even further, in the example of the defence contractor's facility... plans for the JSF.
at minimum: a) you would never have the plans outside of a SCIF b) no outside equipment or wireless equipment would be allowed inside the SCIF c) the SCIF would be TEMPEST rated and certified d) people who had not gone through a full security clearance process would not be permitted inside the SCIF On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Chuck McCown via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > I am guessing that if someone was going to steal secrets from a defense > contractor, they would be more sneaky than that. I have been in some DOD > contractors’ plants where you checked your cell phone at the front door and > you did not take even a jump drive to or from home. Each workstation was > connected via fiber. None of them had USB or ethernet ports. Keyboard and > mouse were hard wired to the box. > > And they all had to be turned off before guys like me got to enter the > room. In one plant, I needed to find a software bug that was preventing my > airborne PBX from connecting to their satellite transceiver. I had to send > my computer to them a week in advance for them to examine before I > arrived. Then I could work on my own computer and compiler while in the > lab. But I didn’t get to take anything home with me. The examined my > computer a second time and then sent my my computer with my altered source > code. > > (Actually, the fix was to their system. I was quite gleeful and smug > about that. But I did make some comments to my code. I could have carried > on without the latest version of my code). > > *From:* Adam Moffett via Af <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2014 1:08 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] MARRIOTT TO PAY $600,000 TO RESOLVE WIFI-BLOCKING > INVESTIGATION > > I dunno. If Marriott was using it to force people to buy access to their > own wifi, then that's a bit shifty. > > If Lockheed Martin wants to deauth rogue AP's so nobody plugs in a wifi AP > in the engineering department and the file server containing plans for the > Joint Strike Fighter is suddenly exposed via wifi to somebody sitting in > the parking lot, then I think they're justified. I would say the same > about any company trying to protect trade secrets or other IP. > > In the law firm example where they are hurting other tenants in the > building, that's probably not ok. The hypothetical law firm should have to > take steps to ensure that their wifi can't leave their own area, or move > their practice to a fenced in compound like Lockheed. > > This is not me telling you what's legal....just me saying what I think is > fair and reasonable. On the other hand, I guess if I was Lockhead Martin, > I'd probably just write the FCC the $600,000 check and then send a bill for > it to the DOD. > > > So then those Enterprise security types are going to have to stick to > disabling Ethernet ports, I guess. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Chuck McCown via Af" mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]> > > *To: *[email protected] > *Sent: *Friday, October 3, 2014 1:13:45 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] MARRIOTT TO PAY $600, 000 TO RESOLVE > WIFI-BLOCKING INVESTIGATION > > “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 Act or operated by the United States Government” > > Wifi is authorized. You don’t have the legal right to deauth any AP > sessions but your own. I would think the manufacturer of equipment that > makes this possible would be just as liable as manufacturers of RF > jammers. > > *From:* Eric Kuhnke via Af <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2014 12:03 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] MARRIOTT TO PAY $600,000 TO RESOLVE WIFI-BLOCKING > INVESTIGATION > > Sounds like they're setting a precedent that a landlord can't operate > rogue AP detection/automatic deauth against tenants or customers. Should > still be fine in an enterprise environment. > > Where it gets possibly weird is, let's say you're a major law firm that is > a tenant in a large office building. You occupy half a floor. You operate > your own enterprise wifi system and use cisco's rogue AP deauth feature. > The tenants in the other suite (a totally separate business) on the other > half of the same floor notice that wifi tethering doesn't work on any of > their phones, and their pocket wifi hotspots don't work. > > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Hardy, Tim via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > >> And the actual order has more detail >> >> >> >> >> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db1003/DA-14-1444A1.pdf >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Hardy, Tim via Af >> *Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2014 1:46 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] MARRIOTT TO PAY $600, 000 TO RESOLVE >> WIFI-BLOCKING INVESTIGATION >> >> >> >> More information about impermissible Wi-Fi blocking or jamming practices >> is available at >> >> www.fcc.gov/jammers. If you would like additional information about >> Wi-Fi blocking, you may email us at >> >> [email protected]. >> >> >> >> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *Adam Moffett via Af >> *Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2014 1:42 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] MARRIOTT TO PAY $600, 000 TO RESOLVE >> WIFI-BLOCKING INVESTIGATION >> >> >> >> >> >> being a hotel might be the thing that made it a problem. If an >> enterprise or hospital does it as a security measure, I have trouble >> believing that's illegal. >> >> Marriott are dicks, but here's an interesting question... >> >> broad spectrum 2.4 or 5 GHz jammers are illegal, yeah. >> >> But is an 802.11-compliant device issuing deauth requests illegal, if >> part-15 devices are supposed to accept any unwanted interference and >> there's no recourse? >> >> Provided that the device issuing deauth requests is operating within spec >> for EIRP, channel plan, etc. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Hardy, Tim via Af <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-329743A1.docx >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >
