Wardriving

gline

CiaranC wrote:

You assume that everyone is as mean as you and somehow would care that a neighbour was using a few mbs of their transfer. I am suggesting that they dont care any more than they care about other people getting pleasure from looking at their flowers.

if they dont care.. go and tell your neighbour you are going to use some of his net bandwidth... i dont think he/she would be too happy if you did.

CiaranC

I used my neighbours connection for over a week during the year while waiting for a replacement cable modem, which I told him about and he had no problem at all.

At my girlfriends house there is no wireless access yet, so I use the connection of a friend across the street for my laptop and he doesnt seem to have any problem with it.

I dont know where you people live, but it doesnt sound very nice. Remember kids, sharing is communism.

gline

hey id have no problem sharing my connection if the person asked and didnt abuse it... but the likelyhood of someone knocking on your door and asking are very slim.

aidan_walsh

I think I'd have a bigger problem if it was my neighbour leeching off me than some random stranger parked down the road. If my neighbour has wireless kit, WTF are they doing without a wireless router to connect to their own account?

That said, mine is nice and tight, so little chance of anyone getting in...

CiaranC wrote:

I used my neighbours connection for over a week during the year while waiting for a replacement cable modem, which I told him about and he had no problem at all.

At my girlfriends house there is no wireless access yet, so I use the connection of a friend across the street for my laptop and he doesnt seem to have any problem with it.

The difference here is that these seem to be people you know, and yo know they wouldn't mind. Use a network you don't recognise, tell the person you have, and see if they mind then.

robinph

Before I sorted my parents out with their wireless network and BB I would often connect to their neighbours networks whilst I was visiting my folks. There was about 8 networks that I could pick up from the house and only one of them was properly secured, and another had only done half a job of securing the network.

But I was able to figure out which network was coming from which house and then went round and secured their networks properly for them, and fixed some other stuff on their PC's for them at the same time. They then have no problem with me accessing their networks whilst I'm around, and I earn some bottles of alcohol in the process as well.

CiaranC

The difference here is that these seem to be people you know, and yo know they wouldn't mind.

They are my neighbours...

Use a network you don't recognise, tell the person you have, and see if they mind then.

You are talking about wardriving, Im now talking specifically about using a network which is available in my house, two different things.

steveland?

DemonOfTheFall wrote:

Actually Hobbes it's not quite the same thing. You're using the RIAA/MPAA/IRMA logic there. I later clarified that and said that yeah, if I couldn't actually get BB myself I would use a neighbour's unencrpyed AP, as long as it wouldn't negatively affect their experience. Eg. no bittorrent/downloads.

Please, Please, PLEASE don't use the taking their milk from the fridge cos they left the door open. It is entirely unsuited to the situation. If they never even noticed and you never used much of their bandwidth what does it matter ? I know it's wrong from a moral standpoint, but like honestly, what is the big deal ?

Get off your high horse, I didn't say I would go in and rape then murder them in their beds or something.

So if I have a TV near my window and forget to close my curtains is it alright for someone accross the road to look through my window and watch my TV?

Since it doesn't infringe on my enjoyment of course...

CiaranC

Yeah, it is alright. It would be pretty retarded though, why would anyone do that?

Archytas

CiaranC wrote:

I used my neighbours connection for over a week during the year while waiting for a replacement cable modem, which I told him about and he had no problem at all.

At least you told him??

CiaranC wrote:

At my girlfriends house there is no wireless access yet, so I use the connection of a friend across the street for my laptop and he doesnt seem to have any problem with it.

Thats his choice? What is your problem with people having some privacy? And there's nothing wrong with where I live??? What a stupid thing to say??

Hobbes

CiaranC wrote:

If you neighbour had practically endless litres of milk running in open pipes directly through your house your analogy might have some relevance. Then you could help yourself to a glass.

It does because at the end of the day he is paying for the stuff. He might not know I am drinking his milk and goes out and gets more which I then drink as well. :v:

Theres nothing wrong with using a few mbs of transfer if its available.

I pay for my broadband. I pay for the speed and transfers. I don't pay it so some neighbour or idiot in a car can pull up and use it for thier convienice.

Now if there was a way they got billed, which removed from mine and thier access didn't effect my broadband in anyway (eg. Speeds) then I have no problem with whoever jumps on.

CiaranC

Hobbes wrote:

He might not know I am drinking his milk and goes out and gets more which I then drink as well.

You are talking about abusing the connection, Im simply talking about using it.

I pay for my broadband. I pay for the speed and transfers. I don't pay it so some neighbour or idiot in a car can pull up and use it for thier convienice.

Then secure it. If it doesnt bother you, you have little concern for whether someone uses it or not, or you have no interest in things technical just leave it open.

Archytas wrote:

Thats his choice? What is your problem with people having some privacy?

What has me browsing the web on an open access point got to do with anyones privacy?

And there's nothing wrong with where I live??? What a stupid thing to say??

Whats wrong with sharing a connection as long as people dont abuse it? Whats stupid about the suggestion that people who do that are nice, and people who dont are not as nice?

Archytas

CiaranC wrote:

Then secure it. If it doesnt bother you, you have little concern for whether someone uses it or not, or you have no interest in things technical just leave it open.

So Granny murphy... who has a time based product... should just leave it open? So that people can leech from her and abuse her time and bandwidth????

Just telling people to leave it open just cos ur not technical is worst thing I heard anyone on this thread say.

CiaranC

Obviously not. Time-based products are not broadband as far as I am concerned, and dont fall under the remit of this discussion. Any provider that provides an open AP with a time based product should be held liable themselves.

This discussion has prompted me to reopen my wireless network to anyone who wishes to use it within reason. Ive secured my network behind a second router/hw firewall. Bring on the criminals/thieves/scumbags who want to see what time the next bus is due or check their gmail! Those evil types!

Gone West

Gaillimhtaibhse wrote:

Spoken like a true wardriver.//// Something about reading wired magazine for wifi hacks info

Kid, you really shouldnt start me.
True wardrivers are all finished up. It got boring around the 1999 mark.
True wardrivers DONT use netstumbler(a freeware kids program off the net)

Because:
a) Its not a passive scanner. Ie: the host networks, if theyre worth their salt will log your hardware MAC address for scanning them.
b) because of its non-passiveness, a man was actually arrested and jailed for simply scanning the network with netstumbler, without even connecting.
c) Its not efficient at what it does. It over uses the radio and drains battery power more than other clients.
d) "true" wardrivers use linux because its under that OS that the best tools were developed for wardriving, for example Kis***,airs****,wepc****, etc etc.
e) Netstumbler will show eircom/etc hostspots and wireless nets with other forms of encryption and authentication as being unencrypted.

Also, on point (e) you all fail to take into account the number of networks using non standard encryption that will appear as being open in your kiddie scripts. 40% Is more like 65% in the real world. Judging by mine, and others similar results.

-

You guys talk about how X magazine says how easy it is to crack WEP, how easy it is for people to use your free broadband, etc...

Get real. Raise your hand anybody who has cracked WEP(obviously their own networks, for testing purposes). Can any of you explain what exactly the weakened type IV packets leak?
...

Also, when someone has their network open, randomers can do more than simply get free broadband.
At home, I use a rather nice little pice of code that I scripted myself to make my network do some wonderful things.
-My network will not be visibly apparent to you, as a passive scanner is needed to detect it.(netstumbler wont work, you need to know linux)
-It uses a MAC whitelist
-It uses X encryption

However, to any people with their laptop and netstumbler/etc you will see a network called "default8mbit". Its unsecured, and you will easily be able to connect.
However, a box will appear when you try to access the net/local network, asking for you to verify something, and that the network is not for public use.
Will you click accept and connect to th internet? If you do, your computer will be infected with a rather nice trojan. I will be able to connect to said computer any time it logs onto the net. You will also not be able to surf the web. The above was simply a honeypot to log data on those who try to connect to my networks.

Reactionary? You bet your sweet ass it is. Illegal? No it aint, you accepted the terms when you clicked accept and proceed to the internet.

I once traced some fellow to his house and printed my logs and confronted him about it.
Next time you think about connecting to a network that your not authorised to, think about this.

As for the morality alanogies, they are unnecessary. it *is* wrong and illegal. Dont do it.

CiaranC

Oh for christs sake. Another warrior for the cause of wireless justice strikes forth from his parents basement.

Gone West

Bringing untrue, and silly one-line irrelevant remarks into it clouds the issue.
Shows a lack of debating skill and intelligence.
Why do you think Im in my parents basement?
Im coming from a good wireless background. I build these networks for a living.

I checked and you only started viewing this thread at 13:54...
Why not read the thread fully.

CiaranC

What? My first post on this thread was the 4th of December. Maybe you should read the thread.

If you are coming from a good wireless background you will know that lots of wireless NICs are preconfigured to connect to any available AP by default. Setting up a trojan behind a deceptive message is a brilliant idea. Well done.

Gone West

It aint deceptive.
It says in plain english that

You are about to connect to a private network, owned and operated by MyRealName. 
If MyRealName hasn't explicitly authorised you to connect,
then what you are about to do is illegal.
This is punishable under irish law.
Any actions that you preform on this network are preformed at your own risk.
Any trojans or viruses that you contract are at your own risk.
And harm to your equipment is at your own risk.
thanks, 
MyRealNameu

WizZard

Hehe Fuzzy, I was thinking of doing similar myself. A WiFi honeypot that is.


/me raises hand for cracking WEP.

But then I do this for a living...

<edit>Gammar Nazi: preform should be perform. Preform is actually a word in itself - and that could be used by devious solicitors/barristers in arguing a case.</edit>

Archytas

CiaranC wrote:

Obviously not. Time-based products are not broadband as far as I am concerned, and dont fall under the remit of this discussion.

So?? As far as your concerned?? What has that got to do with anything?? Just because you dont like doesn't mean it aint there??

IceHawk

Is what FuzzyLogic does actually legal, though? If it is, fair play, I'd do the same if I had the necessary knowledge, but didn't Sony recently get sued for their software which could be construed as acting like a virus. Surely deliberately propogating viruses to other people's computers is illegal, even if they are stealing from you? Especially if it can be shown that you have the necessary knowledge to simply stop them from connecting altogether. The gardai frown on vigilanteism, even if they have no powers to stop the crimes themselves.

Also, what is the law regarding this? I can't see the guards responding to a call reporting people in a car stealing bandwidth, even though they definitely should.

Hobbes

CiaranC wrote:

Then secure it. If it doesnt bother you, you have little concern for whether someone uses it or not, or you have no interest in things technical just leave it open.

It is secured. Even so your saying that if I don't want my house to be robbed then lock it up. While it will deter thieves it doesn't suddenly mean you can wander into my house if I don't lock it.

What has me browsing the web on an open access point got to do with anyones privacy?

Because the owner of the line is accountable to what happens on that line.

Whats stupid about the suggestion that people who do that are nice, and people who dont are not as nice?

So I am not nice because I don't let people use something I pay for? o_O

CiaranC wrote:

This discussion has prompted me to reopen my wireless network to anyone who wishes to use it within reason.

What happens if someone uses that line to download kiddy pron? Who do you think will get into trouble?

hefty_langer

suprised that no-one has mentioned that the person stealing the bandwidth will more often then not be stealing it for downloading movies/music etc...
But would you be impressed if the guards came knocking at your door to tell you that your account had downloaded Gigs of kiddie porn and it was up to you to prove YOU didn't do it?

WizZard

IceHawk wrote:

Is what FuzzyLogic does actually legal, though?

It's a very, very grey area. Like you said it can be construed as vigilanteism, which is frowned upon by lawmakers and upholders.

However it could be seen as the same thing as punching someone who was trying to climb in your window in order to steal - but that's a decision for the courts.

Anyway, I fail to see how a trojan could be installed on a PC with antivirus software etc, but maybe it's an app like VNC?
You could possibly script installation of that for connecting and installing itself on Windows 2000 and below machines (Windows XP disables Admin and blank password login over the network by default I think).
Anyone who runs a firewall that blocks/queries outbound comms will be safe anyway - and if you have a laptop that is used for such things as sniffing/connecting to open nets and it is not protected then you deserve everything and anything you get.

SouperComputer

@FuzzyLogic, love that script!

CiaranC

Hobbes wrote:

Even so your saying that if I don't want my house to be robbed then lock it up. While it will deter thieves it doesn't suddenly mean you can wander into my house if I don't lock it.

Once again, using a wireless AP in is no way analogous to burgling a house.

So I am not nice because I don't let people use something I pay for? o_O

I didnt say you were not nice, just less nice than someone who will share something freely with their neighbours.

What happens if someone uses that line to download kiddy pron? Who do you think will get into trouble?

A fair point, but again we have drifted into talking about abuse and not just use. Obviously what happens on my connection is my responsibilty.

FuzzyLogic wrote:

It says in plain english that

Where does it say in plain english that you will deliberately infect a connecting host with a virus/trojan? That looks like a standard disclaimer to me.

Hobbes

CiaranC wrote:

Once again, using a wireless AP in is no way analogous to burgling a house.

Why? You have to scan my network to see if you can get a connection. That would be the same as checking the locks on all my doors and windows.

A fair point, but again we have drifted into talking about abuse and not just use. Obviously what happens on my connection is my responsibilty.

And how do you define that your system won't be abused? I'd rather be "not as nice" then in jail.

I'm also pretty sure it in the EULA that you can't share bandwidth with others without express permission. Also if a person has DSL and you have thier username and password you can use thier account too (at the same time). This is illegal, so how is wardriving any different?

CiaranC

Hobbes wrote:

Why?

Fine, using an access point which broadcasts into my house and advertises itself as open is the same as breaking into my next door neighbours and stealing his stuff.

Hobbes wrote:

And how do you define that your system won't be abused?

The same way any other network with more than one user does. Like any corporate network or any ISP...

Archytas

CiaranC, you want to share your BB. That is your choice. However your probably technically minded enough to be able to turn it off at choice. You are also taking all responsibility for any actions on your network and connection.

However, as I have said numerous times, some people do not have the technical knowledge to know that this is going on. They don't know that this is going on(until someone decides to take the p*ss out of their connection), never mind being able to stop it or prevent it. And they most definitely did not give you assumed permission to do it without you asking them???

DemonOfTheFall

steveland? wrote:

So if I have a TV near my window and forget to close my curtains is it alright for someone accross the road to look through my window and watch my TV?

Since it doesn't infringe on my enjoyment of course...

This is the exact type of post I'm talking about. Do you honestly think that's a good analogy ? If you do, you sir have the mental age of a 5 year old.

Here's the equivalent of your analogy in terms of what we are talking about:
Connecting to someone's unencrypted router to use their net access. Then looking around their PC for some stuff and looking through their personal files to see if there is anything interesting there.

If you're looking in through someones front window to see their TV then not only are you watching their TV, but you're also infringing on their privacy in a very serious way. My god, please put some thought into your analogies, I feel embarrassed for you.

CiaranC

Archytas wrote:

However, as I have said numerous times, some people do not have the technical knowledge to know that this is going on. They don't know that this is going on(until someone decides to take the p*ss out of their connection), never mind being able to stop it or prevent it. And they most definitely did not give you assumed permission to do it without you asking them???

Fair point. The only thing we disagreed on is peoples attitude to this. You think those who are ignorant of the fact that their wireless connection is open would definately want it closed, and I suggest that most people wouldnt care.

Perhaps if the ISPs shipped their APs closed by default then we wouldnt be having this discussion. In that case we could assume an open AP gave consent for access.

Gaillimhtaibhse

What an interesting thread. I might note that I have posted a similar question about wardriving on tcdsu and ucdsu and got very few comments. Here the debate rages on.:D

CiaranC

Anyone got any reading material on this technology which would allow a pop-up or consent webpage on first connect to my network? I know its possible, because Ive seen it before with BT broadband and Ive read about it also.

Id like to outline the terms of service for anyone using it.

DemonOfTheFall

I'd say your best bet would be running OpenWRT or a similar 3rd party firmware on a Linksys (or compatible) router. Should let you do whatever you want!

http://openwrt.org

May not be the best option but the only way I could imagine being able to do it. No doubt Fuzzy would be the best man to ask about it!

CiaranC

Of course, the BT page you see on setup of their DSL modem must exist in the firmware of the dsl modem and be delivered via the onboard webserver. Presumably it redirects all requests to that page until you fill in the l/pw and that is written back to the firmware for future reference.

Maybe a similar system could be set up with MAC address logging to ensure the message is only displayed the first time someone connects.

Id be interested in how Fuzzy Logic proposes to execute code on my laptop on connecting to his network. Smacks of Bull**** to me.

Cake Fiend

FuzzyLogic wrote:

Illegal? No it aint, you accepted the terms when you clicked accept and proceed to the internet.

If I were you, I'd make 100% sure of that with a solicitor before deploying such a script. AFAIK, you couldn't make a disclaimer saying something along the lines of 'by signing this document, you are giving me permission to punch you in the face'. Disclaiming your responsibility to trojans caught passively (on your part) is one thing, but actively sending, activating and controlling a trojan could potentially get you in trouble if it were proven that you did so.

Nice idea though...

Capt'n Midnight

CiaranC wrote:

would allow a pop-up or consent webpage on first connect to my network?

http://nocat.net/

# NoCatAuth is our original "catch and release" captive portal implementation. It provides a simple splash screen web page for clients on your network, as well as a variety of authenticated modes. It is written in Perl.
# NoCatSplash is the C port of NoCatAuth. It currently supports a splash screen (also known as "open mode") and has beta support for authenticated access.

Other options - have a DHCP server to give people an IP address without a gateway. Once they register you can assign them a DHCP address on another range.

CiaranC

Thats perfect, thanks Capt'n Midnight.

Im still waiting to hear about this "script" that roots every host that connects to FuzzyLogics network btw.

steveland?

DemonOfTheFall wrote:

This is the exact type of post I'm talking about. Do you honestly think that's a good analogy ? If you do, you sir have the mental age of a 5 year old.

Here's the equivalent of your analogy in terms of what we are talking about:
Connecting to someone's unencrypted router to use their net access. Then looking around their PC for some stuff and looking through their personal files to see if there is anything interesting there.

If you're looking in through someones front window to see their TV then not only are you watching their TV, but you're also infringing on their privacy in a very serious way. My god, please put some thought into your analogies, I feel embarrassed for you.

OK let's think of it in this way. Say it's some hypothetical room where only the television is in view of the window...

Do you think it's alright to peek in to watch their TV if that's all you can do by looking in?

My analogy works in the following ways... I'm sorry if you're not intelligent enough to understand it...

The TV is your router... you pay for it (although the router is possibly subsidised by the ISP, but someone pays for it)
The TV licence is the money you're paying for your monthly allowance of bandwidth... you pay for it
The window is your connection
The curtains are the equivelant of WEP. If you don't close the curtains do you think it's alright for someone to come along and watch your TV just because they're an "anarchist" and think it should be free?

Capt'n Midnight

WizZard wrote:

Anyway, I fail to see how a trojan could be installed on a PC with antivirus software etc, but maybe it's an app like VNC?

The one constant about IE/windows for a lot of years is that there is usually at least one unpatched hole that allows an attacker to take complete control of your machine. XP got a firewall and people are using third party ones to block direct attacks. But the attacker can just fall back to getting you to visit their site, no need to click on OK. Nothing new here TBH, the only thing that changes are the names.

http://www.microsoft.com/security/encyclopedia/details.aspx?name=TrojanDownloader:Win32/Delf.DH

Microsoft wrote:

Published: December 1, 2005
Technical Analysis
When a user visits certain Web sites, a file named KVG.exe or keks.exe is automatically downloaded from the Web site to the user's Startup folder. This file is detected as TrojanDownloader:Win32/Delf.DH. This Trojan downloader then downloads and runs another Trojan downloader every five minutes and saves it in the Windows system folder as all.exe. This file is detected as TrojanDownloader:Win32/Delf.AH.

FuzzyLogic gets people to click on an OK - unless you have blocked Java and ActiveX you are more or less signing your life away.

/me pats http://www.noscript.net/whats - love the icon

There's a browser safer than Firefox...
...it is Firefox, with NoScript!

Snowbat

Interesting things happening in rural Oregon...
http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,69234,00.html

But here among the thistle, large providers such as local phone company Qwest Communications International see little profit potential. So, wireless entrepreneur Fred Ziari drew no resistance for his proposed wireless network, enabling him to quickly build the $5 million cloud at his own expense.
..
While his service is free to the general public, Ziari is recovering the investment through contracts with more than 30 city and county agencies
..
Morrow County, for instance, pays $180,000 a year for Ziari's service. Each client, he said, pays not only for yearly access to the cloud but also for specialized applications such as a program that allows local officials to check parking meters remotely.
..
"Internet service is only a small part of it. The same wireless system is used for surveillance, for intelligent traffic system, for intelligent transportation, for telemedicine and for distance education,"

Hobbes

CiaranC wrote:

The same way any other network with more than one user does. Like any corporate network or any ISP...

You mean by controlling access and not allowing anyone who is not authorised onto the system?

So how do you do that and leave the system open.

CiaranC

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

FuzzyLogic gets people to click on an OK - unless you have blocked Java and ActiveX you are more or less signing your life away.

By his own admission, Wardrivers dont run windows. I dont run Windows on my laptop, how does he intend to root my machine?

The only people he could hope to infect are clueless newbies who stumble onto his network out of curiosity or ignorance. Anyone who is actually malicious has a wide open network of a hostile target to play with.

Hobbes wrote:

You mean by controlling access and not allowing anyone who is not authorised onto the system?

There are several ISPs which allow free access to all comers; see IOL Free, Eircom Net, Indigo etc. Hundreds of businesses are set to allow free wireless access to all comers also; see McDonalds etc. There are dozens of municipalities all over the world who also allow free wifi/wimax access to all in their catchment areas; see Slashdot virtually every other day.

DemonOfTheFall

It seems that he leaves the system wide open for basic net access but encourages people to pay to get "value added" servics ? Just my reading of it.

Hobbes

CiaranC wrote:

There are several ISPs which allow free access to all comers; see IOL Free, Eircom Net, Indigo etc. Hundreds of businesses are set to allow free wireless access to all comers also; see McDonalds etc. There are dozens of municipalities all over the world who also allow free wifi/wimax access to all in their catchment areas; see Slashdot virtually every other day.

Which is very different then a normal user who is paying for the system. In all these cases the accountability would be of the person connecting to the system, where as someone hopping onto your network connection is making you accountable for anything you download.

Gone West

"but maybe it's an app like VNC?"
nail. head.

I've checked, and its 100% perfectly legal.
A user breaks into my network, after been explicitly warned so(this, apparently isn't even necessary).
Said user contracts a piece of software that allows me to effectively control his computer remotely.
Its a trojan in the troy sense of the word. It is actually a piece of commercial software which gets delivered by a tweaked NoCatAuth engine.
After a while, i'm sure they will notice it and kill it off, but I don't mind, really.

Why do I do this?
To build up a DB of wifi skiddies.
For fun.
To increase my knowledge of the system
As a coding project.

Yes, it will only really affect skiddies. Clueless newbies dont click ok, accept to a strict warning that they are about to break the law.

And Demonofthefall, what the hell are you talking about ffs! You need to do some reading on the subject matter.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wifi is a good place to start learning.

And the TV-window analogy was very good and relevant.
Can you explain its failings(there arent really any), rather than dogmatically saying "nay"?

Now, I post this as an example. It is *not* work suitable.
Its pretty fúcking dodgy, and I wouldn't reccommend anyone view it.
I post this as an example.
NSFW!
http://www[dot]sug@rsteps[dot]com/cook1ej@r/v1deos/mrh@nds_nws[dot]mpg
(clean it up to view.)

Gone West

CiaranC wrote:

Anyone who is actually malicious has a wide open network of a hostile target to play with.

I thought I made myself clear on this.
Perhaps you simply didnt read my first post properly.
The network has nothing on it.
No internet access.
No open computers.
Just my old laptop as the router honeypot and script and other fun stuff.

Archytas

FuzzyLogic wrote:

Now, I post this as an example. It is *not* work suitable.
Its pretty fúcking dodgy, and I wouldn't reccommend anyone view it.
I post this as an example.
NSFW!
http://www[dot]sug@rsteps[dot]com/cook1ej@r/v1deos/mrh@nds_nws[dot]mpg
(clean it up to view.)

I'm intrigued... and yet in work.... but I wanna click the link...:o

steveland?

FuzzyLogic wrote:

And the TV-window analogy was very good and relevant.
Can you explain its failings(there arent really any), rather than dogmatically saying "nay"?

I think his problem is that he was being semantic and thinking of someone looking around the rest of someone's house, not just at the TV...

He can't seem to comprehend it was a hypothetical situation and that the whole point of it was to just watch someone's TV, not to snoop in their house...

DemonOfTheFall

Noone view FuzzyLogic's link. It's not an mpg file. It owns your PC and crashes everything. I just lost 40 minutes work. Please remove the URL from the page, or at least indicate that it IS NOT A VIDEO FILE.