An example of the incompetent journalism that is the norm today
An alarming piece at the
Mail tells about an experiment showing that hackers can easily access home computers connected to a wireless internet network. “The wi-fi hacking means criminals can spy on the activities of families, perhaps stealing their identity and banking details to raid their accounts.” The article also says:
According to the findings, nearly a quarter of private wireless networks has no password attached, making them immediately accessible to criminals. This is despite 82 per cent of Britons thinking their network is secure.
But the article
doesn’t tell us whether the hacking risk is only to home networks that have no password, or to
all networks, including those with passwords.
Are wireless networks which are guarded by a security password at risk of hacking or not? The stupid reporter, Sean Poulter, doesn’t bother telling us. For Poulter and his editors, journalism is about typing, not about thinking.
Home wi-fi ‘could be hacked in five seconds’
By Sean Poulter
14th October 2010
Wireless internet networks in millions of homes can be hacked in less than five seconds, a study claims today.
The wi-fi hacking means criminals can spy on the activities of families, perhaps stealing their identity and banking details to raid their accounts.
The hackers could also use the wi-fi access to tap into illegal pornography or upload and download stolen music and movies without being traced.
An ‘ethical hacking’ experiment in six cities, using freely available software, found almost 40,000 home wi-fi networks at high risk.
Separately, there are concerns about the security of those who use free wi-fi networks offered by coffee shops and other businesses.
The study, commissioned by card protection and insurance firm CPP, highlights a ‘cavalier’ attitude to keeping data safe.
According to the findings, nearly a quarter of private wireless networks has no password attached, making them immediately accessible to criminals. This is despite 82 per cent of Britons thinking their network is secure.
The report also found that hackers were able to ‘harvest’ usernames and passwords from unsuspecting people at a rate of more than 350 an hour, sitting in coffee shops and restaurants.
Nearly a fifth of wireless users say they regularly use public networks.
CPP fraud expert Michael Lynch, said: ‘We urge all wi-fi users to remember that any information they volunteer through public networks can easily be visible to hackers.’
- end of initial entry -
John P. writes:
There’s no such thing as an absolutely secure network. Password protected home networks can be hacked but it is more difficult. If you have a long password (I recommend 16 characters) with a mix of capital, lowercase, numeric and special characters you should be reasonably safe. There is software that will automatically generate random passwords but it can take a long time to crack a good password. You have to assume you’re not wealthy or important enough for someone to go to that much trouble, especially when there are unprotected networks around.
Gintas writes:
The article does say,
According to the findings, nearly a quarter of private wireless networks has no password attached, making them immediately accessible to criminals. This is despite 82 per cent of Britons thinking their network is secure.
If your wireless access point does not have any password, then anyone can use it. Of course, if they are on your network then they can attack your computer. Or they just might use your network. The article makes the reader worry:
The hackers could also use the wi-fi access to tap into illegal pornography or upload and download stolen music and movies without being traced.
So if they use your internet access to do illegal things, you are at fault? That’s the implication, but it’s not clear that that is true. I am not a lawyer, but if you are ignorant of network security, or your password is cracked, or if you’re benevolent—deliberately allowing the neighbors to use your wireless—are you responsible for what they do? Also:
The report also found that hackers were able to ‘harvest’ usernames and passwords from unsuspecting people at a rate of more than 350 an hour, sitting in coffee shops and restaurants.
When you connect to a free wireless network somewhere, you don’t really know who’s watching the network, so this is a real concern. It’s just some network out there. You generally trust your ISP, but do you trust some unknown yet free network somewhere? Sure, you’re sitting in the coffee shop, but maybe there’s a guy with a mobile network sitting in the car in the parking lot, and you’ve just connected to his network. He calls it “Free WiFi at the Coffee Shop”. He captures your network traffic, much of which reveals all sorts of passwords and account information. For example, here is a benign but funny thing you can do if you have a wireless access point, and want to mess with people. The technical details are not important here, but scroll down, the pictures tell the story. This is very easy to do: Laptop with Wireless—> Wireless access point—> Server which captures network traffic—> Cable or DSL Wired Connection to ISP
Gintas writes:
One thing the article doesn’t address at all: How often is this kind of thing happening? What is the rate of the described crime? Should I really be worried? For that matter, should I stay away from the mall or the post office? Because from where I sit it looks pretty easy to go shoot the place up.
Mark Jaws writes:
Those of us who have read my inputs at VFR know that I am no Shakespeare. Having spent my young adult life in the Army as an intelligence officer, I was taught by my superiors that when writing for a military audience one must shelve flowery language and anticipate the information gaps arising from the narrative. Never, never leave any questions which the reader is likely to have unanswered. Unfortunately, today’s journalists have no idea how to write effectively.
LA replies:
The horror is in knowing that the people who write and edit the journalism on which we depend for our knowledge of current events are so intellectually unfocused that they do not notice it, or do not care, when they leave huge unanswered questions in their articles.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 14, 2010 10:27 AM | Send