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

[George Allen]

It's a good excuse to use my dremel. Cut a few holes for ventallation
and add a fan.

I was already thinking of ordering some anti-static foam to pack into
one and make my own 'pelican case' for hard drives. Sortof like Iron
Mountain's case for your backup tapes. Then I'll have a portable /
protected place to put my backup hard drives (zfs send/receive; zfs
export) instead of lying on a bookshelf.


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Alex Carver <agcarver+ale at acarver.net> wrote:
> You would only burn out the circuit if you connected the can directly to the
> antennas (electrically loading them).  There's certainly some reflection of
> the RF energy involved by hiding the AP inside the can but the power levels
> are low enough that it shouldn't do much to the output amplifiers.  The
> input preamps will probably saturate with the extra signal but should also
> be fine.
>
> Overheating would be a problem but you only need to drill a bunch of small
> holes to let air through.
>
>
> On 6/11/2013 21:39, Ron Frazier (ALE) wrote:
>>
>> I like the don't let them in my house solution.  Wouldn't the ammo can
>> 1) burn out the wifi circuit and 2) cause overheating due to lack of
>> cooling?  I had actually thought of wrapping aluminum foil around the
>> gateway.  At the moment, I have the old style modem, so this is
>> hypothetical.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> On 6/11/2013 11:43 PM, George Allen wrote:
>>>
>>> Easy solution for the technically savy:
>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=5.56+steel+ammo+can
>>> Give it some nice RF shielding, then use your own router.
>>> On Jun 11, 2013 9:48 PM, "David Tomaschik" <david at systemoverlord.com
>>> <mailto:david at systemoverlord.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Ron Frazier (ALE)
>>>     <atllinuxenthinfo at techstarship.com
>>>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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