Jump to content
aberdeen-music

The Internet in my house is awful


Adam Easy Wishes

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm pretty sure they can log the IP of the machine downloading it, regardless of how it is connected to the internet (unless you proxy chain like mad).

The consumers router will handle the local address translation so the internet will only ever see the public (ISP assigned) IP address. They'll know which connection downloaded it but not the private IP address of the machine.

Since most hosts use DHCP in a typical home set up even the private IP address tells you squat, it could all be different tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The consumers router will handle the local address translation so the internet will only ever see the public (ISP assigned) IP address. They'll know which connection downloaded it but not the private IP address of the machine.

Since most hosts use DHCP in a typical home set up even the private IP address tells you squat, it could all be different tomorrow.

So Jon CAN download kiddie porn. Good to know.

Also, Kernal Loaf, have you still got the receipt for your Computer Science degree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The consumers router will handle the local address translation so the internet will only ever see the public (ISP assigned) IP address. They'll know which connection downloaded it but not the private IP address of the machine.

Since most hosts use DHCP in a typical home set up even the private IP address tells you squat, it could all be different tomorrow.

In those circumstances, yes you are correct. However, if the police were keen on catching someone downloading/distributing CP, consider the following scenario:

A user connects to an unencrypted network and downloads CP. Eventually, authorities become aware of this activity and identify the IP provided by the ISP to trace the connection. Once enough evidence of this activity has been gathered, the ISP customer is arrested and any computing devices capable of downloading CP is siezed. Computer forensics eventually determine that the customer is innocent and the charges dropped.

However, they still have evidence that CP was downloaded using that particular connection. Now if they wanted to investigate further, they would begin to monitor the activity on the customer's router/ISP assigned IP address, either by maintaining a list of the MAC addresses for all devices the customer is using and identifying any connections established by devices which aren't on this list, or by turning off DHCP and assigning static local IPs for the customer's devices and identifying any external connections which were being assigned a new static IP not on the customer's list.

Now if the user downloading CP was smart (which they aren't of course), they wouldn't connect to the unencrypted network frequently, however they aren't going to turn down a free internet connection. At this point, authorities can identify the user's IP on the local network, the MAC address and latency of the connection to determine the user's distance from the router in order to work out a physical location (the same building for instance) and issue a warrant to search the machine of the suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In those circumstances, yes you are correct. However, if the police were keen on catching someone downloading/distributing CP, consider the following scenario:

A user connects to an unencrypted network and downloads CP. Eventually, authorities become aware of this activity and identify the IP provided by the ISP to trace the connection. Once enough evidence of this activity has been gathered, the ISP customer is arrested and any computing devices capable of downloading CP is siezed. Computer forensics eventually determine that the customer is innocent and the charges dropped.

However, they still have evidence that CP was downloaded using that particular connection. Now if they wanted to investigate further, they would begin to monitor the activity on the customer's router/ISP assigned IP address, either by maintaining a list of the MAC addresses for all devices the customer is using and identifying any connections established by devices which aren't on this list, or by turning off DHCP and assigning static local IPs for the customer's devices and identifying any external connections which were being assigned a new static IP not on the customer's list.

Now if the user downloading CP was smart (which they aren't of course), they wouldn't connect to the unencrypted network frequently, however they aren't going to turn down a free internet connection. At this point, authorities can identify the user's IP on the local network, the MAC address and latency of the connection to determine the user's distance from the router in order to work out a physical location (the same building for instance) and issue a warrant to search the machine of the suspect.

Computer degree or not, you know a bt tooooooo much about this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In those circumstances, yes you are correct. However, if the police were keen on catching someone downloading/distributing CP, consider the following scenario:

A user connects to an unencrypted network and downloads CP. Eventually, authorities become aware of this activity and identify the IP provided by the ISP to trace the connection. Once enough evidence of this activity has been gathered, the ISP customer is arrested and any computing devices capable of downloading CP is siezed. Computer forensics eventually determine that the customer is innocent and the charges dropped.

However, they still have evidence that CP was downloaded using that particular connection. Now if they wanted to investigate further, they would begin to monitor the activity on the customer's router/ISP assigned IP address, either by maintaining a list of the MAC addresses for all devices the customer is using and identifying any connections established by devices which aren't on this list, or by turning off DHCP and assigning static local IPs for the customer's devices and identifying any external connections which were being assigned a new static IP not on the customer's list.

Now if the user downloading CP was smart (which they aren't of course), they wouldn't connect to the unencrypted network frequently, however they aren't going to turn down a free internet connection. At this point, authorities can identify the user's IP on the local network, the MAC address and latency of the connection to determine the user's distance from the router in order to work out a physical location (the same building for instance) and issue a warrant to search the machine of the suspect.

I never said they couldn't be traced by any means, I just said they couldn't be traced by IP address from an external location.

Your scenario isn't as easy as it seems either. Varying signal strengths of different wireless NICs and possible physical obstructions would all conspire to give you a rather large sphere of influence. Someone living in a block of flats could have 20, 30 or even more neighbours within range and I don't see anyone getting more than one search warrant. never mind 30+. Also remember that it could be someone who's turned the concept of wardriving to their own nefarious needs so even less likely that a court would issue a search warrant.

They could probably trace someone using RF triangulation but I doubt the police have the resources to commit to having people waiting around in someone's house/flat in the hope that the wrongdoer will use the network sometime soon. I think all the activity (police removing neighbours computer and probably the neighbour) might tip off the perpetrator so they'd likely have the sense to stop using it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...