, SecurityFocus 2002-05-08
An ambitious hackware project promises to bring illicit broadband "uncapping" to the masses, and with it the risks that come with high-speed hijinks.
Expand all |
Post comment
Cable Modem Hacking Goes Mainstream
2002-05-09
Anonymous (4 replies)
Anonymous (4 replies)
Yeah well...
2002-05-09
Myko (7 replies)
Myko (7 replies)
Yeah well...
2002-05-09
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Yeah well...
2002-05-09
Anonymous (5 replies)
Anonymous (5 replies)
You are idiots!!!!
2002-05-10
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Re: Yeah well...
2002-05-09
Tornberry (2 replies)
Tornberry (2 replies)
Thanks, but...
2002-05-09
Myko (8 replies)
Myko (8 replies)
Cable Modem Hacking Goes Mainstream
2002-05-10
RayReis (at) aol (dot) com [email concealed] (1 replies)
RayReis (at) aol (dot) com [email concealed] (1 replies)
Cable Modem Hacking Goes Mainstream
2002-05-09
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Cable Modem Hacking Goes Mainstream
2002-05-10
Anonymous (4 replies)
Anonymous (4 replies)
This Is Why DSL Rules
2002-05-10
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)

All thieves are thieves, what is there that makes no sense in that? Saying that a thief is not a thief is the nonsense.
"I'm sure you pay for EVERY program you use, right?"
Yep.
"Or send each artist the 3$ for the mp3 that you download that they wrote, and is actually contained on a CD on a shelf at Best Buy."
I don't do that. I also don't steal cars or mug people for their mobile 'phones. You just don't understand this do you? Just because you are a worthless parasite doesn't mean that the rest of us are too.
"What about the techs that help a new customer, perhaps friend of theirs, bypass the cap as well, or tweak their config just a little, while disabling the detection so that their friend is squeezing more bandwidth than he's paying for. Still a thief, but that makes it ok because an employee of the company he's stealing from did it for him, right? No."
You are correct, both
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/394/12347#12347