4 ms·

You're still circumventing security measures to use somebody else's hardware in a way they clearly don't want you to. That's illegal in most cases.

gsich 9y ago
Who is the "someone else" in your case? Where does the someone else's hardware come from? OP mentioned this to get rid off e.g captive portals. Iodine requires a client and a server. Both belong to you, what is the problem here? That I use a network to transmit packets? We are not talking about installing iodine on someone else's computer!
- lyk 9y ago
  Not sure if you're trolling, but the network is being accessed by bypassing the captive portal. The network is being accessed in a way that isn't permitted.
  - gsich 9y ago
    And how should I know that there is a captive portal? I connect (connection is established after receiving IP address!) and use iodine (or similar).
    - tedunangst 9y ago
      I'm sure the jury will be delighted to hear your explanation.
      - gsich 9y ago
        Why should this go to court? I'm not sure if you have understood what this thread was about.
      - loup-vaillant 9y ago
        "I used iodine all the time, so I can't even notice the presence of a captive portal, if any." "My son handles the computer stuff for me, I don't even know about that logging page you're talking about." "I thought restricted networks had a WPA-2 password? That's what they use at my workplace."
        pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        "The door to the house was open, move of the stuff was tied down, how could i be expected to know I wasn't authorised to use it??" Judges just aren't that stupid.
        gsich 9y ago
        Only that the comparison is stupid.
        loup-vaillant 9y ago
        Here's the thing: I never give my real name to captive portals. I don't even give a real email address. Who can tell me with a straight face that this is criminal behaviour
  - zb3 9y ago
    So the network is not password protected, DNS (or ICMP) works normally, but somehow using it in a particular way is not permitted? Then why does it work at all?
- squeaky-clean 9y ago
  > That I use a network to transmit packets? Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly, but if a coffee shop has wifi and you need to enter info into a captive portal before you can use their network, by circumventing it, the "Someone else" is the coffee shop owner, and the hardware is their router. "Please get off my router if you don't agree to my conditions". "Nah I'm just using DNS, it's fine" probably is not an admissible excuse.
  - gsich 9y ago
    The assumption from the coffee shop is that wifi == internet == browser, which is not true. Why should I open the browser if I don't need it?
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      Do you dispute that a coffee shop providing WiFi with a captive portal only intends to provide web access through that portal? Just as they only intend customers to take sugar packets for use in their coffee, etc.. If the shop don't intend the use its not authorised. Your ethical framework may not put any value on that lack of authorisation, but you see the action is unauthorised, surely?

gsich 9y ago

Who is the "someone else" in your case? Where does the someone else's hardware come from? OP mentioned this to get rid off e.g captive portals. Iodine requires a client and a server. Both belong to you, what is the problem here? That I use a network to transmit packets? We are not talking about installing iodine on someone else's computer!

lyk 9y ago
Not sure if you're trolling, but the network is being accessed by bypassing the captive portal. The network is being accessed in a way that isn't permitted.
- gsich 9y ago
  And how should I know that there is a captive portal? I connect (connection is established after receiving IP address!) and use iodine (or similar).
  - tedunangst 9y ago
    I'm sure the jury will be delighted to hear your explanation.
    - gsich 9y ago
      Why should this go to court? I'm not sure if you have understood what this thread was about.
    - loup-vaillant 9y ago
      "I used iodine all the time, so I can't even notice the presence of a captive portal, if any." "My son handles the computer stuff for me, I don't even know about that logging page you're talking about." "I thought restricted networks had a WPA-2 password? That's what they use at my workplace."
      - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        "The door to the house was open, move of the stuff was tied down, how could i be expected to know I wasn't authorised to use it??" Judges just aren't that stupid.
        gsich 9y ago
        Only that the comparison is stupid.
        loup-vaillant 9y ago
        Here's the thing: I never give my real name to captive portals. I don't even give a real email address. Who can tell me with a straight face that this is criminal behaviour
- zb3 9y ago
  So the network is not password protected, DNS (or ICMP) works normally, but somehow using it in a particular way is not permitted? Then why does it work at all?
squeaky-clean 9y ago
> That I use a network to transmit packets? Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly, but if a coffee shop has wifi and you need to enter info into a captive portal before you can use their network, by circumventing it, the "Someone else" is the coffee shop owner, and the hardware is their router. "Please get off my router if you don't agree to my conditions". "Nah I'm just using DNS, it's fine" probably is not an admissible excuse.
- gsich 9y ago
  The assumption from the coffee shop is that wifi == internet == browser, which is not true. Why should I open the browser if I don't need it?
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Do you dispute that a coffee shop providing WiFi with a captive portal only intends to provide web access through that portal? Just as they only intend customers to take sugar packets for use in their coffee, etc.. If the shop don't intend the use its not authorised. Your ethical framework may not put any value on that lack of authorisation, but you see the action is unauthorised, surely?