Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
Having read the linked articles, it got me thinking about the defence that the wireless router may not have been secure at the time, and whether its a reasonable defence. I thought of it this way.
What if, being very stupid I didn't lock my car door, and left my keys in the ignition. The car got stolen and was used in connection with a crime. Would that make me an accessory to that crime?
No, I don't think it does. It just makes me look stupid, and voids my car insurance.
---------- Post added at 13:18 ---------- Previous post was at 13:16 ----------
|
The same with wireless, you're responsible for the connection and any legal action that might come from it (the same as the car analogy with the cancellation of the insurance, you pay for the damage to the car unless you claim it back from the thief), The thief whether it be wireless theft or car is basically breaking the theft laws only...
In this country though that breaks down as theft has be that the person will steal with no intent of giving back it's one of the reasosn as to why TWOK became the normal offence...
In the end the simple facts are if you don;t secure something then you will be responsible for it to some extent...
Two customer NICs on the same uBR yes, but for each to get service at the same time they would still have to have different modem MAC addresses, and therefore each customer would have a different IP address.
---------- Post added at 13:23 ---------- Previous post was at 13:21 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by moaningmags
Even with different modem MACs, the ubr only accepts 1 NIC MAC. So both won't get on at the same time.
Isn't the ip address assigned according to the NIC MAC and not the modem MAC?
|
The rDNS of the IP would show that the cloned modem is in a different area...