Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Free Wireless Networks at Airports

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tue Jan 29, 2002 03:56 PM
from the ever-expanding-network dept.
The Internet
WallytheWalrus writes "Today's Minneapolis Star-Tribune is carrying an article about the installation of a wireless network throughout Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, the first of five such airports across the nation to get a uniform wireless network system. The system, which cost only $250,000 to install, will be free to business travellers passing through the airport (who have the correct hardware), and available through a number of kiosks throughout the airport. One can only hope this is the first step towards bigger and bolder public wireless network projects."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Free Wireless Networks at Airports 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Austin Airport (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ChiefArcher (1753) on Tuesday January 29 2002, @03:58PM (#2921446) Homepage Journal
    the Austin airport also HAD a free wireless network.. but because of the .com fallout, they started charging like $6.95 a day or something... It's sometimes worth if you're sitting there waiting for your flight..

    ChiefArcher
    • but because of the .com fallout, they started charging like $6.95 a day or something

      No, that's because it was a "trial period" by Wayport [wayport.com]. There was at least one other company (MobileStar) providing 802.11b, but they went FC [f---edcompany.com] a few months back. Both of them had a login screen that totally fucked up my browser cache (or something) such that it kept trying to access their stupid login server whenever I tried to go to my home page.

      • There was at least one other company (MobileStar) providing 802.11b, but they went FC [f---edcompany.com] a few months back.

        They got some angel capital from Voicestream and Starbucks, and they seem to be doing alright. I'm a subscriber, and I thought their service would drop off at any day, but it's doing well.

  • LAN PARTY (Score:5, Funny)

    by underclocked (71050) on Tuesday January 29 2002, @04:00PM (#2921458) Journal
    LAN Party in Terminal 8b!

    • Re:LAN PARTY (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 29 2002, @04:07PM (#2921519)
      Just be careful about what you yell in the airport as you frag yer buddies...

      "I'm gonna shoot yer ass off and take your big frazzin' gun!" you yell airport security get deployed on your position in force! ;)

      =tkk

      • Re:LAN PARTY (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Just make sure you delete the "Bomb has been planted" sample before you play the defuse maps.

  • Apple slogan... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Cryptnotic (154382) on Tuesday January 29 2002, @04:02PM (#2921469) Homepage
    "Use your Airport(tm) at the airport"?

    Mad Apple promotion? Or useful technology?

    Cryptnotic

  • I think they should limit it to web ONLY. In local experiments with free and open wireless networks, it was found that the best practice was to allow web only though a transparent proxy, because when there's no network accountability everybody seems to turn in to a script kiddie.

    My thoughts anyway..

    HEY WAIT A MINUTE, perhaps they'll be doing this and gathering marketing data? Could be easily done, and profitable over a 5 year timespan.

    • Unless the thing supports IPSec, it would be 100% useless for business travelers, who would be the ones using it. So that would be in fact the worst practice possible.

      A transparent firewall blocking non-standard services might be useful, but keep IPSec, POP/SMTP, etc.

      • Re:Well, that would be useless. (Score:5, Informative)

        by sllort (442574) on Tuesday January 29 2002, @04:12PM (#2921558) Homepage Journal
        Unless the thing supports IPSec, it would be 100% useless for business travelers

        Last time I was at the IETF, in Pittsburgh, Marconi was running the show and gave everyone 802.11 cards. I plugged mine into my notebook and fired up my Ethernet sniffer, which collected approximately 700+ webmail username/password pairs, over 100 POP logins, a good littering of telnet logins, a bunch of tunneled CIFS logins, and other assorted good stuff. Enough to crack into a user account at a large portion of the represented telco R&D firms. What I learned at IETF that year: the telecommunications world was still too stupid to be allowed to own wireless ethernet.

        That was the IETF. This is an airport. IPSEC? Nah. It's easier to jail the occasional teenager for "sniffing" than it is to actually fix the problem.
        --
        You're reading Managed Agreement [slashdot.org].
    • because when there's no network accountability everybody seems to turn in to a script kiddie.

      Or a filez 133ch. Let's see... www dot giganews dot com... alt.binaries.anime... extract binaries... :-)

  • In other news, 80% of hotels near airports have been shut down shut down due to lack of interest.
  • Airlines are cheap-ass companies. Next thing you know, when an Airline moves its own computer terminals, they'll say "Hey, we don't have to run any wire, we can just piggy-back on this wireless thing.."

    This being the community of paranioa, need I say more?
  • This throws back to that other story about how airports are using unsecured wireless networks to check baggage at the sidewalk.
    Who wants to bet they're not going to have the security they need to protect themselves because they go with the lowest contract bid?

    Scenario:
    Felon A puts semtex in a bag, and checks it at the curb, but never gets on the plane. Felon B is inside the airport and reassigns that bag to a passenger who DID get on the plane. Since the passengers and bags now match they won't do a cargo search for the unclaimed baggage.
    Boom.

  • Abuse over wireless networks (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xercist (161422) on Tuesday January 29 2002, @04:06PM (#2921511) Homepage
    With the ever-growing use of wireless links for IP data, how much more difficult will it become to track down abusers?
    If I sat in an airport with a laptop, I could use the (surely) fat pipe of the building to DoS some poor person, and who would catch me? The user reports to his isp, who gives it to the airport's upstream provider who give it to airport personnel. By that time, I'm way the hell out of there.
    Of course, I'm using "I" in this post hypothetically - I hate DoS and the packet kiddies that do it, but what security is being put in place to prevent it?
    • They've already started. I wouldn't go so far as to say my network has been attacked from airport users, but I've had some "nuisances" doing their deeds from airports before.

      I think the abuse issue is very serious. All you need is a script kiddie field trip to an airport for a bit and you have almost no accountability. How many airports would dispatch security guards with detection equipment to isolate an offender? How fast would that ever happen? Scary.
    • You could be thwarted two ways:

      1. The airport could lower the bandwidth available to individual users or at least monitor severe spikes in bandwidth use caused by one user. Once they see you doing it, it isn't tough to shut you off.

      2. Denial of Service attacks from a single user are history. All reasonable targets have protections against single users. The real damage is done by Distributed Denial of Service attacks where a large number of nodes flood a target.

      Granted, your point was how to catch abusers of the system and not that your attack would necessarily work. This problem plagues all wireless networks. While it may be difficult to track you down to an exact location, you are still in a post 9/11/01 airport. They are on the lookout for strange behavior.

      I don't envy the first 'terrorist' caught packet flooding his least favorite web server.
  • until l33t w4r3z d00d #1853259 fires up his IRC client and starts surfing #isos-R-us. Guess what happens? Joe Email-Checking Buisiness man notices that he's getting .001Kb/sec, and pummels #1853259, until the *other* guys on #isos-R-us come on over from the other side of the airport...

    People are human. Lotsa bandwith+free+no accountability=ISO FRENZY!!! :)

  • Why go all the way to the airport when you can get plenty of wireless coverage [news.com.au] for next to nothing* (here in Sydney at least)

    *conscience not included

  • I have been a huge fan of public access to 802.11 devices connected to the internet. With enough access points at high-density points (airports, malls, coffee shops, etc...), the system could become almost as transparent as the cell-phone system is today, and free at that!

    I heartily encourage everyone with a home network and highspeed internet to purchase an 802.11 access point and place it by a window. Just make sure that you place the access point is on the external side of your firewall.
  • There's two ways they could do this:

    1. They could make it cheap, and ensure that just about anyone at an airport can get minimal 'net access, or

    2. They could make it expensive, and ensure that high-class business-types can get a fat pipe.

    Of course, the OPTIMAL solution would be to do both: Rent a low-bandwidth node for $5.00/hour, or a high-bandwidth node for $0.25/minute.

    If they choose to only provide an expensive connection for corporate use, though, I'm not sure it'll be a step in the right direction.

  • Low Budget Colocation! (Score:5, Funny)

    by leifw (98495) on Tuesday January 29 2002, @04:09PM (#2921535)
    See, this is how it works:
    1. Find some little used broom closet in MSP.
    2. Slap your (linux|*bsd) boxen in aforementioned closet with wireless cards.
    3. Note which IP address your boxes pick up through DHCP, or better still have your boxes report their IP address to another of your boxes.
    4. Walk away.
    5. Remotely administer.

  • Anti-terrorism and wireless networks (Score:5, Funny)

    by fmaxwell (249001) on Tuesday January 29 2002, @04:13PM (#2921566) Homepage Journal
    Big mistakes for terrorists:

    Asking airport officials how to log on to your "al-Qaida Online" account over the wireless link.

    Complaining that you can't talk to your "buddy" Osama even though he's on your buddy list.

    Receiving and watching a Quicktime video with instructions for committing a terrorist act -- while sitting in the boarding area.

    Having your laptop announce "You've Got Jihad!" while in the terminal.
  • Looking at the bad side:

    If I were ever trying to launch some virus or whatnot using one of these open networks would be just the place were all they would have to so was probably drive through the drop off section...

    Anyone else see this as a problem?
    • No need to bother - it's likely been done already.

      Anyone using Windows 2000 on thier laptop that's unpatched for Code Red will get infected right away. There will undoubtedly be some schmuck - who's laptop is already r00ted - that will be waltzing through the airport broadcasting away that particular snippet of malicious code. Bleah.

      There should be some qualification system before you get on a public network like this, IMHO.

      Soko

  • Flight delayed, laptop hacked. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Marsh Jedi (244205) on Tuesday January 29 2002, @04:14PM (#2921573)
    The number of people who leave open shares on their Wintel laptops is ridiculous, as they are used to being behind NAT firewalls and other hard-shelled security, deep in the corporate intranet. Then they move these absolutely defenseless laptops into a completely unsecured network via an Orinoco WaveLAN card--Hilarity ensues.

    A public wireless network with a revolving roster of addled sales execs is a veritable shooting gallery, the proverbial barrel full of fish!

    Anyway, I will not be surprised when suits rush back to the home office after a stopover in Minneapolis, their laptops having mysteriously come down with the clap.
    • Yes, funny. But who the hell says that they have to open up the fscking netbios ports? Or anything other than port 80???? And even better, if they block incoming everything (boo hoo can't run servers in the airport) and block the internal subnet from talking to anyone else on the internal subnet then NOTHING you cite could possibly be a problem. That's like 5 minutes setup with any proper firewall software.

      But I guess they're all too stupid to have thought of anything as simple as that...
      (Frighteningly though, you may be right)
  • This happened in the Louisville, KY Airport back in May 2001... here's the article [bcentral.com].

    Curious that this is happening in some of the smaller airports first. I'd have expected San Francisco's airport to be an early adopter. They certainly spent enough on construction costs to throw in a few wireless routers around without anyone noticing. Still, at least it's getting out there somewhere.

  • (in)Security (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maggard (5579) <michael@michaelmaggard.com> on Tuesday January 29 2002, @04:16PM (#2921587) Homepage Journal
    Everyone's first response to this is going to be "What about wireless security?"

    Well, what about it? How different is wireless from an airport different from that shared ethernet in the airport hotel? Or having folks check in from those ubiquitious web terminals in airports that half of the time have cache's full of info?

    Yes, it is possible that sitting there in the terminal your stream will get intercepted. So understand/teach others that these aren't secure, that pluggin in in *any* public pace isn't gonna be secure and certainly not at a client's office etc. Use a tunnel back to the home/corporate proxy server or don't go near any important content and *don't* use any passwords.

    But don't go getting all upset of wireless and airports, it's not really different from all of the others.

  • Dealing with Delays.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pen (7191) <slashdot3@digdug.cx> on Tuesday January 29 2002, @04:16PM (#2921593)
    Perhaps this is just a strategy of dealing with the increased delay the FAA is forcing on the airlines?

  • London Heathrow (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kruczkowski (160872) on Tuesday January 29 2002, @04:20PM (#2921608) Homepage
    I stoped at London Heathrow a few weeks ago and they have these "XPOD" kiosks or something similar, well they run windows 98 and connect with wireless. I pulled out my NAI Sniffer and found the ip address range 10.10.10.x/24 (if I remeber) then I assosiated myself to the network and found that all the kiosk machines have the 'c' drive shared out - full accsess! and NO PASSWORD. At least the internet connection was a bit more secure, they went threw a proxy server and when I tried to brouse the internet from my laptop all I got was the xpod logo.

    JKF at New York has some small network, but nothing intresting and no internet.

    Frankfurt (Germany) has also some network but also nothing fun, all I see is novell broadcasts.

    If anyone want, I still have the NAI .cap files. kruczkowski @ hotmail.com

  • Security this.. Security that.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ColbyR (323052) <nomad.hcity@net> on Tuesday January 29 2002, @04:21PM (#2921612) Homepage
    I have been reading about everyone screaming 'ohh my god! its wireless! its not secure!' or 'the script kiddies are going to go nuts!' You _CAN_ secure this and make sure it is only used by 'good' people (i.e. not the #isosRus user) by simply only allowing IPSec connections out to the world this pretty much elimiates the script kiddie wishing to use 'mad bandwidth' to DoS down someone else and because all the users will be connecting to the rest of the world over a VPN to there office you dont really have to worry about them attacking things from the airport network. Another point of view would be to require users to 'check-in' by setting up a DHCP server that hands out 'dead ips' that can only access one web page. That web page would be a registration page where the fills in the blanks (MAC address, cell phone number, home address, etc..) then a back end script creates a reservation or some other method to privide a 'live' ip for that user to access the outside world. Said airport might also consider (if said airport is not blocking everything but lets say port 80, 443, and IPSec) going with the transparent proxy server that one of the other users talked about. Said airport could also use the customers airline ticket SN# to track the person. You could goto great trouble to attempt to curve the abuse by a few people.. Or you could watch for abuse and disable that MAC address on the network. At any rate. Cheers.
    • You're right. I am sick and tired of people screaming bloody murder anytime 802.11b is mentioned and how insecure it will be (and then they get modded up as insighfull?!?!?)

      802.11b can be made pretty secure, and it's not even that hard. Yes, wireless will never be secure as other methods, but it's not a big gaping whole either (or at least it doesn't have to be).

      So unless you know what you are talking about, /.ers, don't just continue on the same old rag about how it is not secure.

  • If a cracker is attacking a system from an airport terminal, using the free wireless LAN, and a script kiddie releases a new virus from there, how can you trace them thru IP? The only thing you know is that it came from a laptop from that airport terminal, and that's it.

  • Already exists in Asia (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ryu2 (89645) on Tuesday January 29 2002, @04:33PM (#2921683) Homepage Journal
    Singapore Changi Airport [airport.com.sg] has offered free wireless Internet access for quite some time now. Hong Kong Airport [thestandard.com.au] also offers it, but not free.

  • Wireless?! What about power??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Da VinMan (7669) on Tuesday January 29 2002, @04:33PM (#2921684)
    Being a resident of the Twin Cities, and an occasional traveler, I find it somewhat amazing that they're offering wireless at all. Not much to say about that.. it could be nice.

    However, it's going to be somewhat worthless to offer your travelers wireless without also giving them a place to plug in your laptop. Yes, I know laptops have batteries and don't have to be plugged in to be used. However, if you're like me, you hoard your battery's power for the actual flight instead of using it in the terminal. It *IS* possible to plug in at the terminal, but outlets are far and few in between, and you have to work around the rechargeable golf carts (or whatever they call those things) and other laptop users.

    Lastly, with all the other concerns they have at airports these days, I am doubly amazed that they have the time to think about this. Not that I mind, it just makes me wonder.

  • Weird (Score:5, Informative)

    by sulli (195030) on Tuesday January 29 2002, @04:39PM (#2921721) Journal
    I was going to post a "RTFA" saying that you will have to pay for it, then I went and RTFA'd, and found that this is a very odd setup. 802.11 connecitivity will be free, but the thing will make money. How you ask? Because iPass, the ISP, will be charging for wired and kiosk access (I guess) and "access to corporate networks" (I think this means managed VPNs).

    I think it's fishy as hell. As 802.11 adoption increases, profits go through the floor. Or they charge for IPSec separately from other protocols, and people develop work-arounds. Meanwhile, JoeHaxor is downloading .isos all day and tying up the service.

    Anyone want to bet on how quickly they stop giving away 802.11 free (or ask the airport for a bailout)? Three months?

  • A-irports O-n L-ine * Featuring a 'wide' selection of Time Warner magazines (with blurry JPEG pictures) * Great in flight Movies (TWAol) * AirCrew with Red Hats * AOL keyword: wingandprayer You have delays!

  • SPAM Abuse (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ch-chuck (9622) on Tuesday January 29 2002, @04:45PM (#2921760) Homepage
    Can't these be abused by mass UCE mailers?
    • Of all the shit they built at that airport and the parking/construction hell it created, this is the least they could do for those of us with nothing else to do while we're grabbing our ankles for NWA.
      • Why would you be bending over for a revolutionary Old School rap act? I mean, Dr. Dre was in N.W.A. and, oh yeah, the Napster thing...

        Oh, you mean Northwest Airlines! Silly me.

    • Re:I love it but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sulli (195030) on Tuesday January 29 2002, @04:04PM (#2921481) Journal
      ummmm... who cares? This is a public, untrusted network. So what if someone's snooping? Use IPSec if you don't want to be snooped.
      • Your completely missing the point. Security is something that everyone should be aware of and trying to use as much as possible. If they were to wait a year until a better encryption was properly implemented into everyday wireless networking then they could insure a much more secure access point.

        Just becuase you know its a public untrusted network doesn't joe nobody does. They feel safe beacuse it's regulated by the airport therefore they will do things on the network you probably shouldn't do in an untrusted network. Just like people who do insecure wireless netoworking in there home and then bitch when all their information and credit card numbers are compromised.

        If you are runnning an open network or anything open to multiple users (even a shell server) you should try to protect the security of your users as much as possible, you shouldn't forget about it just because you know you wont do anything stupid on it.
        • Well.. what are you expecting?

          It's an untrusted network.

          Do you have some illusion that nbody can snoop on what you are doing when you surf slashdot normally from home?

          How is this any different?

          SEcurity must be in the hands of the end stations, not the carriers.
    • So run something secure between your machine and your destination - ssh, ssl, etc...
    • It's free for anyone to use if they have the gear..
      What SHOULD they do for security? Nothing. not their problem.
    • See above comment on this being a "public, untrusted network." I got the impression that it was just a connection to the internet. That being the case, I'm not sure that it provides terrorists with anything over what they'd normally get through the internet. If you're doing something private, you should just use an IPSEC connection. You might want to think twice about entering passwords for your favorite sites unless you're using SSL.

      On the other hand, the whole thing might be useful for catching terrorists who felt the need to shoot out a last minute email -- provided that traffic is monitored closely.

    • I was wondering the same thing. Will existing systems migrate to this architecture. I'd assume not. First they already have an architecture in place, why rip it out? After all, the physical terminals and check-in stations aren't moble.

      Second, there are security concerns and as you pointed out, these are two fold. We don't want people snooping the airlines system. On the other hand if we're using the system to say, pre-pay for a rental car at the destination, we don't want people snooping credit card numbers either. There has been a lot of talk in the past about insecure 802.11 networks. It was my impression that these networks were configured incorrectly, and that it is possible (with later high bit key tech) to have a secure network. If the airports were to offer a good secure network, I think it would be of great benefit to flyers.

      And then there are all the fun apps like being able to monitor arrivals and departures from your palm. As well as gate changes and whatnot. These can be as insecure as you like because it's really just another way of disseminating public information.

      In all I think it'll be a good thing, with problems at first, but will become the norm in time. As far as The Man snooping the network, I think you'll get that no matter where you go. Don't not use a great public utility for that reason alone.

    • Uhm, it's because of taxpayer money that the Internet was created in the first place. Would you have complained this loudly is the same idea were brought up in...say..1985?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.