Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

nickw311 · Jul 31, 2006, 03:22 PM

I saw somewhere that had a list of programs available for discovering wireless networks that don't broadcast their SSID and other tools to allow you to connect to wireless networks.

Does anyone know what that software may be?

Hi I'm Ben · Jul 31, 2006, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by nickw311

I saw somewhere that had a list of programs available for discovering wireless networks that don't broadcast their SSID and other tools to allow you to connect to wireless networks.

Does anyone know what that software may be?

Although I'm concerned as to your reason for needing this:
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/17199

nickw311 · Jul 31, 2006, 03:52 PM

The reason is because my workplace doesn't broadcast the SSID for the wireless network.

CharlesS · Jul 31, 2006, 04:26 PM

Can't you just ask the IT department what the SSID is?

imitchellg5 · Jul 31, 2006, 05:55 PM

Asking is embarressing for geeks like me

Dark_Lotus · Jul 31, 2006, 10:28 PM

Kismac and Macstumbler. http://www.macstumbler.com/ http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/17199

Apfhex · Aug 1, 2006, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Asking is embarressing for geeks like me

There's no way your IT department hid the SSID (and probably encrypted the connection... right?!?) expecting people to figure it out on their own.

...unless you're not supposed to be using it. Just ask 'em. And remember that connecting to wireless networks without permission, whether or not they're secure, is a crime.

CharlesS · Aug 1, 2006, 09:01 AM

Yeah, there's a difference between asking "What's the SSID to connect to the network?" and asking "What's the cup holder on my computer for?"

ghporter · Aug 1, 2006, 11:43 AM

I'm with Apfhex-if you're supposed to have access to the wieless network, your IT people should give you the SSID-and maybe collect your wireless card's MAC address to let it connect, too. It doesn't do any real good to simply not broadcast an SSID when the SSID is part of every packet that flies back and forth on the wireless network, so the real security is realized by using MAC address filtering. In other words, just finding that SSID may not do you any good at all.

Further, it your office's network is set up decently, the admin will be able to track every single packet that goes into or out of it. That means that you CANNOT keep an unauthorized computer secret, not for long, anyway.

Big Mac · Aug 1, 2006, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Apfhex

There's no way your IT department hid the SSID (and probably encrypted the connection... right?!?) expecting people to figure it out on their own.

...unless you're not supposed to be using it. Just ask 'em. And remember that connecting to wireless networks without permission, whether or not they're secure, is a crime.

A crime? In what jurisdiction? I haven't heard of such a law in California.

nickw311 · Aug 1, 2006, 12:30 PM

I'm allowed to be connected, and they told me the SSID. I just wanted to play around on the software for fun and also because I know there are more than one wireless networks here.

And no, it is not encrypted. The wireless network is here for employees to use on their personal laptop.

And no it is not a crime... wow loosen up.

Dark_Lotus · Aug 1, 2006, 01:29 PM

Im pretty sure it is a crime to connect to wireless networks when you dont have permission. Im not trying to be a prude or anything, I go wardriving all of the time, but I think its illegal. There is a way to wardrive legally though, you disable the TCP/IP stack, so you dont actually connect automatically to the network. But whats the fun in that?

Apfhex · Aug 1, 2006, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

A crime? In what jurisdiction? I haven't heard of such a law in California.

Actually, I may have been thinking of the unauthorized use of an internet connection that was criminal... but I wouldn't be surprised if that were extended to include connecting to a LAN.

CharlesS · Aug 1, 2006, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

I'm with Apfhex-if you're supposed to have access to the wieless network, your IT people should give you the SSID-and maybe collect your wireless card's MAC address to let it connect, too. It doesn't do any real good to simply not broadcast an SSID when the SSID is part of every packet that flies back and forth on the wireless network, so the real security is realized by using MAC address filtering. In other words, just finding that SSID may not do you any good at all.

Actually, the real security isn't realized by MAC filtering at all, since it's not that hard to spoof a MAC address. The real security comes from using encryption.

Dark_Lotus · Aug 1, 2006, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Actually, the real security isn't realized by MAC filtering at all, since it's not that hard to spoof a MAC address. The real security comes from using encryption.

And the encryption can be hacked also. It just takes alot of time and alot of packets being generated over the Wi-Fi network.

JKT · Aug 2, 2006, 01:15 AM

iStumbler is better than MacStumbler IMO. FWIW, it's useful just as a tool for monitoring your Wi-Fi signal as you can see how clean and persistent your signal is to a much finer degree than the built-in tools, which is what I use it for.

CharlesS · Aug 2, 2006, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by Dark_Lotus

And the encryption can be hacked also. It just takes alot of time and alot of packets being generated over the Wi-Fi network.

Well of course, anything can be hacked. Hacking the encryption would involve a lot more effort than spoofing a MAC address, though.

analogika · Aug 2, 2006, 09:43 AM

I thought encryption is really easy to hack, since the first thing sent across a wireless connection once a device connects is the (unencrypted) password?

Dark_Lotus · Aug 2, 2006, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

I thought encryption is really easy to hack, since the first thing sent across a wireless connection once a device connects is the (unencrypted) password?

No. Charles, your right, anything can be hacked. If I ran a wireless network and I didnt want anyone else on it, then I would have everything turned on. Hacking the encryption requires alot of time, and ALOT of packets being generated. If you were trying to hack encryption on someones wifi at there house, goodluck, it would take atleast a week, and thats if they are online alot.

Chuckit · Aug 2, 2006, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by Apfhex

And remember that connecting to wireless networks without permission, whether or not they're secure, is a crime.

Where? Commieville, WA?

CharlesS · Aug 2, 2006, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

I thought encryption is really easy to hack, since the first thing sent across a wireless connection once a device connects is the (unencrypted) password?

I should hope not, since there's absolutely no reason why it would be necessary to do that. The router already has the encryption key - you enter it when you set up the router - and the client machines also have the encryption key, since you have to enter it to put them on the network. Why would it be necessary to ever send the encryption key over the air?

Apfhex · Aug 2, 2006, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Where? Commieville, WA?

See my above post. ^^^

I don't want to look stupid due to false information, however, I have read that you can be charged with "unauthorized access to a computer network." Better yet, here's an ArsTechnica article:

An Illinois man pleaded guilty this week to remotely accessing another computer system without the owner's approval and was handed one year of court supervision and a US$250 fine. ... Last year, a Florida man was convicted of unauthorized access to a computer network, a third-degree felony ... According to Winnebago County State's Attorney Paul Logli, unauthorized access of a WAP is illegal in Illinois, even if the network is unprotected.

Anyway, there's at least legal precedence for it, if it's not actually illegal in most places.

But I think I've gone off topic long enough and the OP has perfect legal access to the network anyway, so it's a moot point.

JKT · Aug 3, 2006, 01:28 AM

Even if it is not a crime, it doesn't make it morally right to steal someone else's bandwidth (perhaps its different in the US, but here in the UK most ISPs have a max download limit per month and if you exceed it, you have to pay more and at a higher rate than normal).

analogika · Aug 3, 2006, 02:29 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

I should hope not, since there's absolutely no reason why it would be necessary to do that. The router already has the encryption key - you enter it when you set up the router - and the client machines also have the encryption key, since you have to enter it to put them on the network. Why would it be necessary to ever send the encryption key over the air?

Ah, duh, of course.

:smacks forehead:

Chuckit · Aug 3, 2006, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by JKT

Even if it is not a crime, it doesn't make it morally right to steal someone else's bandwidth (perhaps its different in the US, but here in the UK most ISPs have a max download limit per month and if you exceed it, you have to pay more and at a higher rate than normal).

That's true, but the bandwidth limit is high enough that I can leave my computer downloading stuff through BitTorrent almost 24/7 and not have to worry about hitting it.

JKT · Aug 3, 2006, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

That's true, but the bandwidth limit is high enough that I can leave my computer downloading stuff through BitTorrent almost 24/7 and not have to worry about hitting it.

That may be true for you, but many ISPs limit it to just 2GB here in the UK which you can reach just by farting.

BkueKanoodle · Aug 3, 2006, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Dark_Lotus

No. Charles, your right, anything can be hacked. If I ran a wireless network and I didnt want anyone else on it, then I would have everything turned on. Hacking the encryption requires alot of time, and ALOT of packets being generated. If you were trying to hack encryption on someones wifi at there house, goodluck, it would take atleast a week, and thats if they are online alot.

Not true anymore.

http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1814

I've done wep decrypting in less then 10 minutes. WPA's a little harder, but it can be done, beside most are still using WEP

Chuckit · Aug 3, 2006, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by JKT

That may be true for you, but many ISPs limit it to just 2GB here in the UK which you can reach just by farting.

2 GB? For broadband? That's weak.

CharlesS · Aug 3, 2006, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

2 GB? For broadband? That's weak.

For two years I was on a cable Internet plan which limited my monthly bandwidth usage to 6 GB. That was the $20 plan at the time. Looking at that same cable company's web site now, I notice that the plan I had has been bumped to $30, and the $20 plan now limits monthly bandwidth usage to 512 MB.

And yes, this is right here in the good ol' USA.

philm · Aug 3, 2006, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

2 GB? For broadband? That's weak.

I think it's fair to say that these small limits are mainly for ISPs which are offering free or very cheap broadband in the UK.

CharlesS · Aug 3, 2006, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by philm

I think it's fair to say that these small limits are mainly for ISPs which are offering free or very cheap broadband in the UK.

Apparently you didn't read my post? The cable company that I used for two years offers 512 MB per month for $20/month. Add the most basic cable TV service that they offer (32 channels) to that, and it's $42/month. I'd hardly call that free or very cheap, and it also wasn't in the UK.

Gossamer · Aug 3, 2006, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Apparently you didn't read my post? The cable company that I used for two years offers 512 MB per month for $20/month. Add the most basic cable TV service that they offer (32 channels) to that, and it's $42/month. I'd hardly call that free or very cheap, and it also wasn't in the UK.

Oh wow...a little crude math here: This page is about half a meg. Taking this page as the average MacNN page, you could only visit about 33 unique pages per day assuming your cache was enabled....wow, that is horrible.

ghporter · Aug 3, 2006, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by nickw311

I'm allowed to be connected, and they told me the SSID. I just wanted to play around on the software for fun and also because I know there are more than one wireless networks here.

And no, it is not encrypted. The wireless network is here for employees to use on their personal laptop.

And no it is not a crime... wow loosen up.

You'd be surprised how many people will ask for help to do things that are wrong in one way or another. Or maybe you wouldn't but you weren't thinking the way I do. Either way, I tend to be suspicious of such requests for that very reason-too many people trying to scam their bosses/IT departments/etc.

NetStumbler was at one time the "app of choice" for discovering what's out there, but I haven't kept up. It should still be good for what you're interested in doing.

JKT · Aug 4, 2006, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by philm

I think it's fair to say that these small limits are mainly for ISPs which are offering free or very cheap broadband in the UK.

Yes, it is fair to say. It is also fair to say that there are many, many people who use these cheap services thinking that they are getting a good deal (I bet they end up regretting it in the end, especially as many of those deals lock you in for a whole year). However, it isn't just the cheap options with relatively low bandwidth caps. Some of the "high" speed 8MB broadband services also impose a cap. It is a lot higher than 2GB, but if someone is snarfing your high speed connection, then they are likely to download more just because they can.