141–150 of 232 posts
Did I read the article correctly in that it is possible to disrupt WiFi networks to make devices disconnect from it, without breaking its encryption? Wow.
So easily that a tamagotchi style game has been made of it and other wifi attacks https://pwnagotchi.ai/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Confused, it seems you realize this might be a crime, but you've talked to everyone except the most obvious point of contact—law enforcement. Is there a reason that's not an option?
Agreed. But evidence? I've tried to convince the businesses to talk to the police. But, what they heck do the police/businesses do? How do you prove that there is a crime? They probably would believe me and would probably knock on doors and probably get a warrent. Then what? I'm not a professional cyber security person so how do I prove that device if found is causing damage? Also, the device is intermittent. I can c…
Guy was real nice and seemed to understand what I was worried about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strange example - in a hotel, with an open window, on the 45th floor. If paparazzi with a telephoto lens can see you, it is considered fair game.
If you're standing in front of a window and can see out (and can be seen), you don't really have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This applies to my single floor single family residence. If I want privacy, I close the blinds and/or drapes. As a matter of courtesy, I never aim a telephoto at windows. Paparazzi are an entirely different class though in that most have no "class" anymore it seems.
I need help with something much more nefarious. I know of a location in a downtown area where someone has set up a malicious wifi "thing". I'm guessing the PWNAGOTCHI since the device changes patterns and comes and goes? It has learned how to use deauth to do man-in-the-middle attacks and absolutely closed down wifi in a half block radius by sending RTC packets of 12 second wait times and also waiting for others to s…
Confused, it seems you realize this might be a crime, but you've talked to everyone except the most obvious point of contact—law enforcement. Is there a reason that's not an option?
Finding a cop that's willing to go out on their own to find a potentially unsolvable crime is going to be pretty hard. There are way bigger cases they are already tasked making them too busy to actually get interested in this kind of non-violent/non-life threatening case. 1st world problem: my wifi isn't working because someone else's wifi is being mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anywhere you don't have reasonable expectation of privacy.
Strange example - in a hotel, with an open window, on the 45th floor. If paparazzi with a telephoto lens can see you, it is considered fair game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>so it’s legal to send whatever packets you like within certain power constraints. No. https://boingboing.net/2014/10/03/fcc-fines-marriott-for-jam... >No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/333
I really disagree with that ruling and interpretation of that quoted part of the law. Jamming to me means radio interference via indiscriminate analog noise. If we expand the definition of jamming to the protocol level like exemplified here, the law gains broad authority to interpret any online interaction that makes your experience worse as "jamming." The law should really should stick to radio frequency enforcement…
So according to you, denying everyone usage is worse than denying everyone else usage to improve your usage?
>If we expand the definition of jamming to the protocol level like exemplified here, the law gains broad authority to interpret any online interaction that makes your experience worse as "jamming." The law should really should stick to radio frequency enforcement, and stay out of protocol-level concerns - it's just too big a can of worms.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the legal system works. It's not an algorithm. Intent matters. Going back to the originally quoted text, it says "willfully or maliciously", so maxing out your WLAN to transfer files 24/7 is probably not going to get a knock on the door by the FCC. Intentionally jamming your neighbor's wifi (deauth packets or otherwise) is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what about the people who don't/can't use the institution's network? Why should the institution be allowed to effectively monopolize the unlicensed airwaves?
Why not? It's unlicensed, so it's a free-for-all. If we don't like that, the answer is to license it. Which doesn't seem better to me.
Unlicensed doesn't mean no rules. For example, even though 2.4 Ghz is unlicensed, you're still subject to transmission power limits. In the US at least, there's also statues against interference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>so it’s legal to send whatever packets you like within certain power constraints. No. https://boingboing.net/2014/10/03/fcc-fines-marriott-for-jam... >No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/333
I really disagree with that ruling and interpretation of that quoted part of the law. Jamming to me means radio interference via indiscriminate analog noise. If we expand the definition of jamming to the protocol level like exemplified here, the law gains broad authority to interpret any online interaction that makes your experience worse as "jamming." The law should really should stick to radio frequency enforcement…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe an unethical Wi-Fi manufacturer thought they were clever to deauth clients of APs with MACs not in their own range, to clear other traffic off the band they use and have their products perform better than others by means of sabotage.
That surely would be noticed in any sort of rigorous certification program.
I am NOT a laywer, but I checked how much of what the article describes is illegal in Germany. The answer is just about everything. Installing a doorbell with a camera that looks into the hallway is illegal. You may not record what happens in public spaces on security cameras. And even inside your home, you still have to ask for consent to make an audio recording. Otherwise, this constitutes a crime. Also, sniffing W…