Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bluetooth 5

link.bluetooth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: Bluetooth 5

#61

Post by 0x6c6f6c »

sundvor wrote: post #22
sangnoir wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are all constantly surrounded by devices which are screaming data about themselves everywhere they go. Perhaps you would like to explain what the problem with this is? Broadcasting presence in itself is not a security hole - unless you think "Do not broadcast SSID" is a WiFi AP security feature (it's not). If WiFi can be secured (with devices that "scream data about themselves"), why would Bluetooth be any diffe…

I feel it's an Orwellian privacy issue. If you capture Bluetooth signatures in myriad places, you should be able to track where people are going with relative ease. Increasing the range without adding security features (if that's the case) would do nothing to ameliorate such concerns.

The tracking capability of Bluetooth is nothing next to GPS and cellular triangulation though. In an Orwellian sense, Bluetooth is not the largest threat in a mobile device.

Re: Bluetooth 5

#62

Post by digi_owl »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #18
sangnoir wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are all constantly surrounded by devices which are screaming data about themselves everywhere they go. Perhaps you would like to explain what the problem with this is? Broadcasting presence in itself is not a security hole - unless you think "Do not broadcast SSID" is a WiFi AP security feature (it's not). If WiFi can be secured (with devices that "scream data about themselves"), why would Bluetooth be any diffe…

Perhaps you would like to explain what the problem with this is? Broadcasting presence in itself is not a security hole - unless you think "Do not broadcast SSID" is a WiFi AP security feature (it's not). If WiFi can be secured (with devices that "scream data about themselves"), why would Bluetooth be any different? Well, there are a couple of reasons I think this is different: 1. APs are static and not mobile, versu…

The basic problem with 2, is that until nfc became commonplace doing pairing was either by pin not at all. So many devices still accept 0000 or 1234 because they have so way to input a pin, and is too old to use nfc pairing.

Re: Bluetooth 5

#63

Post by matthewmacleod »

digi_owl wrote: post #62
matthewmacleod wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you would like to explain what the problem with this is? Broadcasting presence in itself is not a security hole - unless you think "Do not broadcast SSID" is a WiFi AP security feature (it's not). If WiFi can be secured (with devices that "scream data about themselves"), why would Bluetooth be any different? Well, there are a couple of reasons I think this is different: 1. APs are static and not mobile, versu…

The basic problem with 2, is that until nfc became commonplace doing pairing was either by pin not at all. So many devices still accept 0000 or 1234 because they have so way to input a pin, and is too old to use nfc pairing.

Even then, quite a lot of Bluetooth LE devices don't have support for authentication as such. How to you authenticate a connection to a heart monitor, for example? It doesn't have any buttons!

Re: Bluetooth 5

#64

Post by Kadin »

0x6c6f6c wrote: post #61
sundvor wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel it's an Orwellian privacy issue. If you capture Bluetooth signatures in myriad places, you should be able to track where people are going with relative ease. Increasing the range without adding security features (if that's the case) would do nothing to ameliorate such concerns.

The tracking capability of Bluetooth is nothing next to GPS and cellular triangulation though. In an Orwellian sense, Bluetooth is not the largest threat in a mobile device.

A GPS receiver doesn't broadcast, and cellular triangulation is only possible if you control the cellular infrastructure (meaning either you are a government-level adversary or you have a set of Stingray-type devices). That's a fairly high bar.

You could track people around a fairly good area, like a shopping mall, using off-the-shelf, inexpensive Bluetooth hardware and just keeping track of where various IDs turn up. Indoors, that's probably much more accurate tracking than you could perform using cellular triangulation. It's more like the kind of tracking you do using RFID tokens in a warehouse.

I don't know if it's a problem per se, but it's something people should be aware of; many devices are constantly broadcasting a unique identifier almost all the time unless they take steps to turn it off.

Re: Bluetooth 5

#65

Post by pdjstone »

yoodenvranx wrote: post #49
pdjstone wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The history tab is pull-to-refresh, but it's not particularly discoverable :) I've implemented a UI hint to make this more obvious, which will be in the next version of RaMBLE.

You are right, pull-to-refresh was not very discoverable ;) Somehow I an auto-update function for a tab called "history". Another thing I just realised is the number of new devices in the notification label. Let's say I put ramble in the background. After 10 minutes it tells me that there are n_1 new devices. I click on the notification in order to check them out. If I then put ramble in the background and it finds n…

The notification is a summary of the current scan (until you stop it). New devices are ones you've never seen before the current scan. I often run it on my commute, the 'total' number give me an idea of how busy (in terms of BLE devices) it is today.

If you export the database you can pull some more interesting numbers out, e.g. http://www.contextis.com/resources/blog/bluetooth-le-increas...

Re: Bluetooth 5

#66

Post by FireBeyond »

jon-wood wrote: post #56
joesmo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's the environment too, but this happens at various locations across the country consistently with multiple types of Macbooks. Also, at these same exact locations, I have no problem using bluetooth with my Android phone, further reducing the likelihood that it's the environment. Finally, all the threads about OS X bugs relating to BT/RF/WiFi problems that have been reported for years but ignored by Apple, i…

I've had issues with a non-bluetooth wireless keyboard when plugging the receiver into my laptop directly which go away when it's connected via a USB hub a little distance away, which makes me think the laptop itself is causing interference.

I do similar. I have my dock which has a USB extension cable that runs under the underside of my desk and basically sits directly underneath the mouse and keyboard. Connectivity issues vanished.

Re: Bluetooth 5

#67

Post by IshKebab »

dalbin wrote: post #11
IshKebab wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best on by far is Nordic's Master Control Panel. It's really good. Only available on Android though. I don't think there are any good ones for iOS.

Nordic MCP is also available on iOS : https://appsto.re/fr/JSe2-.i

Ah I didn't know that! Assumed my iOS-using co-workers would be using it if it did.

Re: Bluetooth 5

#68

Post by sangnoir »

Kadin wrote: post #64
0x6c6f6c wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tracking capability of Bluetooth is nothing next to GPS and cellular triangulation though. In an Orwellian sense, Bluetooth is not the largest threat in a mobile device.

A GPS receiver doesn't broadcast, and cellular triangulation is only possible if you control the cellular infrastructure (meaning either you are a government-level adversary or you have a set of Stingray-type devices). That's a fairly high bar. You could track people around a fairly good area, like a shopping mall, using off-the-shelf, inexpensive Bluetooth hardware and just keeping track of where various IDs turn up…

> I don't know if it's a problem per se, but it's something people should be aware of; many devices are constantly broadcasting a unique identifier almost all the time unless they take steps to turn it off.

I can't tell whether you're referring to Bluetooth, WiFi, or both. WiFi is worse (longer range) and I suspect more widely used and likely to be left on on phones.

Post reply on HN