Cybercrime..naahh...WiFi auditing

Cybercrime..naahh…WiFi auditing

Here is a tool that takes WiFi auditing a stage further http//code.google.com/p/wifite/

There does not appear to be one authority that rules overall. Proven "intention" seems germane. You may wish to look into

'war driving' cases
The relevance of going 'tooled up'
Inchoate offences

Some cases

NO CONVICTION - MOSSAD IP/PORT SCANNING
http//www.haaretz.com/news/israeli-arrested-for-hacking-mossad-espionage-agency-site-1.104455

http//www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/01/mossad_website_hacker_walks_free/

———————

CONVICTION - BANK IP/PORT SCANNING
http//www.osborneclarke.com/publications/text/ITM0903f.htm
The Finnish Supreme Court has given its first decision in a case of attempted computer break in. In a landmark decision given on April 8th, the Supreme Court chose to uphold the verdict of the Court of Appeals in a case involving a 17-year old youth.

According to the indictment, the defendant had attempted to break into the computer system of a major Finnish bank in autumn 1998. He had scanned the ports of the bank's computer network in an attempt to access the bank's closed network. Fortunately, a protective firewall prevented the would-be intruder from accessing the bank's servers. However, even though the attempt was unsuccessful, the investigation of the matter caused the bank considerable expense.

The Finnish Penal Code defines a computer break-in as an act in which a person unlawfully hacks into a computer system where data is processed, stored or transmitted electronically. Penalties for computer break-in vary from fines to terms of imprisonment for up to one year. The relevant section of the Penal Code stipulates that an attempt is also punishable. However, until the present case, there had been no prior court cases related to attempted computer break-ins.

In its ruling the Supreme Court stated that the defendant had systematically carried out port scanning operations to gather information for the purpose of unauthorised break-in to the bank's computer network. This amounted to an attempted computer break in.

The defendant was 17 years old at the time of the act and was, therefore, sentenced to a reduced fine for telecommunications interference and attempted computer break-in. In addition to criminal sanctions, the defendant was ordered to pay over 12,000 in damages to compensate the bank for the cost of its investigation.
——————

CIVIL - IP/PORT SCANNING
“Court holds that plaintiff's act of conducting an unauthorized port scan and throughput test of defendant's servers does not constitute a violation of either the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act or the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.”—Civ. Act. No. 100-CV-434-TWT (N.D. Ga. November 6, 2000)

————–