 
- and I guess
      maybe a lot of people *don't* configure firewall functionality 
on their devices)

(2)  this attack pattern doesn't scale.  It's suitable for anonymous 
access (although
      maybe not if you're using your next-door neighbour's Wifi!), and 
for planting
      evidence with the intention of embarrassing and inconveniencing 
an opponent.
      But if you want lots of service or you want to attack lots of 
targets, you'd
      be better off operating over the Internet rather than doing 
everything from
      the (dis)comfort of your car


On 16/07/2011 11:16 AM, Roger Clarke wrote:
>>  ''All of the detrimental effects of being hacked will then follow,
>>  except the hacker has been given an easy and exploitable way into the
>>  network,'' Dr Gregory said.
>>  [Isn't Gregory confusing rather separate things here?  Is it
>>  significantly easier to break into a device via a wifi network than
>>  over the Internet connection?  And even if it is, does that approach
>>  scale sufficiently to make it worth a miscreant's while using this
>>  approach rather than mounting the attack over the Internet?]

At 12:48 +1000 18/7/11, Paul Brooks wrote:
>Yes. Over the WIFI link the attacker is coming from inside the 
>firewall/NAT device,
>whereas over the Internet the attacker is coming from outside the 
>firewall/NAT device.
>Most devices - of all operating systems - provide significantly 
>greater numbers of
>exploitable open ports and services visible to other devices on 'the 
>local LAN', and
>far greater level of trust, to devices with IP addresses in the same 
>subnet. They
>don't also have to worry about bypassing the one-way-valve of an 
>intermediate firewall
>which helps reduce the visibility of much of the exploitable 
>openings of the devices
>inside, especially if they don't communicate with the open Internet.
>(Which avenue would be easier to compromise my ethernet-connected HP 
>printer, DVD
>player, or IP-connected television - each of which only communicates 
>with other
>devices inside my network?)
>
>>  [I couldn't quickly locate any sources on the extent to which legal
>>  compulsion exists to secure a wife network.  Does anyone know the
>>  story?
>Not in Australia, but in Germany earlier this year....
>http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/9457/german-courts-may-fine-users-for-unsecured-wlans/


-- 
Roger Clarke                                 http://www.rogerclarke.com/

Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                    Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre      Uni of NSW
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University