I'll just note that "compromised" is perhaps too strong. These services often come from VPN plugins (eg Hola VPN) that lets users watch sports from different restricted geographic regions. There is a trade here that's in the TOs: you get someone else's IP address, they get yours.

▲

jeremyjh a day ago | parent | next [-]

Compromised describes exactly what you are talking about. Any free rider on a network that the operator is unaware of means the device is compromised.

▲

nomel a day ago | parent [-]

If I'm using one of these services while connected to a guest wifi network, with the usual configuration for guest access (like no intranet connections), is that guest wifi network compromised? What's the threat model?

▲

autoexec a day ago | parent | next [-]

> is that guest wifi network compromised?

I'd say yes since you've allowed random people unauthorized use of the connection. It makes no difference if it's your connection or not. For example, if that proxy gets used as part of a DDoS attack, your device compromised that network.

▲

thefounder 18 hours ago | parent [-]

how is this different than Tor? You seem a bit on the surveillance side. The computer/network is compromised if someone gains unauthorized access to it not if you share it.

▲

forgotaccount3 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The computer/network is compromised if someone gains unauthorized access to it not if you share it.

Yes. And someone did get unauthorized access to it. You don't have the permission to delegate authorization to a third party.

Did the third party connect to the guest wifi or did they connect to your computer and you have allowed them access to the guest wifi?

Did they agree to the ToS that the wifi network requires for people to use it?

Are you certain that the wifi network isn't intentionally limiting the area where it is broadcast, allowing only people within that geographic area the ability to connect to it?

If there is a purely 100% open wifi network who is only limited geographically due to technological constraints but would allow anyone in the world to connect to it if the technology allowed, then using your device to solve the technological constraint of limited wifi range would not fall under compromising the network IMO. Assuming again that the operator of the network publicized it as such and you aren't just making assumptions about their intentions.

▲

thefounder 11 hours ago | parent [-]

That's mind bending gimnastics. So if you connect a device(i.e. a TV) to WiFi and there is a Netflix app that's downloading movies in background then Netflix has gained unauthorized access to the network because somehow is not `directly` connected to the home router(like a kind of long cable from directly from netflix server into the home router ) ? Did Netflix agree to the ToS of the Wi-Fi network provider? What a stupid thing to say...I would expect more from this community.

	▲	autoexec 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> So if you connect a device(i.e. a TV) to WiFi and there is a Netflix app that's downloading movies in background then Netflix has gained unauthorized access to the network There are two main differences. Netflix is working on your behalf. Connections initiated from netflix are no different from connections initiated from your web browser or your email client. Your use of the internet, for you, is authorized. With a proxy you have no idea who is connected or what they are doing with that connection. That network activity uses you, but isn't by you, or for you. Finally, netflix isn't likely to be hacking, attacking, spamming, or attempting to bypass bans or IP blacklists over that connection, but those are exactly the kinds of activities that shady residential proxies are used for. By using those kinds of apps you basically backdoor/bot your own computer, and now access to the internet through it is being sold to people who want to use it for things that they couldn't get away with when using a VPN or any other legitimate provider. Depending on the sophistication of the wifi network you may be held liable and accountable for everything that takes place over that connection, including whatever nasty things the people who bought access to your proxy get up to. If the wifi system isn't set up to keep careful track of who is using it and when (as is common in places like coffee shops), the liability will fall to the entity offering the wifi access, and if that connection is repeatedly used for activity in violation of the law, or the AUP of the ISP being used, that same entity will face the repercussions. Their internet connection may be temporarily suspended. They may have to start blocking certain ports and services, or deny access to specific websites. They may even be forced to stop providing wifi access to guests entirely unless they are willing/able to spend the money needed to log and monitor who is using their connection and respond to notifications of abuse over their network as well as legal requests. Places like coffee shops that just want to offer free wifi to their customers without worrying about that kind of thing are only able to do that because a small number of local individuals are using their connection. Locals who presumably enjoy being able to the internet at that location and won't take advantage by abusing it. Individuals who are also typically on camera, in full view of employees and other customers. That kind of very common set up is insecure by nature and those companies are putting themselves at risk by offering the service, but it mostly works because the access is time/location-gated and most people in the neighborhood are generally not criminals. Allowing criminals from all over the globe to access those kind of connections through your device is allowing unauthorized access, and is also being a dick, since you're basically shitting in the pool everybody wants to be able to swim in. It greatly increases the risk that the wifi gets shut down, gets more locked down, or the IP address gets blacklisted making it less useful for everybody who uses it, including you.

▲

account42 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

TOR doesn't use unsuspecting participants as exit nodes, that's something you have to specificially enable.

▲

shakna 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If that guest WiFi network is running inside the White House? Yes, I'd say that is compromised. The threat model being that guests on that network may be diplomatic officials and staff.

	▲	nomel 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You've confused intranet access with internet access. Guest networks rarely have intranet access, even between clients. They usually exist for "I don't trust this person on my network, but they want internet access".

▲

jappgar 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's not how Hola works. You're not sharing your IP with some other Hola user. You're sharing it with bots used for all sorts of good and bad things.

▲

tclancy a day ago | parent | prev [-]

What part of that isn’t technically “compromised”? You can argue there’s no evidence of it currently being weaponized but I’d say some shitbird running a free vpn inside the White House is not a good look regardless.

	▲	cowlevel a day ago \| parent [-]
		We'd need a pedantic definition of "compromised" to be sure