<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_10_1856200</id>
	<title>Beware the Airport Wireless</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1247216460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>schwit1 writes to tell us that a recent study by a Silicon Valley-based security company shows that black-hats have been ramping up their <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,531380,00.html">use of tempting free or unsecured wireless access points</a> in high travel areas like airports and hotels.  <i>"According to their study, even the 'secure' networks weren't all too safe.  Eighty percent of the private Wi-Fi networks at airports surveyed by Airtight were secured by the aging Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) protocol, which was cracked back in 2001.  Almost as many &mdash; 77 percent &mdash; of the networks they surveyed were actually private, peer-to-peer networks, meaning they weren't official hotspots. Instead, they were running off someone else's computer."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>schwit1 writes to tell us that a recent study by a Silicon Valley-based security company shows that black-hats have been ramping up their use of tempting free or unsecured wireless access points in high travel areas like airports and hotels .
" According to their study , even the 'secure ' networks were n't all too safe .
Eighty percent of the private Wi-Fi networks at airports surveyed by Airtight were secured by the aging Wired Equivalent Privacy ( WEP ) protocol , which was cracked back in 2001 .
Almost as many    77 percent    of the networks they surveyed were actually private , peer-to-peer networks , meaning they were n't official hotspots .
Instead , they were running off someone else 's computer .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>schwit1 writes to tell us that a recent study by a Silicon Valley-based security company shows that black-hats have been ramping up their use of tempting free or unsecured wireless access points in high travel areas like airports and hotels.
"According to their study, even the 'secure' networks weren't all too safe.
Eighty percent of the private Wi-Fi networks at airports surveyed by Airtight were secured by the aging Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) protocol, which was cracked back in 2001.
Almost as many — 77 percent — of the networks they surveyed were actually private, peer-to-peer networks, meaning they weren't official hotspots.
Instead, they were running off someone else's computer.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656147</id>
	<title>Re:SSL?</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1247229180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should read more.  There's a book out, "Beautiful Security".  There is a chapter devoted to airport wireless.  Joe Sixpack doesn't look at the SSL certificate, doesn't even notice the little lock emblem.  Even a lot of "sophisticated" people continue doing their banking, rationalizing the absence of the secure symbol.  The author of the section has collected TONS of personal details by spoofing a WIFI service at an airport.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should read more .
There 's a book out , " Beautiful Security " .
There is a chapter devoted to airport wireless .
Joe Sixpack does n't look at the SSL certificate , does n't even notice the little lock emblem .
Even a lot of " sophisticated " people continue doing their banking , rationalizing the absence of the secure symbol .
The author of the section has collected TONS of personal details by spoofing a WIFI service at an airport .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should read more.
There's a book out, "Beautiful Security".
There is a chapter devoted to airport wireless.
Joe Sixpack doesn't look at the SSL certificate, doesn't even notice the little lock emblem.
Even a lot of "sophisticated" people continue doing their banking, rationalizing the absence of the secure symbol.
The author of the section has collected TONS of personal details by spoofing a WIFI service at an airport.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28658509</id>
	<title>I use free WiFi all the time...</title>
	<author>dskoll</author>
	<datestamp>1247305800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I run OpenVPN.  The first thing I do upon connecting is create an OpenVPN tunnel to our corporate server.  I then route all traffic over the VPN connection (except for the actual encrypted OpenVPN packets themselves, of course: those need a special host route.)</p><p>I use an IP address to connect to the OpenVPN server so spoofed DNS won't affect me, and once connected, I of course use our corporate DNS servers.

</p><p>Problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I run OpenVPN .
The first thing I do upon connecting is create an OpenVPN tunnel to our corporate server .
I then route all traffic over the VPN connection ( except for the actual encrypted OpenVPN packets themselves , of course : those need a special host route .
) I use an IP address to connect to the OpenVPN server so spoofed DNS wo n't affect me , and once connected , I of course use our corporate DNS servers .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I run OpenVPN.
The first thing I do upon connecting is create an OpenVPN tunnel to our corporate server.
I then route all traffic over the VPN connection (except for the actual encrypted OpenVPN packets themselves, of course: those need a special host route.
)I use an IP address to connect to the OpenVPN server so spoofed DNS won't affect me, and once connected, I of course use our corporate DNS servers.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655017</id>
	<title>Ad-Hoc not a danger</title>
	<author>royallthefourth</author>
	<datestamp>1247220840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In every wifi GUI tool I've used, ad-hoc networks show up with a special icon. I don't know about the public in general, but any decent Slashdot reader should know better than to connect to one!</htmltext>
<tokenext>In every wifi GUI tool I 've used , ad-hoc networks show up with a special icon .
I do n't know about the public in general , but any decent Slashdot reader should know better than to connect to one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In every wifi GUI tool I've used, ad-hoc networks show up with a special icon.
I don't know about the public in general, but any decent Slashdot reader should know better than to connect to one!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655227</id>
	<title>SSL?</title>
	<author>captaindomon</author>
	<datestamp>1247222340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This article contains a lot of FUD. If you're banking or anything important money-wise you're probably using SSL with a signed certificate, even if you're a Joe Sixpack. If I'm doing anything work related I'm on a VPN. You should never, ever, trust that your connection through the "internets" is secure anyway. Wireless access doesn't change anything about that.

This article is just trying to gain attention by using fear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article contains a lot of FUD .
If you 're banking or anything important money-wise you 're probably using SSL with a signed certificate , even if you 're a Joe Sixpack .
If I 'm doing anything work related I 'm on a VPN .
You should never , ever , trust that your connection through the " internets " is secure anyway .
Wireless access does n't change anything about that .
This article is just trying to gain attention by using fear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article contains a lot of FUD.
If you're banking or anything important money-wise you're probably using SSL with a signed certificate, even if you're a Joe Sixpack.
If I'm doing anything work related I'm on a VPN.
You should never, ever, trust that your connection through the "internets" is secure anyway.
Wireless access doesn't change anything about that.
This article is just trying to gain attention by using fear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28658801</id>
	<title>Re:Old</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247311020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now, if you are actually running a local NETWORK, (EG: printer sharing, etc) then things change a bit. But even then, it's sensible to secure your services so that security issues don't plague you.</p></div></blockquote><p>You're absolutely correct. I don't know what you're using for your local network, but business networks these days are encrypted end-to-end via IPSec by default, if the IT staff is competent.</p><blockquote><div><p>Since all my company's resources need to be "roadable", we don't bother with VPNs and instead just used all encrypted protocols.</p></div></blockquote><p>Neat! You must have some *really* long cables for your servers and printers: How do you keep them from getting tangled?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , if you are actually running a local NETWORK , ( EG : printer sharing , etc ) then things change a bit .
But even then , it 's sensible to secure your services so that security issues do n't plague you.You 're absolutely correct .
I do n't know what you 're using for your local network , but business networks these days are encrypted end-to-end via IPSec by default , if the IT staff is competent.Since all my company 's resources need to be " roadable " , we do n't bother with VPNs and instead just used all encrypted protocols.Neat !
You must have some * really * long cables for your servers and printers : How do you keep them from getting tangled ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, if you are actually running a local NETWORK, (EG: printer sharing, etc) then things change a bit.
But even then, it's sensible to secure your services so that security issues don't plague you.You're absolutely correct.
I don't know what you're using for your local network, but business networks these days are encrypted end-to-end via IPSec by default, if the IT staff is competent.Since all my company's resources need to be "roadable", we don't bother with VPNs and instead just used all encrypted protocols.Neat!
You must have some *really* long cables for your servers and printers: How do you keep them from getting tangled?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656453</id>
	<title>Okay...I'll repeat what others have said...</title>
	<author>rindeee</author>
	<datestamp>1247231700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...because it NEEDS TO BE.  If you are using public wireless without a VPN, YOUR ARE A FOOL.  If you can't setup your own, use a cheap, public provider such as Witopia (I've had outstanding experience with them in the past).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...because it NEEDS TO BE .
If you are using public wireless without a VPN , YOUR ARE A FOOL .
If you ca n't setup your own , use a cheap , public provider such as Witopia ( I 've had outstanding experience with them in the past ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because it NEEDS TO BE.
If you are using public wireless without a VPN, YOUR ARE A FOOL.
If you can't setup your own, use a cheap, public provider such as Witopia (I've had outstanding experience with them in the past).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655399</id>
	<title>appallingly stupid study</title>
	<author>kali</author>
	<datestamp>1247223420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one should ever rely on the network layer for security, because networks are by nature insecure.  Run traceroute sometime if you're curious to see how many nodes are located between your computer and your bank/stock broker/webmail.  Every one of those nodes can see every one of your packets.  The only solution is to use application layer encryption, and once you've done that, it doesn't matter who is spying on your traffic.</p><p>You'll notice that this study was done by "AirTight Networks, a wireless security company."  In other words, they are fear-mongering in order to try to sell more of their products.  No matter how secure you make your wireless network, it still won't stop anyone even 1 hop away from seeing all of your traffic.   As security professionals, the researchers from AirTight Networks know this, which makes their study all the more stupid and despicable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one should ever rely on the network layer for security , because networks are by nature insecure .
Run traceroute sometime if you 're curious to see how many nodes are located between your computer and your bank/stock broker/webmail .
Every one of those nodes can see every one of your packets .
The only solution is to use application layer encryption , and once you 've done that , it does n't matter who is spying on your traffic.You 'll notice that this study was done by " AirTight Networks , a wireless security company .
" In other words , they are fear-mongering in order to try to sell more of their products .
No matter how secure you make your wireless network , it still wo n't stop anyone even 1 hop away from seeing all of your traffic .
As security professionals , the researchers from AirTight Networks know this , which makes their study all the more stupid and despicable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one should ever rely on the network layer for security, because networks are by nature insecure.
Run traceroute sometime if you're curious to see how many nodes are located between your computer and your bank/stock broker/webmail.
Every one of those nodes can see every one of your packets.
The only solution is to use application layer encryption, and once you've done that, it doesn't matter who is spying on your traffic.You'll notice that this study was done by "AirTight Networks, a wireless security company.
"  In other words, they are fear-mongering in order to try to sell more of their products.
No matter how secure you make your wireless network, it still won't stop anyone even 1 hop away from seeing all of your traffic.
As security professionals, the researchers from AirTight Networks know this, which makes their study all the more stupid and despicable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656931</id>
	<title>Re:Old</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247236620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>And for that matter, you're in a insecure place connecting via some random network. Its just stupid.</p></div></blockquote><p>But very convenient. You'd be surprised how much Stupid you can get for Convenience.</p></div></blockquote><p>From an MIS/IT perspective, one solution to that is to provide something more convenient. Our laptops are issued with cellular broadband NICs and unlimited data plans for those with a demonstrated business need, and coverage is widespread enough now (especially in airports) that it's easier for them to access our corporate VPN that way than it is to connect to some arbitrary open WAP, especially after automating it so that they double-click one icon on their desktop, enter their password, and the rest "just works".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And for that matter , you 're in a insecure place connecting via some random network .
Its just stupid.But very convenient .
You 'd be surprised how much Stupid you can get for Convenience.From an MIS/IT perspective , one solution to that is to provide something more convenient .
Our laptops are issued with cellular broadband NICs and unlimited data plans for those with a demonstrated business need , and coverage is widespread enough now ( especially in airports ) that it 's easier for them to access our corporate VPN that way than it is to connect to some arbitrary open WAP , especially after automating it so that they double-click one icon on their desktop , enter their password , and the rest " just works " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for that matter, you're in a insecure place connecting via some random network.
Its just stupid.But very convenient.
You'd be surprised how much Stupid you can get for Convenience.From an MIS/IT perspective, one solution to that is to provide something more convenient.
Our laptops are issued with cellular broadband NICs and unlimited data plans for those with a demonstrated business need, and coverage is widespread enough now (especially in airports) that it's easier for them to access our corporate VPN that way than it is to connect to some arbitrary open WAP, especially after automating it so that they double-click one icon on their desktop, enter their password, and the rest "just works".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654987</id>
	<title>current state of affairs</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1247220660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In truth, the current state of affairs is about what anyone who has been following security news and publications for awhile would expect. There's been a rise in the level of networks that aren't "open", but instead encrypted in some fashion. That's because of the endless parade of articles about pedophiles using laptops and the FBI busting down innocent people's doors to find (da-dum!) the wifi router. So while people are very good at being afraid and then doing something vaguely rational about it, "smart" is one word I wouldn't use to describe the public's response. Most of them still use passwords. Many of them don't know the difference between WEP, WPA, and WPA2 and just set it to whatever option gives them the least amount of grief (Windows likes spit out key-length errors when using WPA -- usually because of an extra space at the end of the copied string)... Which is usually a simple password. So they use 0.008\% of the available keyspace, breathe a sigh of relief, and then go to the store to buy duct tape and gas masks because CNN says it'll help keep the terrorists out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In truth , the current state of affairs is about what anyone who has been following security news and publications for awhile would expect .
There 's been a rise in the level of networks that are n't " open " , but instead encrypted in some fashion .
That 's because of the endless parade of articles about pedophiles using laptops and the FBI busting down innocent people 's doors to find ( da-dum !
) the wifi router .
So while people are very good at being afraid and then doing something vaguely rational about it , " smart " is one word I would n't use to describe the public 's response .
Most of them still use passwords .
Many of them do n't know the difference between WEP , WPA , and WPA2 and just set it to whatever option gives them the least amount of grief ( Windows likes spit out key-length errors when using WPA -- usually because of an extra space at the end of the copied string ) ... Which is usually a simple password .
So they use 0.008 \ % of the available keyspace , breathe a sigh of relief , and then go to the store to buy duct tape and gas masks because CNN says it 'll help keep the terrorists out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In truth, the current state of affairs is about what anyone who has been following security news and publications for awhile would expect.
There's been a rise in the level of networks that aren't "open", but instead encrypted in some fashion.
That's because of the endless parade of articles about pedophiles using laptops and the FBI busting down innocent people's doors to find (da-dum!
) the wifi router.
So while people are very good at being afraid and then doing something vaguely rational about it, "smart" is one word I wouldn't use to describe the public's response.
Most of them still use passwords.
Many of them don't know the difference between WEP, WPA, and WPA2 and just set it to whatever option gives them the least amount of grief (Windows likes spit out key-length errors when using WPA -- usually because of an extra space at the end of the copied string)... Which is usually a simple password.
So they use 0.008\% of the available keyspace, breathe a sigh of relief, and then go to the store to buy duct tape and gas masks because CNN says it'll help keep the terrorists out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656109</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1247228880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If i can get outside and not pay anything, why should i care that its not 'official'? Really, i'm not joking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If i can get outside and not pay anything , why should i care that its not 'official ' ?
Really , i 'm not joking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If i can get outside and not pay anything, why should i care that its not 'official'?
Really, i'm not joking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655861</id>
	<title>Re:What's the big deal?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1247226840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wireless security is more about preventing unauthorized usage of a network.  i.e., the deeds that can land you in trouble with the feds or the RIAA.

You still need a firewall on your local machine, since apart from the internet you also have peers on the local lan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wireless security is more about preventing unauthorized usage of a network .
i.e. , the deeds that can land you in trouble with the feds or the RIAA .
You still need a firewall on your local machine , since apart from the internet you also have peers on the local lan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wireless security is more about preventing unauthorized usage of a network.
i.e., the deeds that can land you in trouble with the feds or the RIAA.
You still need a firewall on your local machine, since apart from the internet you also have peers on the local lan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654943</id>
	<title>Get to work! Here's how to crack WEP networks</title>
	<author>bogaboga</author>
	<datestamp>1247220300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cracked my own network in minutes using <a href="http://lifehacker.com/5305094/how-to-crack-a-wi+fi-networks-wep-password-with-backtrack" title="lifehacker.com" rel="nofollow"> this method</a> [lifehacker.com]. Can someone point me to a less complicated method?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I cracked my own network in minutes using this method [ lifehacker.com ] .
Can someone point me to a less complicated method ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cracked my own network in minutes using  this method [lifehacker.com].
Can someone point me to a less complicated method?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655815</id>
	<title>Re:current state of affairs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247226480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have helped some people with a decent way of doing secure wireless:</p><p>On OS X, you can generate random 63 character passphrases using the KeyChain app.  On Windows, KeePass is something I use, because it not just uses random characters, but can take random mouse movements as part of the character generation.  I show the user how to use either utility, then copy and paste the passphrase to a file on a USB flash drive (which then gets stored somewhere safe such as a TrueCrypt volume or an encrypted disk image file.)  Then, it is a matter of copying and pasting into the router (while on a machine that is on a hardwire connection), and pasting the key into all the computers that are authorized to connect.  MAC checking is also nice, but I leave that up to the user as icing on the cake.</p><p>From what I've read, a 20 character passphrase is good against most attempts, 32 against almost all, and 63 (the longest the WPA2 spec allows) is going to make a black hat use another technique to find a weaker link (compromise a machine on that segment, physical compromise, rubber hose, look for a weaker wireless AP to attack, etc.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have helped some people with a decent way of doing secure wireless : On OS X , you can generate random 63 character passphrases using the KeyChain app .
On Windows , KeePass is something I use , because it not just uses random characters , but can take random mouse movements as part of the character generation .
I show the user how to use either utility , then copy and paste the passphrase to a file on a USB flash drive ( which then gets stored somewhere safe such as a TrueCrypt volume or an encrypted disk image file .
) Then , it is a matter of copying and pasting into the router ( while on a machine that is on a hardwire connection ) , and pasting the key into all the computers that are authorized to connect .
MAC checking is also nice , but I leave that up to the user as icing on the cake.From what I 've read , a 20 character passphrase is good against most attempts , 32 against almost all , and 63 ( the longest the WPA2 spec allows ) is going to make a black hat use another technique to find a weaker link ( compromise a machine on that segment , physical compromise , rubber hose , look for a weaker wireless AP to attack , etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have helped some people with a decent way of doing secure wireless:On OS X, you can generate random 63 character passphrases using the KeyChain app.
On Windows, KeePass is something I use, because it not just uses random characters, but can take random mouse movements as part of the character generation.
I show the user how to use either utility, then copy and paste the passphrase to a file on a USB flash drive (which then gets stored somewhere safe such as a TrueCrypt volume or an encrypted disk image file.
)  Then, it is a matter of copying and pasting into the router (while on a machine that is on a hardwire connection), and pasting the key into all the computers that are authorized to connect.
MAC checking is also nice, but I leave that up to the user as icing on the cake.From what I've read, a 20 character passphrase is good against most attempts, 32 against almost all, and 63 (the longest the WPA2 spec allows) is going to make a black hat use another technique to find a weaker link (compromise a machine on that segment, physical compromise, rubber hose, look for a weaker wireless AP to attack, etc.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655015</id>
	<title>What's the big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247220780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the big deal?  Why worry about the insecurity of the local wireless network when you're connecting to the Internet... hello, it's insecure!!  If your computer isn't secure it doesn't matter whether the local network is or isn't, your computer is still insecure.  If you are doing things across the network that you want to keep private and you aren't doing them over SSL/SSH/VPN you are an idiot regardless of whether the local wifi uses WEP, WPA2, or no encryption at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the big deal ?
Why worry about the insecurity of the local wireless network when you 're connecting to the Internet... hello , it 's insecure ! !
If your computer is n't secure it does n't matter whether the local network is or is n't , your computer is still insecure .
If you are doing things across the network that you want to keep private and you are n't doing them over SSL/SSH/VPN you are an idiot regardless of whether the local wifi uses WEP , WPA2 , or no encryption at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the big deal?
Why worry about the insecurity of the local wireless network when you're connecting to the Internet... hello, it's insecure!!
If your computer isn't secure it doesn't matter whether the local network is or isn't, your computer is still insecure.
If you are doing things across the network that you want to keep private and you aren't doing them over SSL/SSH/VPN you are an idiot regardless of whether the local wifi uses WEP, WPA2, or no encryption at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656205</id>
	<title>Re:Get to work! Here's how to crack WEP networks</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1247229720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>"I cracked my own network in minutes using  this method [lifehacker.com]. Can someone point me to a less complicated method?"</i>
</p><p>
Look for the PostIt on the bottom of the router.  Or try the password on the PostIt on the underside of the keyboard - but only if the password on the PostIt on the monitor doesn't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I cracked my own network in minutes using this method [ lifehacker.com ] .
Can someone point me to a less complicated method ?
" Look for the PostIt on the bottom of the router .
Or try the password on the PostIt on the underside of the keyboard - but only if the password on the PostIt on the monitor does n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"I cracked my own network in minutes using  this method [lifehacker.com].
Can someone point me to a less complicated method?
"

Look for the PostIt on the bottom of the router.
Or try the password on the PostIt on the underside of the keyboard - but only if the password on the PostIt on the monitor doesn't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655083</id>
	<title>Not great to begin with</title>
	<author>TClevenger</author>
	<datestamp>1247221200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was in an airport a couple of weeks ago (Denver?)  The WiFi was "free", but they proxied all of your traffic through their servers and used that to encapsulate all web sites into a frame with advertisements above.  They did allow SSH, so I just bypassed them by proxying my traffic through an SSH tunnel to my home machine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was in an airport a couple of weeks ago ( Denver ?
) The WiFi was " free " , but they proxied all of your traffic through their servers and used that to encapsulate all web sites into a frame with advertisements above .
They did allow SSH , so I just bypassed them by proxying my traffic through an SSH tunnel to my home machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was in an airport a couple of weeks ago (Denver?
)  The WiFi was "free", but they proxied all of your traffic through their servers and used that to encapsulate all web sites into a frame with advertisements above.
They did allow SSH, so I just bypassed them by proxying my traffic through an SSH tunnel to my home machine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655545</id>
	<title>Re:current state of affairs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247224560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That's because of the endless parade of articles about pedophiles using laptops and the FBI busting down innocent people's doors to find (da-dum!) the wifi router.</i></p><p>How often does that ever happen?  I brought that up as a reason once not to leave one's wifi network open (even though I'd like to share), and was told I was being paranoid.  Do you have any links to these articles, I couldn't find any.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because of the endless parade of articles about pedophiles using laptops and the FBI busting down innocent people 's doors to find ( da-dum !
) the wifi router.How often does that ever happen ?
I brought that up as a reason once not to leave one 's wifi network open ( even though I 'd like to share ) , and was told I was being paranoid .
Do you have any links to these articles , I could n't find any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because of the endless parade of articles about pedophiles using laptops and the FBI busting down innocent people's doors to find (da-dum!
) the wifi router.How often does that ever happen?
I brought that up as a reason once not to leave one's wifi network open (even though I'd like to share), and was told I was being paranoid.
Do you have any links to these articles, I couldn't find any.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655409</id>
	<title>hak5</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247223480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was kind of shocked that hak5 episodes (downloadable to my tivo) educates and actually encourages. this type of fake wifi. Google Jasager.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was kind of shocked that hak5 episodes ( downloadable to my tivo ) educates and actually encourages .
this type of fake wifi .
Google Jasager .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was kind of shocked that hak5 episodes (downloadable to my tivo) educates and actually encourages.
this type of fake wifi.
Google Jasager.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28674519</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247489940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's "PPS" rather than "PSS".  "PS" stands for "post script", so what you wanted to indicate was a "post post script".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's " PPS " rather than " PSS " .
" PS " stands for " post script " , so what you wanted to indicate was a " post post script " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's "PPS" rather than "PSS".
"PS" stands for "post script", so what you wanted to indicate was a "post post script".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656783</id>
	<title>VPNs are your friends</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1247235000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, I always VPN myself back to base every time I use a network I don't trust completely. If someone can break my crypto, he or she deserves my data.</p><p>Setting up a VPN is easy, quick and painless. Why not do it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , I always VPN myself back to base every time I use a network I do n't trust completely .
If someone can break my crypto , he or she deserves my data.Setting up a VPN is easy , quick and painless .
Why not do it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, I always VPN myself back to base every time I use a network I don't trust completely.
If someone can break my crypto, he or she deserves my data.Setting up a VPN is easy, quick and painless.
Why not do it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655047</id>
	<title>"Hi, Jack!" your PC</title>
	<author>ifeelswine</author>
	<datestamp>1247220960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ever see a black hat naked before Jimmy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever see a black hat naked before Jimmy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever see a black hat naked before Jimmy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28659007</id>
	<title>Re:Old</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1247316480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've got an older Netgear WiFi router that runs only in WEP and I'm also running Avira Free security.<p>
Haven't been accessed (that I can tell). Sometimes Avira will pop up and tell me someone is <i> trying  to access my network and I just click <i> DENY ACCESS<nobr> <wbr></nobr></i>.</i></p><p><i>

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!"</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got an older Netgear WiFi router that runs only in WEP and I 'm also running Avira Free security .
Have n't been accessed ( that I can tell ) .
Sometimes Avira will pop up and tell me someone is trying to access my network and I just click DENY ACCESS .
" Beware the Jabberwock , my son !
The jaws that bite , the claws that catch !
Beware the Jubjub bird , and shun The frumious Bandersnatch !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got an older Netgear WiFi router that runs only in WEP and I'm also running Avira Free security.
Haven't been accessed (that I can tell).
Sometimes Avira will pop up and tell me someone is  trying  to access my network and I just click  DENY ACCESS .
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655879</id>
	<title>Re:relay</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1247226900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>New Hampster touches Canadia, just in a not very interesting spot.</p><p>Vermont, on the other hand, touches Canadia upclose to Montreal.  Much more fun than just trees.</p><p>Maine, of course, touches a lot more of Canadia, but it's all lower rent and not so much fun. Beautiful in its own way, but not Montreal.</p><p>And thankfully, Maine doesn't touch Vermont at all.  Wierd shit in Vermont.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>New Hampster touches Canadia , just in a not very interesting spot.Vermont , on the other hand , touches Canadia upclose to Montreal .
Much more fun than just trees.Maine , of course , touches a lot more of Canadia , but it 's all lower rent and not so much fun .
Beautiful in its own way , but not Montreal.And thankfully , Maine does n't touch Vermont at all .
Wierd shit in Vermont .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New Hampster touches Canadia, just in a not very interesting spot.Vermont, on the other hand, touches Canadia upclose to Montreal.
Much more fun than just trees.Maine, of course, touches a lot more of Canadia, but it's all lower rent and not so much fun.
Beautiful in its own way, but not Montreal.And thankfully, Maine doesn't touch Vermont at all.
Wierd shit in Vermont.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655607</id>
	<title>3G Data Card</title>
	<author>Mistah Blue</author>
	<datestamp>1247225100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is one reason why I typically just use my 3G data card nowadays.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one reason why I typically just use my 3G data card nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one reason why I typically just use my 3G data card nowadays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28658009</id>
	<title>Re:SSL?</title>
	<author>itsthebin</author>
	<datestamp>1247253240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>to use this access point you require our activeX plugin
<br>
<br>
please accept the plugin to continue</htmltext>
<tokenext>to use this access point you require our activeX plugin please accept the plugin to continue</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to use this access point you require our activeX plugin


please accept the plugin to continue</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655855</id>
	<title>Re:relay</title>
	<author>omi5cron</author>
	<datestamp>1247226780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>when was this? i am a few miles down the road, WTF why not  i go do some experimenting...i am also an alumnus, but back then there wasn't even the internet. my, how time flies, and things change!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>when was this ?
i am a few miles down the road , WTF why not i go do some experimenting...i am also an alumnus , but back then there was n't even the internet .
my , how time flies , and things change !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when was this?
i am a few miles down the road, WTF why not  i go do some experimenting...i am also an alumnus, but back then there wasn't even the internet.
my, how time flies, and things change!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655261</id>
	<title>Airport wireless is shoddy anyway, half the time</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1247222520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last time I was traveling, I was flying out to Portland, and I had connectivity issues with the free wi-fi offered by the airports.  At one of them, I'd detect their SSID and successfully connect with a reasonably strong signal, but after going through their initial "terms of service" type page and using it for a couple minutes, I'd lose communications.  The wi-fi said it was still connected but pings were just timing out and nothing would come up.  I could disconnect, search for available wireless networks, and try to reconnect, which worked about half the time (but again, only for a few minutes).</p><p>All things considered, I'd rather find and use a rogue offering, set up a VPN tunnel, and use THAT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I was traveling , I was flying out to Portland , and I had connectivity issues with the free wi-fi offered by the airports .
At one of them , I 'd detect their SSID and successfully connect with a reasonably strong signal , but after going through their initial " terms of service " type page and using it for a couple minutes , I 'd lose communications .
The wi-fi said it was still connected but pings were just timing out and nothing would come up .
I could disconnect , search for available wireless networks , and try to reconnect , which worked about half the time ( but again , only for a few minutes ) .All things considered , I 'd rather find and use a rogue offering , set up a VPN tunnel , and use THAT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I was traveling, I was flying out to Portland, and I had connectivity issues with the free wi-fi offered by the airports.
At one of them, I'd detect their SSID and successfully connect with a reasonably strong signal, but after going through their initial "terms of service" type page and using it for a couple minutes, I'd lose communications.
The wi-fi said it was still connected but pings were just timing out and nothing would come up.
I could disconnect, search for available wireless networks, and try to reconnect, which worked about half the time (but again, only for a few minutes).All things considered, I'd rather find and use a rogue offering, set up a VPN tunnel, and use THAT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655719</id>
	<title>Re:Old</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1247225940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they can crack 256 bit AES and/or fake SSH hostkeys, well, then I guess they've probably got my data either way. If not, there's nothing stupid about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they can crack 256 bit AES and/or fake SSH hostkeys , well , then I guess they 've probably got my data either way .
If not , there 's nothing stupid about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they can crack 256 bit AES and/or fake SSH hostkeys, well, then I guess they've probably got my data either way.
If not, there's nothing stupid about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28659547</id>
	<title>Re:current state of affairs</title>
	<author>cbiltcliffe</author>
	<datestamp>1247323800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It happened a few years ago.  I used to have a link on my website, but the article expired from the news service, and I never bothered to track any more down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It happened a few years ago .
I used to have a link on my website , but the article expired from the news service , and I never bothered to track any more down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It happened a few years ago.
I used to have a link on my website, but the article expired from the news service, and I never bothered to track any more down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656805</id>
	<title>Re:Old</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1247235120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heck I'm typing this on an iPhone on a plane via airtrans wifi service somewhere between Chicago and orlando and I don't care about privacy. I'm not bankingand if the worst that happens is my slashdot pw sniffed then that's an Acceptable risk".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heck I 'm typing this on an iPhone on a plane via airtrans wifi service somewhere between Chicago and orlando and I do n't care about privacy .
I 'm not bankingand if the worst that happens is my slashdot pw sniffed then that 's an Acceptable risk " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heck I'm typing this on an iPhone on a plane via airtrans wifi service somewhere between Chicago and orlando and I don't care about privacy.
I'm not bankingand if the worst that happens is my slashdot pw sniffed then that's an Acceptable risk".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655069</id>
	<title>Ahh, the old "Free Public WiFi" issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247221140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever notice an SSID for "Free Public WiFi" just pop up while you're at your place of work?</p><p>When I first saw these, I assumed "someone got infected with some trojan which sets them up to pretend to be an open WiFi either to do a man-in-the-middle attack, or to infect my system with some kind of worm."</p><p>After a bit of digging, I discovered that this was actually not malicious, but was a viral-like spread due to some strange way that one of the MS Operating systems was handling ad-hoc wireless connections.</p><p>Here's a 2006 advisory on the issue<br><a href="http://www.nmrc.org/pub/advise/20060114.txt" title="nmrc.org">http://www.nmrc.org/pub/advise/20060114.txt</a> [nmrc.org]</p><p>Here's a less technical explanation (in case you have to convert it to "boss speak")<br><a href="http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2007/01/ad-hoc-wifi-virus.html" title="blogspot.com">http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2007/01/ad-hoc-wifi-virus.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>So, pretty much everyone says it's harmless.</p><p>However, my initial suspicians (about MitM or worm infections) could easily be made to come true, and anyone who google'd it would say "oh, I guess it's that 2006 thing, no worries"</p><p>Of course, being an ad-hoc node, it'll be kinda obvious to most geeks... and of course, most geeks would probably make sure they were tunneling or otherwise using the network safely anyhow.</p><p>John Q. Public on the other hand? hoo boy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... AND it doesn't help that so many products, in the name of making things easier on John Q. Public, will just auto-associate when they see an available connection.</p><p>I don't really know where I'm going with all this except to say "Never trust any network outside your own, never EVER trust the Interwebs, and only trust your own network as far as you have to in order to make things work... especially if you're not the only one using it.", but you knew that already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever notice an SSID for " Free Public WiFi " just pop up while you 're at your place of work ? When I first saw these , I assumed " someone got infected with some trojan which sets them up to pretend to be an open WiFi either to do a man-in-the-middle attack , or to infect my system with some kind of worm .
" After a bit of digging , I discovered that this was actually not malicious , but was a viral-like spread due to some strange way that one of the MS Operating systems was handling ad-hoc wireless connections.Here 's a 2006 advisory on the issuehttp : //www.nmrc.org/pub/advise/20060114.txt [ nmrc.org ] Here 's a less technical explanation ( in case you have to convert it to " boss speak " ) http : //erratasec.blogspot.com/2007/01/ad-hoc-wifi-virus.html [ blogspot.com ] So , pretty much everyone says it 's harmless.However , my initial suspicians ( about MitM or worm infections ) could easily be made to come true , and anyone who google 'd it would say " oh , I guess it 's that 2006 thing , no worries " Of course , being an ad-hoc node , it 'll be kinda obvious to most geeks... and of course , most geeks would probably make sure they were tunneling or otherwise using the network safely anyhow.John Q. Public on the other hand ?
hoo boy .
... AND it does n't help that so many products , in the name of making things easier on John Q. Public , will just auto-associate when they see an available connection.I do n't really know where I 'm going with all this except to say " Never trust any network outside your own , never EVER trust the Interwebs , and only trust your own network as far as you have to in order to make things work... especially if you 're not the only one using it .
" , but you knew that already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever notice an SSID for "Free Public WiFi" just pop up while you're at your place of work?When I first saw these, I assumed "someone got infected with some trojan which sets them up to pretend to be an open WiFi either to do a man-in-the-middle attack, or to infect my system with some kind of worm.
"After a bit of digging, I discovered that this was actually not malicious, but was a viral-like spread due to some strange way that one of the MS Operating systems was handling ad-hoc wireless connections.Here's a 2006 advisory on the issuehttp://www.nmrc.org/pub/advise/20060114.txt [nmrc.org]Here's a less technical explanation (in case you have to convert it to "boss speak")http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2007/01/ad-hoc-wifi-virus.html [blogspot.com]So, pretty much everyone says it's harmless.However, my initial suspicians (about MitM or worm infections) could easily be made to come true, and anyone who google'd it would say "oh, I guess it's that 2006 thing, no worries"Of course, being an ad-hoc node, it'll be kinda obvious to most geeks... and of course, most geeks would probably make sure they were tunneling or otherwise using the network safely anyhow.John Q. Public on the other hand?
hoo boy.
... AND it doesn't help that so many products, in the name of making things easier on John Q. Public, will just auto-associate when they see an available connection.I don't really know where I'm going with all this except to say "Never trust any network outside your own, never EVER trust the Interwebs, and only trust your own network as far as you have to in order to make things work... especially if you're not the only one using it.
", but you knew that already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655045</id>
	<title>How is this dangerous to a normal user?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247220960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can this affect a normal user?
Aren't HTTPS sites and other safe regardless of this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can this affect a normal user ?
Are n't HTTPS sites and other safe regardless of this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can this affect a normal user?
Aren't HTTPS sites and other safe regardless of this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656137</id>
	<title>Re:Old</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1247229060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot to mention that it's also not relevant.</p><p>The Internet itself is "insecure". It is so by design, so if the purpose of the Wifi is to get to teh iNternetz then there is logically no substantial value to encrypting your hotspot.</p><p>Practically, I can only think of two benefits:</p><p>1) Prevent neighbors from leeching bandwidth and making your YT videos "skippy".</p><p>2) Prevent neighbors from sharing MP3s on your connection so that the RIAA sues you. Of course, if you don't secure your connection, you have plausible deniability when they sue....</p><p>Now, if you are actually running a local NETWORK, (EG: printer sharing, etc) then things change a bit. But even then, it's sensible to secure your services so that security issues don't plague you. Since all my company's resources need to be "roadable", we don't bother with VPNs and instead just used all encrypted protocols. (EG: rather than SMB, we use DAV over HTTPS, SMTPS/IMAPS for email, etc)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot to mention that it 's also not relevant.The Internet itself is " insecure " .
It is so by design , so if the purpose of the Wifi is to get to teh iNternetz then there is logically no substantial value to encrypting your hotspot.Practically , I can only think of two benefits : 1 ) Prevent neighbors from leeching bandwidth and making your YT videos " skippy " .2 ) Prevent neighbors from sharing MP3s on your connection so that the RIAA sues you .
Of course , if you do n't secure your connection , you have plausible deniability when they sue....Now , if you are actually running a local NETWORK , ( EG : printer sharing , etc ) then things change a bit .
But even then , it 's sensible to secure your services so that security issues do n't plague you .
Since all my company 's resources need to be " roadable " , we do n't bother with VPNs and instead just used all encrypted protocols .
( EG : rather than SMB , we use DAV over HTTPS , SMTPS/IMAPS for email , etc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot to mention that it's also not relevant.The Internet itself is "insecure".
It is so by design, so if the purpose of the Wifi is to get to teh iNternetz then there is logically no substantial value to encrypting your hotspot.Practically, I can only think of two benefits:1) Prevent neighbors from leeching bandwidth and making your YT videos "skippy".2) Prevent neighbors from sharing MP3s on your connection so that the RIAA sues you.
Of course, if you don't secure your connection, you have plausible deniability when they sue....Now, if you are actually running a local NETWORK, (EG: printer sharing, etc) then things change a bit.
But even then, it's sensible to secure your services so that security issues don't plague you.
Since all my company's resources need to be "roadable", we don't bother with VPNs and instead just used all encrypted protocols.
(EG: rather than SMB, we use DAV over HTTPS, SMTPS/IMAPS for email, etc)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655147</id>
	<title>Blackhat Interception  : +1, Extra Jalapeno Hot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247221680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cheney:  Yeah, zap 'em. He's watches too much Olbermann.  While your at it, potato Al Gore's Prius.</p><p>Agent X:  You're sure.</p><p>Cheney: As sure as I'm a  burner of the U.S. constitution.<br>We'll make billions, I assure you.</p><p>Agent X:  Does "we" include me.</p><p>Cheney: You're a poet and don't know it.<br>See ya in Paraguay or Turkmenistan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheney : Yeah , zap 'em .
He 's watches too much Olbermann .
While your at it , potato Al Gore 's Prius.Agent X : You 're sure.Cheney : As sure as I 'm a burner of the U.S. constitution.We 'll make billions , I assure you.Agent X : Does " we " include me.Cheney : You 're a poet and do n't know it.See ya in Paraguay or Turkmenistan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheney:  Yeah, zap 'em.
He's watches too much Olbermann.
While your at it, potato Al Gore's Prius.Agent X:  You're sure.Cheney: As sure as I'm a  burner of the U.S. constitution.We'll make billions, I assure you.Agent X:  Does "we" include me.Cheney: You're a poet and don't know it.See ya in Paraguay or Turkmenistan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655183</id>
	<title>they were running off someone else's computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247221920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what?  I'm in an airport using https over wpa, or I'm just surfing news etc.  I don't care how it's getting on the net.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what ?
I 'm in an airport using https over wpa , or I 'm just surfing news etc .
I do n't care how it 's getting on the net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what?
I'm in an airport using https over wpa, or I'm just surfing news etc.
I don't care how it's getting on the net.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655441</id>
	<title>Wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247223780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure if the network is truly adhoc, but these aren't, the hacker needs to get the wifi from somewhere, and more often than not it is the official airport/coffeeshop wifi.</p><p>This is someone connecting to a wireless access point with their laptop, running the sniffing suite on the laptop, and running a portable access point out another ethernet jack or through USB. I have a great USB based access point that is able to repeat and share any signal I can get, I use it to route wifi over great distance over a cantenna and repeat it to all my devices, it will not show up as an ad hoc network. Mine is old they make them even better, smaller and cheaper now. Nobody is going to bat an eye at the hacker with a usb cable running into his laptop bag.</p><p>PS: Firefox with a proxy including DNS + Putty running a dynamic proxy + A linux box at home (such as a low power tomato router) with SSH access + Priv/Pub ssh keys + DynDNS static IPs = 3 second complete encryption of everything no matter how sketchy the access point.</p><p>PSS: People saying this isn't a problem, so much webmail is unsecured by default, so many passwords are emailed to users. Please just trust the security geeks, you are really really vulnerable to deep packet inspection and transparent proxies. Secondly you are trusting the blackhat's DNS, are you really going to notice when you go to paypal/etc and the HTTPS is missing just one time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure if the network is truly adhoc , but these are n't , the hacker needs to get the wifi from somewhere , and more often than not it is the official airport/coffeeshop wifi.This is someone connecting to a wireless access point with their laptop , running the sniffing suite on the laptop , and running a portable access point out another ethernet jack or through USB .
I have a great USB based access point that is able to repeat and share any signal I can get , I use it to route wifi over great distance over a cantenna and repeat it to all my devices , it will not show up as an ad hoc network .
Mine is old they make them even better , smaller and cheaper now .
Nobody is going to bat an eye at the hacker with a usb cable running into his laptop bag.PS : Firefox with a proxy including DNS + Putty running a dynamic proxy + A linux box at home ( such as a low power tomato router ) with SSH access + Priv/Pub ssh keys + DynDNS static IPs = 3 second complete encryption of everything no matter how sketchy the access point.PSS : People saying this is n't a problem , so much webmail is unsecured by default , so many passwords are emailed to users .
Please just trust the security geeks , you are really really vulnerable to deep packet inspection and transparent proxies .
Secondly you are trusting the blackhat 's DNS , are you really going to notice when you go to paypal/etc and the HTTPS is missing just one time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure if the network is truly adhoc, but these aren't, the hacker needs to get the wifi from somewhere, and more often than not it is the official airport/coffeeshop wifi.This is someone connecting to a wireless access point with their laptop, running the sniffing suite on the laptop, and running a portable access point out another ethernet jack or through USB.
I have a great USB based access point that is able to repeat and share any signal I can get, I use it to route wifi over great distance over a cantenna and repeat it to all my devices, it will not show up as an ad hoc network.
Mine is old they make them even better, smaller and cheaper now.
Nobody is going to bat an eye at the hacker with a usb cable running into his laptop bag.PS: Firefox with a proxy including DNS + Putty running a dynamic proxy + A linux box at home (such as a low power tomato router) with SSH access + Priv/Pub ssh keys + DynDNS static IPs = 3 second complete encryption of everything no matter how sketchy the access point.PSS: People saying this isn't a problem, so much webmail is unsecured by default, so many passwords are emailed to users.
Please just trust the security geeks, you are really really vulnerable to deep packet inspection and transparent proxies.
Secondly you are trusting the blackhat's DNS, are you really going to notice when you go to paypal/etc and the HTTPS is missing just one time?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28657639</id>
	<title>Stop scaring people into paying for the Internet!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247245740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I'm in a crowded airport and have a long layover - the first thing I do is broadcast a free ad-hoc network with an SID "Free till flight x departs" in airports that charge for WiFi before my flight departs.  Just trying to be nice.</p><p>I shouldn't have to remind people that the Internet is not secure.  Not taking proper precautions (Using a VPN, SSL..etc) or being a gullable sucker and downloading botnetzombie.exe from your favorite porn site has the potential of being just as stupid in an airport as it is at home or while attending defcon later this month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I 'm in a crowded airport and have a long layover - the first thing I do is broadcast a free ad-hoc network with an SID " Free till flight x departs " in airports that charge for WiFi before my flight departs .
Just trying to be nice.I should n't have to remind people that the Internet is not secure .
Not taking proper precautions ( Using a VPN , SSL..etc ) or being a gullable sucker and downloading botnetzombie.exe from your favorite porn site has the potential of being just as stupid in an airport as it is at home or while attending defcon later this month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I'm in a crowded airport and have a long layover - the first thing I do is broadcast a free ad-hoc network with an SID "Free till flight x departs" in airports that charge for WiFi before my flight departs.
Just trying to be nice.I shouldn't have to remind people that the Internet is not secure.
Not taking proper precautions (Using a VPN, SSL..etc) or being a gullable sucker and downloading botnetzombie.exe from your favorite porn site has the potential of being just as stupid in an airport as it is at home or while attending defcon later this month.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655113</id>
	<title>relay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247221380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I was at University, there was often someone broadcasting the SSID "UNH-Wireless" in their Memorial Building.  The official SSID was just unhwireless.  UNH required you to register your MAC before they would forward your packets to the Internet, but the rogue SSID was open.  Since the Memorial Building was where all the visitors ended up for lunch after tours, I wonder how many delicious things were intercepted.</p><p>(New Hampshire is the one that touches the ocean.  The other one is Vermont, which is the one that touches Canadia.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I was at University , there was often someone broadcasting the SSID " UNH-Wireless " in their Memorial Building .
The official SSID was just unhwireless .
UNH required you to register your MAC before they would forward your packets to the Internet , but the rogue SSID was open .
Since the Memorial Building was where all the visitors ended up for lunch after tours , I wonder how many delicious things were intercepted .
( New Hampshire is the one that touches the ocean .
The other one is Vermont , which is the one that touches Canadia .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I was at University, there was often someone broadcasting the SSID "UNH-Wireless" in their Memorial Building.
The official SSID was just unhwireless.
UNH required you to register your MAC before they would forward your packets to the Internet, but the rogue SSID was open.
Since the Memorial Building was where all the visitors ended up for lunch after tours, I wonder how many delicious things were intercepted.
(New Hampshire is the one that touches the ocean.
The other one is Vermont, which is the one that touches Canadia.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655053</id>
	<title>Friday trolling...again</title>
	<author>Gizzmonic</author>
	<datestamp>1247221020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry I don't have anything good to say.  I'm late for my flight anyway!</p><p>Can you get arrested as a terrorist if you hack airport networks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry I do n't have anything good to say .
I 'm late for my flight anyway ! Can you get arrested as a terrorist if you hack airport networks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry I don't have anything good to say.
I'm late for my flight anyway!Can you get arrested as a terrorist if you hack airport networks?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28659521</id>
	<title>Re:Get to work! Here's how to crack WEP networks</title>
	<author>cbiltcliffe</author>
	<datestamp>1247323620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About the only simpler method than that (other than looking for PostIts...) is to ask somebody who's done it a few times before, "Hey!  Can you crack this network?"</p><p>Seriously....that method's not complicated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About the only simpler method than that ( other than looking for PostIts... ) is to ask somebody who 's done it a few times before , " Hey !
Can you crack this network ?
" Seriously....that method 's not complicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About the only simpler method than that (other than looking for PostIts...) is to ask somebody who's done it a few times before, "Hey!
Can you crack this network?
"Seriously....that method's not complicated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28657915</id>
	<title>Scary connection in Hartford airport</title>
	<author>blanchae</author>
	<datestamp>1247250960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back a couple of years ago, I was waiting for a flight out of the airport in Hartford and turned on my laptop. I forgot that I had my wireless turned on and up came the list of available connections. One was called "Friends of Engtech" - Engtech was a project that I was working on at the time. I don't have a clue how they picked up that phrase unless I had a shared folder called that - but I'm pretty sure that I didn't. I immediately switched off my antenna and disabled the wireless connection.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back a couple of years ago , I was waiting for a flight out of the airport in Hartford and turned on my laptop .
I forgot that I had my wireless turned on and up came the list of available connections .
One was called " Friends of Engtech " - Engtech was a project that I was working on at the time .
I do n't have a clue how they picked up that phrase unless I had a shared folder called that - but I 'm pretty sure that I did n't .
I immediately switched off my antenna and disabled the wireless connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back a couple of years ago, I was waiting for a flight out of the airport in Hartford and turned on my laptop.
I forgot that I had my wireless turned on and up came the list of available connections.
One was called "Friends of Engtech" - Engtech was a project that I was working on at the time.
I don't have a clue how they picked up that phrase unless I had a shared folder called that - but I'm pretty sure that I didn't.
I immediately switched off my antenna and disabled the wireless connection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28664159</id>
	<title>Re:Ahh, the old "Free Public WiFi" issue</title>
	<author>GreenTom</author>
	<datestamp>1247314980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ahh, thanks for explaining this.  I've wondered about "Free Public WiFi" for a while, and had some of the same musings you've had.  While reading this thread, I was on the verge of sending a question about "Free Public WiFi" to Ask Slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , thanks for explaining this .
I 've wondered about " Free Public WiFi " for a while , and had some of the same musings you 've had .
While reading this thread , I was on the verge of sending a question about " Free Public WiFi " to Ask Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, thanks for explaining this.
I've wondered about "Free Public WiFi" for a while, and had some of the same musings you've had.
While reading this thread, I was on the verge of sending a question about "Free Public WiFi" to Ask Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654915</id>
	<title>Old</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247220060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this quite old story? Already years ago I read that people have been setting their own hotspots near crowded places, and it works good because if you get better signal than the official hotspot the computers usually pick your hotspot first. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqic\_aY3TqQ" title="youtube.com">This was even covered in The Real Hustle</a> [youtube.com] many seasons ago.</p><p>And for that matter, you're in a insecure place connecting via some random network. Its just stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this quite old story ?
Already years ago I read that people have been setting their own hotspots near crowded places , and it works good because if you get better signal than the official hotspot the computers usually pick your hotspot first .
This was even covered in The Real Hustle [ youtube.com ] many seasons ago.And for that matter , you 're in a insecure place connecting via some random network .
Its just stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this quite old story?
Already years ago I read that people have been setting their own hotspots near crowded places, and it works good because if you get better signal than the official hotspot the computers usually pick your hotspot first.
This was even covered in The Real Hustle [youtube.com] many seasons ago.And for that matter, you're in a insecure place connecting via some random network.
Its just stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28658185</id>
	<title>Re:SSL?</title>
	<author>rdebath</author>
	<datestamp>1247342520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Tell me where you get caught<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
</p><ol>
<li>
You enter your bank's name into the browser bar, get the html page</li>
<li>
You hit the logon button, get to an ssl page</li>
<li>
You enter your logon details</li>
<li>
You check your balance</li>
<li>
You logoff.</li>
</ol><p>
You have just been hacked, your user id and password are now property of the blackhats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me where you get caught .. . You enter your bank 's name into the browser bar , get the html page You hit the logon button , get to an ssl page You enter your logon details You check your balance You logoff .
You have just been hacked , your user id and password are now property of the blackhats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Tell me where you get caught ...


You enter your bank's name into the browser bar, get the html page

You hit the logon button, get to an ssl page

You enter your logon details

You check your balance

You logoff.
You have just been hacked, your user id and password are now property of the blackhats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656045</id>
	<title>Be Safe</title>
	<author>Punk CPA</author>
	<datestamp>1247228400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Always use a rubber duck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Always use a rubber duck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Always use a rubber duck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656751</id>
	<title>I'm sorry</title>
	<author>JeanBaptiste</author>
	<datestamp>1247234640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't know that was wrong.  I'll stop.  maybe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't know that was wrong .
I 'll stop .
maybe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't know that was wrong.
I'll stop.
maybe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656241</id>
	<title>Not so old.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247229960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing that gets me is that this only covers half of the story.  They ignore the white hats.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>When I'm at a hotel for example, I'll usually bring a pair of Airport Express units.  Take one, join it to the hotel's "paid" wifi, then nat over to the other in bridged mode via cross-cable, and create a new network with the ESSID "Hey look, free Wifi!".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Then again, my hat might always start changing colors on you, so watch out.</p><p>*weeeooooohhhh*<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that gets me is that this only covers half of the story .
They ignore the white hats .
: ) When I 'm at a hotel for example , I 'll usually bring a pair of Airport Express units .
Take one , join it to the hotel 's " paid " wifi , then nat over to the other in bridged mode via cross-cable , and create a new network with the ESSID " Hey look , free Wifi ! " .
: ) Then again , my hat might always start changing colors on you , so watch out .
* weeeooooohhhh * ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that gets me is that this only covers half of the story.
They ignore the white hats.
:)When I'm at a hotel for example, I'll usually bring a pair of Airport Express units.
Take one, join it to the hotel's "paid" wifi, then nat over to the other in bridged mode via cross-cable, and create a new network with the ESSID "Hey look, free Wifi!".
:)Then again, my hat might always start changing colors on you, so watch out.
*weeeooooohhhh* ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28657379</id>
	<title>Re:How is this dangerous to a normal user?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247242140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lawl</p><p>http://www.thoughtcrime.org/software/sslstrip/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lawlhttp : //www.thoughtcrime.org/software/sslstrip/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lawlhttp://www.thoughtcrime.org/software/sslstrip/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655029</id>
	<title>Re:Old</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1247220900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And for that matter, you're in a insecure place connecting via some random network. Its just stupid.</p></div><p>But very convenient. You'd be surprised how much Stupid you can get for Convenience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And for that matter , you 're in a insecure place connecting via some random network .
Its just stupid.But very convenient .
You 'd be surprised how much Stupid you can get for Convenience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for that matter, you're in a insecure place connecting via some random network.
Its just stupid.But very convenient.
You'd be surprised how much Stupid you can get for Convenience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655585</id>
	<title>Roman McDonalds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247224920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I noticed someone setup a wireless access point next to the McDonalds in Rome complete with the golden arches asking you to type in a valid pasport ID, date of birth, etc to get online. It was even secure https with some bogus versign.<br>I asked the mcdonalds employees and they all said that there was no wireless.  Sketch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed someone setup a wireless access point next to the McDonalds in Rome complete with the golden arches asking you to type in a valid pasport ID , date of birth , etc to get online .
It was even secure https with some bogus versign.I asked the mcdonalds employees and they all said that there was no wireless .
Sketch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed someone setup a wireless access point next to the McDonalds in Rome complete with the golden arches asking you to type in a valid pasport ID, date of birth, etc to get online.
It was even secure https with some bogus versign.I asked the mcdonalds employees and they all said that there was no wireless.
Sketch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655459</id>
	<title>Re:relay</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1247223960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, well, it's UNH. What do you expect? (says the UMaine alumnus)
<br> <br>
I kid, I kid</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , well , it 's UNH .
What do you expect ?
( says the UMaine alumnus ) I kid , I kid</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, well, it's UNH.
What do you expect?
(says the UMaine alumnus)
 
I kid, I kid</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655449</id>
	<title>Re:relay</title>
	<author>winkydink</author>
	<datestamp>1247223840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't New Hampster also touch Canadia?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't New Hampster also touch Canadia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't New Hampster also touch Canadia?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655113</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28657379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28659547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28658185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28659007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28659521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28674519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28658801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28664159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28658009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1856200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1856200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1856200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655855
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1856200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655441
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28674519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1856200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28657379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1856200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1856200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655545
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28659547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1856200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28659007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656137
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28658801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1856200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1856200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28664159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1856200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28658009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28658185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1856200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655261
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1856200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28655861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1856200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28654943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28656205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1856200.28659521
</commentlist>
</conversation>
