Not sure if I used the correct terms but what is the difference in security and privacy between downloading from a public wifi (or a closed wifi; with password) and mobile hotspot (sharing 4G/5G data from your phone to your computer)? Which one is recommended or does it not matter?

  • darkdemize@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    2 months ago

    Well, using a mobile hotspot will tie the IP address to your phone, so probably not a great idea if your name is listed on the account. Honestly, just use a quality VPN and you’ll be fine with your home connection.

    • foremanguy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      Even if it’s not the same protection as with a VPN sharing your mobile connection is a better idea than using your real ISP connection. Cause in fact most of mobile ISP use about 200 people on the same IP adress, that’s why for example these IPs are good for scraping, because Google and others web services whitelist these IPs cause they know that they are going to ban 200 people

  • Arthur Besse@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    If copyright holders want to take action, their complaints will go to the ISP subscriber.

    So, that would either be the entity operating the public wifi, or yourself (if your mobile data plan is associated with your name).

    If you’re in a country where downloading copyrighted material can have legal consequences (eg, the USA and many EU countries), in my opinion doing it on public wifi can be rather anti-social: if it’s a small business offering you free wifi, you risk causing them actual harm, and if it is a big business with open wifi you could be contributing to them deciding to stop having open wifi in the future.

    So, use a VPN, or use wifi provided by a large entity you don’t mind causing potential legal hassles for.

    Note that if your name is somehow associated with your use of a wifi network, that can come back to haunt you: for example, at big hotels it is common that each customer gets a unique password; in cases like that your copyright-infringing network activity could potentially be linked to you even months or years later.

    Note also that for more serious privacy threat models than copyright enforcement, your other network activities on even a completely open network can also be linked to identify you, but for the copyright case you probably don’t need to worry about that (currently).

  • yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Short answer: Mobile hot spot (w/ your own cellular device) is preferable to public wifi from a security perspective.

    There are other considerations, such as how much cellular data downloads cost to you, what sites you’re visiting, what you’re actually doing, etc. In general, it’s advisable to avoid public wifi if you can, but if you must connect to public wifi, then you should make darn sure you connect to the right network (watch out for imposter networks w/ a legitimate looking name) and use VPN (ideally a paid service) to encrypt your traffic. Even with both of these measures, you’re best off avoiding sensitive activities like online banking on public wifi. If you must do banking or other sensitive stuff, either do it on your phone or wait until you get home.

    Hope this helps.

    Editing to add: When I initially responded, I’d forgotten which community I was in. In this context, I believe the other responses are better than mine, but I’ll keep mine up in case it helps other readers.

    • It depends on his threat model and what he’s trying to hide really. Public WiFi is fine, as long as you validate/check the SSL cert it’s using is from your bank and is legitimate. Using public WiFi with a VPN is more secure as long as you trust your VPN provider. If he’s asking these questions, then he’s probably not doing banking though, and should ideally be using VPN+TOR or something similar.

      • Petter1@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        If the thing they are trying to do requires lots of data transfer, somehow, then TOR would not be ideal. Big Data makes TOR a bad experience. For that use case, a VPN alone is mostly enough (except the risks that can mitigated by reading other comments here)

  • azuth@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    When you use a hotspot from your phone the site/peers/whatever sees an IP that your ISP has assigned to you and could share that with authorities etc.

    When you use a WiFi they see an IP assigned to the owner of the WiFi.

    Security wise its easier for others in the WiFi to try and fuck with your computer since you are on the same LAN.

    So it depends on what you fear the most.

    • qprimed@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      most properly configured public wifi will enable client separation, of course that potentially still leaves lower level protocol and radio attacks.

      • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        I have no idea what this client separation is.

        As far as I know there isn’t really any client separation on wifi. It’s a shared medium.

        At least I don’t see anything preventing you from reading someone else traffic. So anything unencrypted on a wifi is also accessible to any other clients.

        I had tools more than 10 years ago that could automatically hijack session cookies on wifi for anybody connected and not using https.

        • qprimed@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          no worries.

          the net effect of client separation is that your device sees no other layer 2 devices on the wlan besides the gateway. this would typically be enforced at the frame level by the APs and is separate from any radio privacy cryptography.

          a properly configured wireless setup would assume every client is compromised and would also disallow local client-client via source routing or proxy ARP or any other escape options. 100% secure? probably not, but its a non trivial barrier that would have to be circumvented.

          as with e.g. broken WEP years ago, there are still options to mess with clients at ~Layer 1 but I dont believe its currently as trivial as it used to be.

          • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            Do you have any documentation on how this work ? Is there a name to this special protocol? Is it a recent addition to the wifi standard ?

            Again a wifi AP doesn’t send data to a specific client. So how does an AP can enforce that one client can’t read a frame for someone else that is properly authenticated? How would an AP prevent someone spoofing mac addresses from receiving that data ?

            I’m really confused by this feature I never heard of even when I was playing with aircrack and so on. Yes sometimes your mac address can get filtered but even that is not really difficult to avoid.

            Sorry I have so many questions but I honestly did quite some “tinkering” with wifi years ago and none of this sounds familiar.

            • BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              To add to the other reply, client isolation is about controlling whether an ap, switch, or router willingly sends traffic between clients. Because of that, it doesn’t kick in if you listen to packets over the air before they’ve been received by an AP. For that kind of security you need a wifi specific security measure - which I think “enhanced open” is what you’d be interested in. It allows you to have an open passwordless wifi but it generates temporary encryption keys for each connected client, then the rest is as if it was using WPA, so that you don’t need to enter a password but your traffic gets encrypted and protected from anyone else listening in on the WiFi.

              If you combine both then you should have a network where each device is isolated both over the air and from a routing perspective so that each device only sees an Internet connection and no other devices.

              • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Thanks ! That’s exactly how I think it could be implemented but that confirms that this is certainly not something you can find commonly where I live.

                That confirms the fact that if you use the same wifi and everyone has entered the same encryption key then there is no real client isolation…

                It’s cool that wifi keeps evolving. It comes a long way from the WEP beginnings.

              • Petter1@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Is this similar to vLAN that could be configured in my router but I never bothered since it was overkill for me?

                • BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  You can achieve a similar thing using vlans - usually by default they’re isolated but you may add specific rules that allow traffic between vlans if it meets certain criteria (specific ports, specific types of traffic, traffic to or from specific hosts, any combination of those). So yeah you can imagine client isolation being like having each client on their own vlan - except without needing a different subnet for each client.

        • nonentity@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Client separation on WiFi is supposed to force clients to only talk to the AP and prevent them from talking directly to each other. The motivation is to allow the AP to enforce appropriate policies.

          The feature may well be as antiquated as WEP now, it’s been years since I looked into how it actually functions.

  • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Edit: I know, I shouldn’t give a shit. But writing a fairly long comment to share my knowledge on this only to see it immediately downvoted without any explanation kind of sucks. So I’m removing this comment and will not interact here anymore.

  • KazuchijouNo@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    I have this very same question. Guess I’ll just wait for someone more experienced and knowledgeable to enlighten us here in the comments. Sorry if I’m not much help, have a nice day <3