Recommend a USB wifi card that supports Linux and packet injection
Ignoramus17579
For his desktop, we would like to find a USB based wifi card that
would
1) Work great under Linux
2) Support packet injection, or "injection mode".
Any suggestions will be gratefully received.
The Wizard of Oz
> My friend wants to try Linux.
>
> For his desktop, we would like to find a USB based wifi card that
> would
>
> 1) Work great under Linux
Think I know of one. I don't use it very often.
> 2) Support packet injection, or "injection mode".
I don't know what this is.
> Any suggestions will be gratefully received.
Asus WL-160N. It works with the current version of Kubuntu (no
additional drivers needed). It doesn't work with 8.04.
Later
Mike
Maxwell Lol
http://www.pauldotcom.com/wiki/index.php/Recommended_WiFi_Cards
Man-wai Chang to The Door (+MS=V32B)
Shouldn't you look for one that has master/AP mode?
--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 9.04) Linux 2.6.30.4
^ ^ 21:25:01 up 3:23 0 users load average: 1.19 1.25 1.30
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
Maxwell Lol
> Ignoramus17579 wrote:
>> My friend wants to try Linux.
>>
>> For his desktop, we would like to find a USB based wifi card that
>> would
>>
>> 1) Work great under Linux 2) Support packet injection, or "injection
>> mode".
>>
>> Any suggestions will be gratefully received.
>
> Shouldn't you look for one that has master/AP mode?
>
No. He wants to be able to do some WEP cracking. That;s one use of
injection mode.
dennis@home
"Maxwell Lol" <nos...@com.invalid> wrote in message
news:87ws583...@com.invalid...
If he gets caught in the UK he could well go to jail.
If he chooses the wrong network to hack he could be done under the anti
terror laws, then all bets are off, the CIA may want to talk to him. ;-)
Assisting him is also a crime in the UK so it would be best to ignore the
question.
In fact in the UK its a crime to use a network that is open, unless it is
stated that it is for public access.
William Black
>
> In fact in the UK its a crime to use a network that is open, unless it
> is stated that it is for public access.
And someone got done under the theft act not too long ago for this very
offence.
--
William Black
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing.
If you can fake that, you've got it made.
Rob Wilson
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>
>> In fact in the UK its a crime to use a network that is open, unless it
>> is stated that it is for public access.
>
> And someone got done under the theft act not too long ago for this very
> offence.
>
Everything else is. There's no such thing as bloody democracy in the UK.
Rob.
John Hasler
> Is breathing a crime yet in the UK?...don't hold your breath
> anyway. Everything else is. There's no such thing as bloody democracy
> in the UK.
It appears that you make the mistake of equating democracy to liberty.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
William Black
So stealing bandwidth someone else paid for without permission isn't a
crime where you live?
William Black
> Rob writes:
>> Is breathing a crime yet in the UK?...don't hold your breath
>> anyway. Everything else is. There's no such thing as bloody democracy
>> in the UK.
>
> It appears that you make the mistake of equating democracy to liberty.
It makes a change, usually they think liberty is something to do with
shopping and democracy something to do with having a US air base within
an hour's drive...
John Hasler
> So stealing bandwidth someone else paid for without permission isn't a
> crime where you live?
Some places it is, some it isn't. However, in common-law jurisdictions
it would be trespass to chattels, which should suffice for such a
trivial tort. Not every wrong need be a crime.
William Black
> William Black writes:
>> So stealing bandwidth someone else paid for without permission isn't a
>> crime where you live?
>
> Some places it is, some it isn't. However, in common-law jurisdictions
> it would be trespass to chattels, which should suffice for such a
> trivial tort. Not every wrong need be a crime.
True.
It doesn't change the law in the UK.
Mind you, we're not the country that's busy extraditing hackers with
mental problems to face terror charges...
Nathan Keel
> John Hasler wrote:
>> William Black writes:
>>> So stealing bandwidth someone else paid for without permission isn't
>>> a crime where you live?
>>
>> Some places it is, some it isn't. However, in common-law
>> jurisdictions it would be trespass to chattels, which should suffice
>> for such a
>> trivial tort. Not every wrong need be a crime.
>
> True.
>
> It doesn't change the law in the UK.
>
> Mind you, we're not the country that's busy extraditing hackers with
> mental problems to face terror charges...
>
>
But, haven't you seen the "hacker" movies where any "computer whiz" can
just "hack into" the public utilities (that are hooked up to a web site
somehow) and shut down power across the entire northeastern seaboard?
I can't think of a better reason to panic than a poorly executed movie
plot! Sadly, good luck explaining the logistics to a jury or panel of
people that are actually scared of using computers.
Maxwell Lol
>>> In fact in the UK its a crime to use a network that is open, unless
>>> it is stated that it is for public access.
It's illegal to USE an unencrypted wifi network? even in your own
house? Strange.
And if he is doing WEP hacking, perhaps he's doing it:
1) on his own network for practice
2) As a consultant, and he has been granted permission to do a pen
test.
Are these ilegal in the UK?
John Hasler
> Mind you, we're not the country that's busy extraditing hackers with
> mental problems to face terror charges...
Definitions of extradite on the Web:
* hand over to the authorities of another country; "They extradited
the fugitive to his native country so he could be tried there"
So yes, you are (assuming that by "we" you mean "Her Majesty's
government".)
William Black
> William Black writes:
>> Mind you, we're not the country that's busy extraditing hackers with
>> mental problems to face terror charges...
>
> Definitions of extradite on the Web:
>
> * hand over to the authorities of another country; "They extradited
> the fugitive to his native country so he could be tried there"
>
> So yes, you are (assuming that by "we" you mean "Her Majesty's
> government".)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5156136.stm
William Black
No.
Theft is illegal.
Nathan Keel
>>>> In fact in the UK its a crime to use a network that is open, unless
>>>> it is stated that it is for public access.
>
> It's illegal to USE an unencrypted wifi network? even in your own
> house? Strange.
>
"... that is open, unless it is stated that it is for public access."
That's actually true of some places. It's not legal to find a signal
and log in and use it without permission or it being labeled a public
access Wifi. It's not just data transfer that they consider you
stealing/using without permission either, but that's probably part of
it. It's like logging into a government site without permission.
You're not legally okay to do it, just because you didn't do anything.
For that matter, try logging into random servers (just random IPs)
online and see if you can get a shell, without brute forcing or
anything, and see how well that goes over, even if you don't do
anything wrong or otherwise illegal. Someone will have a problem with
it, at some point, in some state or country.
I don't find that strange, nor difficult to understand. But yes, even
in your own home, if you get a signal and can log into your neighbors
wifi, don't think no one will care or can't do anything (even if for a
lot of reasons I'd agree it's not a big deal, I also don't like a
doorway for malicious people, spammers, child porners, bank fraud, or
the like a way to abuse some clueless/innocent person's connection to
hide their tracks, so I'm all for people making it difficult and
punishable so the clueless people are forced to care and block access
to just "anyone"). Some people may feel differently, and that's fine,
but sometimes we have to be okay with the few bad apples ruining it for
the rest that wouldn't abuse such things.
Of course, perhaps if someone is clueless and leaves their wifi open to
anyone, they shouldn't be allowed online, or otherwise should be held
accountable if it can be proven they didn't care to take action, should
something as the above happen with their connection and it wasn't a
technical error or lack of caring/effort. What a weird conversation,
but just saying I can see why there would be laws in some places and
that there are some. I also don't go trying my neighbors door locks on
their homes or cars, or sit inside if one's open either. Law
enforcement sees it as the same principal in some places. Perhaps
that's more clear? This isn't a debate about what should or shouldn't
be, or what anyone feels, it's just a fact in some places is all.
J G Miller
> Theft is illegal.
Except when the government does it.
Then it is called "in the national interest", viz Diego Garcia,
or the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, Part 2, paragraph 22, point 3
b) provide for or enable the requisition or confiscation of property
(with or without compensation);
(c) provide for or enable the destruction of property, animal life or
plant life (with or without compensation);
John Hasler
> Theft is illegal.
Theft: Dishonest appropriation of property without the owner’s
consent, with intent to deprive them of its use, either temporarily or
permanently
No property involved here and so no theft. Might be theft of services
in jurisdictions with theft of services statutes, but I believe that
those usually require that the services be offered for sale and that
deception be involved.
Paul J Gans
>Rob Wilson wrote:
>> William Black wrote:
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> In fact in the UK its a crime to use a network that is open, unless
>>>> it is stated that it is for public access.
>>>
>>> And someone got done under the theft act not too long ago for this
>>> very offence.
>>>
>> Is breathing a crime yet in the UK?...don't hold your breath anyway.
>> Everything else is. There's no such thing as bloody democracy in the UK.
>So stealing bandwidth someone else paid for without permission isn't a
>crime where you live?
Good observation! I live in a 17-story apartment house with
22 apartments per floor. I can pick up more than 20 wireless
networks in addition to my own. Almost always there are a
few open ones.
Some folks, I am sure, don't bother spending the money for
the internet connection. Using other's bandwith is just too
easy.
It is rather hard to monitor with present setups, so I don't think
it will go away soon.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
William Black
> William Black writes:
>> Theft is illegal.
>
> Theft: Dishonest appropriation of property without the owner’s
> consent, with intent to deprive them of its use, either temporarily or
> permanently
>
> No property involved here and so no theft. Might be theft of services
> in jurisdictions with theft of services statutes, but I believe that
> those usually require that the services be offered for sale and that
> deception be involved.
I know.
That doesn't change the fact that 'piggy backing' on someone's line will
get you inside a courtroom in the UK.
Maxwell Lol
> Maxwell Lol wrote:
>>>>> In fact in the UK its a crime to use a network that is open, unless
>>>>> it is stated that it is for public access.
>>
>> It's illegal to USE an unencrypted wifi network? even in your own
>> house? Strange.
>>
>>
>> And if he is doing WEP hacking, perhaps he's doing it:
>> 1) on his own network for practice
>> 2) As a consultant, and he has been granted permission to do a pen
>> test.
>>
>> Are these ilegal in the UK?
>
> No.
>
> Theft is illegal.
My point is that hacking a WEP-encrypted wifi may not be theft.
It depends upon the situation.
dennis@home
"Rob Wilson" <robw...@remove.brushhead.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1bmdnS8j4oJt0xnX...@brightview.co.uk...
How is theft of a none vital resource acceptable in a democracy?
> Rob.
John Hasler
> That doesn't change the fact that 'piggy backing' on someone's line
> will get you inside a courtroom in the UK.
As it will in some US jurisdictions, under statutes making that
particular act a crime.
The Natural Philosopher
> John Hasler wrote:
>> William Black writes:
>>> Theft is illegal.
>>
>> Theft: Dishonest appropriation of property without the owner's
>> consent, with intent to deprive them of its use, either temporarily or
>> permanently
>>
>> No property involved here and so no theft. Might be theft of services
>> in jurisdictions with theft of services statutes, but I believe that
>> those usually require that the services be offered for sale and that
>> deception be involved.
>
> I know.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that 'piggy backing' on someone's line will
> get you inside a courtroom in the UK.
>
>
John Hasler
> My point is that hacking a WEP-encrypted wifi may not be theft.
It isn't theft but in many jurisdictions it is a crime. Connecting to a
totally open, unencrypted, unprotected wifi is somewhat less likely to
be prosecuted but is still illegal in many places.
dennis@home
"Maxwell Lol" <nos...@com.invalid> wrote in message
news:873a7uo...@com.invalid...
> My point is that hacking a WEP-encrypted wifi may not be theft.
> It depends upon the situation.
Unless you have a warrant I can't see any circumstance where it wouldn't be
illegal.
Its so easy to do you aren't proving the network is insecure as its already
accepted that its insecure.
rIO
> My friend wants to try Linux.
>
> For his desktop, we would like to find a USB based wifi card that
> would
>
> 1) Work great under Linux
> 2) Support packet injection, or "injection mode".
>
> Any suggestions will be gratefully received.
I have a "famous" Eminent usb stick, it works well...
--
rIO.sK
John Hasler
> How is theft of a none vital resource acceptable in a democracy?
It isn't theft. It is trespass to chattels and actionable as such in
common law jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions it is also a crime
under specific statutes.
And theft of a none vital resource would be acceptable in a democracy
any time the majority believes that it should be. Democracy is not a
synonym for liberty or justice.
John Hasler
> Unless you have a warrant I can't see any circumstance where [hacking
> a WEP-encrypted wifi] wouldn't be illegal.
It would be the tort of trespass to chattels everywhere in the US (if
done without the owner's permission). In those places where relevant
statutes exist it would also be a crime.
William Black
My understanding is that only one case has so far come to court, and
that the person was convicted.
Some details at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6960304.stm
Balwinder S Dheeman
> William Black writes:
>> Theft is illegal.
>
> consent, with intent to deprive them of its use, either temporarily or
> permanently
>
> No property involved here and so no theft. Might be theft of services
> in jurisdictions with theft of services statutes, but I believe that
> those usually require that the services be offered for sale and that
> deception be involved.
How funny?
INAL, but are not the packets leaving and, or entering in to a network
or a network interface a property or something valuable?
--
Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709
Anu'z Linux@HOME (Unix Shoppe) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Plan9, T2, Arch/Debian/FreeBSD/XP
Home: http://werc.homelinux.net/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/
John Hasler
> but are not the packets leaving and, or entering in to a network or a
> network interface a property or something valuable?
They may or may not be valuable (most likely not) but they are not
property which the owner is being deprived of the use of.
Nathan Keel
> William Black writes:
>> Theft is illegal.
>
> Theft: Dishonest appropriation of property without the owner’s
> consent, with intent to deprive them of its use, either temporarily
> or permanently
>
> No property involved here and so no theft. Might be theft of services
> in jurisdictions with theft of services statutes, but I believe that
> those usually require that the services be offered for sale and that
> deception be involved.
Okay, what if I use dialup to log into the owner's account of a local
ISP and start using the services? You think if I'm found that it's not
illegal and I won't be in trouble if they want to pursue it? All of
that without any brute force or breaking in.
John Hasler
> Okay, what if I use dialup to log into the owner's account of a local
> ISP and start using the services? You think if I'm found that it's
> not illegal and I won't be in trouble if they want to pursue it?
I didn't say it wasn't illegal. I said it wasn't theft. What you
describe is probably both theft of services and fraud.
> All of that without any brute force or breaking in.
Yes. So what? Many illegal acts require neither brute force nor
breaking in. Theft is one of them.
Nathan Keel
> Nathan Keel writes:
>> Okay, what if I use dialup to log into the owner's account of a local
>> ISP and start using the services? You think if I'm found that it's
>> not illegal and I won't be in trouble if they want to pursue it?
>
> I didn't say it wasn't illegal. I said it wasn't theft. What you
> describe is probably both theft of services and fraud.
>
>> All of that without any brute force or breaking in.
>
> Yes. So what? Many illegal acts require neither brute force nor
> breaking in. Theft is one of them.
Perhaps you should see my folllow up to my own post quoted above. I
misunderstood what you said at first, but then I re-read it and did get
what you were saying (and that you never said it was theft).
dennis@home
"John Hasler" <jo...@dhh.gt.org> wrote in message
news:87ab22x...@thumper.dhh.gt.org...
> Balwinder S Dheeman writes:
>> but are not the packets leaving and, or entering in to a network or a
>> network interface a property or something valuable?
>
> They may or may not be valuable (most likely not) but they are not
> property which the owner is being deprived of the use of.
They take time which could have been used by the person that bought that
time.
Nathan Keel
I suppose it depends on the plan and any limits they might have, but I
think we all can agree that the legal ramifications of the matter are
the illegal use/entry that the authorities have issues with and
prosecute for (if they can/do in those countries). So, really, what's
the difference, even if they didn't actually name any primary
attribution of why it's deemed and labeled a crime? I think it's best
to not risk it, unless you know it's okay to use or do if it's not
otherwise appropriately considered okay, provided it's not illegal.
Then, just don't abuse it and do anything illegal and try and be aware
of the laws as they change (especially to avoid being made an example
of if it's not yet a law in your area). Doesn't sound like any of us
would want to risk it, or have a reason anyway.
Maxwell Lol
> Maxwell Lol writes:
>> My point is that hacking a WEP-encrypted wifi may not be theft.
>
> It isn't theft but in many jurisdictions it is a crime.
Sigh....
I suggest you re-read what I said. I gave two examples where is it
NOT illegal.
Maxwell Lol
> "Maxwell Lol" <nos...@com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:873a7uo...@com.invalid...
>
>> My point is that hacking a WEP-encrypted wifi may not be theft.
>> It depends upon the situation.
>
> Unless you have a warrant I can't see any circumstance where it
> wouldn't be illegal.
Sigh. Okay. I guess I have to repeat it again.
(What is wrong with people!?)
1) You hack your OWN network - for practice.
2) You are HIRED to perform a penetration test.
In both cases, you have permission from the owner.
Nathan Keel
What in the world...?? The entire debate was about unauthorized access
to someone else's network/wifi. No one would ever debate you logging
into your own or giving someone permission to penetration test theirs.
I don't think anyone disagrees with you there.